Sports Contracts are Worthless
| 6
|
by user Joebook
As I was commenting on the Jay Williams situation, I thought about my own words. Williams was drafted by the Bulls with the #2 pick of the 2002 draft, and played one season before crashing his new motorcycle in Chicago. Part of his contract stated that he was prohibited from partaking in dangerous activities, including motorcycle riding.
The Bulls, apparently fearing a lawsuit from the NBA Players Union, paid Williams $3 million to officially buyout his contract. Williams disappeared, and has resurfaced with the New Jersey Nets. Whether he makes the team or not, he's already overcome a major hurdle.
This raises a question: What's the purpose of a contract?
There have been many recent instances of contract violations, many including motorcycle accidents. That isn't the largest concern. I've been researching to attempt to find a study of what percentage of contracts in the four major American sports (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL) (sorry Pnatt) are carried out to their expiration.
Between holdouts and renegotiation, many contracts are torn up before they reach the end. High profile players and those who fall upon a fantastic season have the liberty to wait for what they want. It's common for rookies in any sport, most publicly football, to not show up to work until their contract demands are met. In other cases, teams and ownership decide to reward a player for stellar play with an extension or completely rebuilt contract.
So what's the point? Why do so many players and agents waste valuable time trying to put together the best deal when the contract probably won't stick for any significant length of time?
I suppose if I were the sports lawmakers, I'd require one of two things; either all players sign one-year contracts and are re-evaluated after each season, or have all players sign for the same base salary and load the contracts with incentives, Master P style.
The problems with those theories are that if players had to sign one-year deals, there wouldn't be much loyalty. There would have to be some rule stating that a team would have the rights to a player for three or five years, but would pay based on a series of short contracts. Many players shy away from incentive-laden contracts now because of the injury risks involved... one bad juke and you're stuck with your base pay and nothing else.
I just can't see the point in signing long-term deals when nothing in the sports world is long-term anymore.
Date
Fri 09/29/06, 5:41 pm EST
