Football contract question

[EvilMonkey]

I just read a story about some guy on the Jets who ended his holdout because he got a new contract. My question is this. HOW can a player, who has a contract, NOT show up to camp and play because he wants a new one? If the player is signed to a three year deal, and after the second year decides he doesn't like the last year terms and doesn't show up to play, isn't he in breach of contract? Could the team, if it wanted to, sue his ass for the entire value of the contract for failure to perform? I just don't get that aspect of things. Anyone have answers?

[Texsox]

I just read a story about some guy on the Jets who ended his holdout because he got a new contract. My question is this. HOW can a player, who has a contract, NOT show up to camp and play because he wants a new one? If the player is signed to a three year deal, and after the second year decides he doesn't like the last year terms and doesn't show up to play, isn't he in breach of contract? Could the team, if it wanted to, sue his ass for the entire value of the contract for failure to perform? I just don't get that aspect of things. Anyone have answers?

 

They don't have to sue him, they would not have to pay him for not playing. If he is threatening to retire, which basically he is, the team does not have to pay him. For him to have to pay the team, wouldn't the team have to show some damages? I can't see the team suing him, forcing him to play. Now of course we are talking the contractual part of the equation. I wish more teams would just let the guy go.

 

When both sides sign a contract, they hope they are getting a bargain. If the player sucks, the player is overpaid, and in a sense "wins" the negotiation. If the player does better than expected, the team wins. Accept the results and live with it.

[Balta1701]

In the NFL, a key part of the matter is that contracts are non-guaranteed.

[EvilMonkey]

They don't have to sue him, they would not have to pay him for not playing. If he is threatening to retire, which basically he is, the team does not have to pay him. For him to have to pay the team, wouldn't the team have to show some damages? I can't see the team suing him, forcing him to play. Now of course we are talking the contractual part of the equation. I wish more teams would just let the guy go.

 

When both sides sign a contract, they hope they are getting a bargain. If the player sucks, the player is overpaid, and in a sense "wins" the negotiation. If the player does better than expected, the team wins. Accept the results and live with it.

I would thinnk the team can show damages by him not playing. They would have to play someone else at his spot, and if he doesn't play at all, spend money to 'hire' someone else to do either his job, or to replace whoever is doing his job. They could also argue that thier team's value has been diminished by him not playing as well, especially if he is a good player. Payton manning holds out and they replace him with Kyle Orton, the team's value is greatly dimished.

[Balta1701]

After super-overpaid defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth whined all last season, then refused to attend offseason Redskins workouts, coach Mike Shanahan gave him a hard time in camp. Haynesworth was required to take, over and over again, a shuttle sprint test that linemen usually are excused for failing. Haynesworth didn't start preseason games, then was sent in for the second half, with the low-drafted who-dats and the street free agents. What's the plan here?

 

[+] EnlargeScene from

MGM"So, we are agreed. We will drive Albert Haynesworth crazy, then steal the $9 million remaining on his contract."

 

You might think Shanahan is trying to embarrass Haynesworth into cleaning up his act. Maybe -- but this would work only if Haynesworth cares what his teammates think of him, and there's never been any evidence of that, either in Washington or Tennessee. TMQ wonders if the Redskins are trying to gaslight Haynesworth so he walks out.

 

The contract Washington foolishly gave Haynesworth in winter 2009 has already paid him $32 million -- that money is gone with the wind -- but contains another $9 million in guarantees. No team will trade for Haynesworth, which entails acquiring his contract, because no team wants to assume the $9 million still owed.

 

Generally, employment contracts can be voided "for cause," which generally means failing to make a reasonable attempt to execute duties. If you do a crummy job, well, you tried -- but if you refuse to report for work, that's cause. If Haynesworth were to pull a prima-donna stunt and refuse to show up at Redskins Park, the team might be able to assert a "cause" grounds to void his contract, saving the remaining $9 million.

 

All summer, Darrelle Revis refused to report to work, which might have opened the door to the Jets having his contract voided. But nothing would have pleased Revis more! If he suddenly had no contract, he would have been a free agent able to command a very large deal from any team -- it would have made no sense for Jersey/B to attempt to get the Revis contract voided. On the other hand, if Haynesworth were suddenly a free agent, he'd command little more than the veteran minimum. Thus one wonders, are the Redskins trying to push Haynesworth into staging a walkout, so they can dissolve the rest of his contract?

Link

[T R U]

They are still getting paid when holding out.. they get fined out the ass though.. Revis had something like $600,000 in fines after he ended his holdout..

 

Albert Haynesworth cashed a $21 million dollar check when he was a camp no show..

 

 

[GoodAsGould]

They don't have to sue him, they would not have to pay him for not playing. If he is threatening to retire, which basically he is, the team does not have to pay him. For him to have to pay the team, wouldn't the team have to show some damages? I can't see the team suing him, forcing him to play. Now of course we are talking the contractual part of the equation. I wish more teams would just let the guy go.

 

When both sides sign a contract, they hope they are getting a bargain. If the player sucks, the player is overpaid, and in a sense "wins" the negotiation. If the player does better than expected, the team wins. Accept the results and live with it.

 

I agree in baseball and basketball, but in football when contracts arent guaranteed I definitely can see a players point of view on these things.

[lostfan]

A holdout is a player's only leverage a lot of times. When a guy underperforms or the team doesn't want him anymore they can just cut him and not have to pay anything but the bonus/guaranteed money. When he overperforms the team is just getting a free ride and without the ability to hold out the player has nothing, he's basically just the property of the team. Some players really overdo it though, remember when Vasher said he was going to hold out a few years ago, after a year or whatever and it lasted like one day and they basically told him to STFU? Then what did happen when he got an extension... he started to suck and eventually got cut.