Read the debate intro, Loyal Homer’s argument in favor of a rookie pay scale in the NFL and Bleacher Fan’s argument against it.
The NFL is very conscious of their image. Several factors lead an analytical person like me to this conclusion. One, the commissioner, Roger Goodell, cut his teeth in the NFL in the public relations part of the business. Two, the league seems to care a great deal about making a public show of punishment for the players who fall outside of their new conduct policy. Three, they enforce community service (hey, it is not always BAD to be image conscious). Four, the players are (well mostly receivers).
It is that general self-awareness the league touts that makes this issue of a rookie pay scale so bizarre. If the league cares so much about their perception, why would they have a backwards system of rewarding unproven players with massive contracts? It defies logic because the players are being rewarded for what they hope are “future truths” or “trust me” contracts. Considering the value of the contracts, that is no small act of faith on the part of the organization. That is why the general manager gets fired so much. They simply cannot afford to be wrong more than once.
As for the debate, good points are made on both sides. Loyal Homer is correct in his fan-driven head-scratching when considering the backwards logic of professional contracts to rookies. But, the basis of Loyal Homer’s argument is that the players who enter the draft are unproven. While it may be true that the players are unproven at the professional level, the gap between high-quality college football and low quality professional football is not that wide. In fact, that is probably why so many college players are not judged on their talents in the collegiate ranks but on their potential in the pros (though that is likely a debate for another day).
Despite the reluctance on the part of fans to accept a holdout and sign a rookie to a huge future truth contract, it is a practice that works for both the players and the teams. As Bleacher Fan points out, the teams do a good job of evaluating talent in general and assume the risk if they misread a player. If a draft pick is a bust that is a responsibility of the organization, not the player. The organization assumes the draft rights and the burden of signing a player. It is well within the realm of reason to let the market dictate the value of a player – proven or not. It is the same principle as free agency, only with inexperience players at the professional level. Instituting a pay scale for rookies is a double standard in the league, and a double standard that penalizes the veterans – something the league is not likely to do.
Though I am awarding the debate win to Bleacher Fan, I feel like there is a compromise here. Bleacher Fan makes a very thorough, researched point about the relative success of player evaluations and contract value for picks inside the top ten of the draft (they cannot all be good picks… the league still has the Bungals in it). As the talent dwindles with each passing pick on draft day, it makes sense for a pay scale to kick in at some point. Does the 20th player selected really need to hold out for a few extra dollars of guaranteed money? No. If a pay scale does ever come to fruition, limiting it to the players who fall outside of the top ten in the draft makes sense. Market forces can play out with the cream of the crop, but with the remaining players, heavily incentive-laden deals under a predetermined structure could make sense for players and organizations alike.
On the surface it sure seems like any rookie hold out situation sucks, especially from the fans perspective (the most important perspective, by the way). But it is a reflection of the American economic principles of fair market value and the guidance of the invisible hand, and it is what is best for talented players and risk-taking teams.
Posted by Sports Geek 
