Should There Be A Punishment For Players Who Hold Out On Their Contracts?

[cokomenow]

When two parties sign a legal contract, it is binding and should not be broken. I don't think it's fair to the owners of a franchise if they take a chance on a player who suddenly becomes a star a few years later, and that star thinks he has the right to demand a better contract. Should the NFL impose a new rule disallowing GMs from other teams to sign that star? So basically, if you don't like how much you're earning, you either stick with it, or leave the NFL

[MAC]

I don't get your point. Players DON'T have the right to demand better contracts, and while under contract no other GM can even talk about their contract situation - much less sign them. The player actually has no options what-so-ever other than to publicly act like a three year old - which only serves to lesson his perceived value to any club that might consider employing him in the future.

[cokomenow]

I am just thinking hypothetically about the Chris Johnson situation. Had he continued to hold out and not play for the Titans, and then the Titans were to release him because of his decision not to play, then should other GMs be allowed to sign him?

[chad72]

I think the league has a fine system implemented in the new CBA that will be accrued for every day that the player holds out. The team has every right to enforce it and collect the fine, even if it does reward the player with a contract eventually.

[MAC]

I am just thinking hypothetically about the Chris Johnson situation. Had he continued to hold out and not play for the Titans, and then the Titans were to release him because of his decision not to play, then should other GMs be allowed to sign him?

In that situation I can't imagine them releasing him - but rather they would stick him on one of those many and varied non-playing lists that the NFL has, effectively preventing him from signing anywhere else, while suing him for breach of contract. In the process they would negate whatever financial benefit the player was trying to get, and possibly destroy his career in the process. Players really don't have any leverage once they sign a contract.

[eaglejoe8]

I don't think the league should get involved. I think teams should be left in charge to deal with it how they see fit. If it results in a player being released, I don't think GMs should be forbidden from signing someone they feel can better their team. Obviously, they know the player's situation and how he may deal with future issues should he become unhappy with his new contract.

[supremecoltsfan300]

They start losing money at a certain point during the holdout, that's punishment enough. A player can be terminated at any time during a contract. Holding out provides a sort of balance, although they will start losing money at some point.

[Thewholefnshow28]

God know. I have absolutely no problem with players holding out to get more guaratneed money. I think the players should do everything possible to get paid as much as they can and get as much guaratneed as they can.

The team does not give a crap about that player. Look at Peyton Manning being cut. Without Peyton Manning there is no Super Bowl in Indy, no LOS, and probably no Indianapolis Colts. Yet there are injury concerns and money issues so the Colts did not pick up Peyton's option. If a team does not show loyalty to an icon like Manning why should any player show loyalty to a team? All all a team cares about is how much the players contract affects the cap, if they are still producing, and how much they make the team. Even if they are still producing if their cap hit is to high, ala Dwight Freeney, then they will look to cut him.

What I always find so fascinating is how fans deamdn this unwavering scense of loyalty from the players, but when it comes to the team they support the team whenever they cut a player. I guess fans just love to have their cake and eat it too.

[MAC]

God know. I have absolutely no problem with players holding out to get more guaratneed money. I think the players should do everything possible to get paid as much as they can and get as much guaratneed as they can.

The team does not give a crap about that player. Look at Peyton Manning being cut. Without Peyton Manning there is no Super Bowl in Indy, no LOS, and probably no Indianapolis Colts. Yet there are injury concerns and money issues so the Colts did not pick up Peyton's option. If a team does not show loyalty to an icon like Manning why should any player show loyalty to a team? All all a team cares about is how much the players contract affects the cap, if they are still producing, and how much they make the team. Even if they are still producing if their cap hit is to high, ala Dwight Freeney, then they will look to cut him.

What I always find so fascinating is how fans deamdn this unwavering scense of loyalty from the players, but when it comes to the team they support the team whenever they cut a player. I guess fans just love to have their cake and eat it too.

We aren't talking about loyalty here, or any other human value or emotion. We are talking about a legal contract. Players who hold out are by definition violating their contracts. That contract is a deal that they entered into voluntarily. They signed a piece of paper saying "yes, I will accept 1,000,000 per year for three years. If 12 months later they wake up one day and decide "hey, they're cheating me, I'm worth 2,000,000 per year", that's too freaking bad. They made their own bed, SLEEP in it. There is NO rational or legal basis for ANY player EVER holding out in protest of a contract that they willingly entered into. Their lack of foresight, or change of viewpoint, is not the teams problem. They have a cap and a budget to manage, and it is patently absurd to think that contracts should be able to be redone on a players whim. If that were allowed, essentially you wouldn't have any contracts at all. The league would be a giant anarchic mess.

Peyton's release involved a provision that he allowed into his contract (some would say INSISTED on being placed in his contract) due to the unusually circumstances of his injury. Perhaps you should consider the fact that he was paid $26 million last year AFTER incredible doubts about his health were already introduced. The Colts could have released him then. They could have franchised him - taking less of a cap hit while completely controlling the decision making process. I adore Peyton, and desperately wanted him to finish his career as a Colt. I'm pretty confident that Irsay feels the same way (and more). That doesn't change the fact that Peyton has been paid incredible sums of money for the sole reason that he can play football well, and it was in the best interests of the franchise to do so. They have now released him because they felt that THAT was in the best interests of the franchise. Thus is the nature of competitive sports. It's wonderful when you find good character people who are also excellent athletes, but if you filed out your roster solely on the basis of the virtues that you are trumpeting, you would have one of the worst rosters in the history of sports, you'd never have any success, and ironically without that success you wouldn't hold Peyton in such esteem in the first place. Like it or not, this IS a business.

If you want to make it a moral issue, I believe that Irsay would also like to see him win a couple of more Super Bowls in his final years instead of wasting his time with the rebuilding Colts. In that scenario Irsay made a personal sacrifice in letting him go - keeping him would have been much easier. I also believe that Irsay is concerned about his health, and doesn't want to sponsor Peyton's efforts to put himself at risk. How would you characterize that? People are making themselves ill looking for someone to "blame" for all of this. It would make more sense to blame a couple of members of the Washington Redskins for trying to remove his head from his body, Greg Williams for possibly encouraging their behavior, or Peyton himself for (I suspect) putting off getting the necessary surgery done for so long that he allowed the nerve problem to impact his muscles. Players tend to "tough it out", a human characteristic that they seem to value far more than loyalty. None of this had to happen.

[Gavin]

Ok seriously their have been many holdouts for more money and demands for more money period, the player DOES have that right to demand, chances are he will get it cause the team he demands it from cant afford to lose him NOT because catching a touchdown is actually worth that type of money I can think of MANY other jobs and people that deserve that money, their does need to be some sort of repercussion or darn good reason for a player holding out on their contract, some people will say well they got to support their family, well if an average family can do it so can they if they would have all kinds of houses and things, some will say I sound jealous but uh if that is the case who wouldnt be with the insane amounts of money they make, just look at Calvin Johnsons contract while he is a stud wideout, its obvious players try to get what they can through sometimes shady tactics at the same time thats millions and millions of dollars, its not right when they do that but thats the way it will be for the forsseable future, I am not impressed at all with Goodell and the rule changes I HATE, but that has nothing to do with it

[UndecidedFrog]

Players who hold out on their contracts have specific and defined penalties associated with the duration of their holdout according to the new CBA. As expected, the longer the holdout, the stiffer the penalties get.

[Coltman51]

I have always hated when a player puts up a stink and demands more money than he "signed" for. They entered the contract knowingly and should abide by it. If having a stellar year, it is not only their great talents but the support around them as well. Also get upset by the lockout for so long and dispute of the money spent and owners not making money, but then they turn around ( not all of them) , and then you see these enormous contracts going out to Johnson, Williams , and others. Just a crazy merry-go-round.

[Warhorse]

That would give waaaaay too much power to the owners.......and yes, they would take advantage of it.

[hawkeyes]

The player actually has no options what-so-ever other than to publicly act like a three year old - which only serves to lesson his perceived value to any club that might consider employing him in the future.

And for that they should be penalized - at least on an internally circulated black-ball list! Let them set out an entire season without pay and then when their contract expires all teams would abide by that black-ball list - players career is over for acting like a 3 year old!

[gacker65]

The other side of this is, what should happen when the team asks a player to restucture their contract so the team has more money? If you are going to penalize a player for holding out to renegotiate, then a team should be penalize for asking a player to restucture.