Non-Guaranteed Contracts

[SlimPickens]

We are well and truly getting used to the bold new world of free agency in AFL. One thing that has become absolutely clear is that the players and their managers have all the power when it comes to negotiations. We now have players who spend minimal time at football clubs demanding trades after one or two years served, and worse still they dictate which club they want to go to.

Is it time to give the clubs more power at the negotiation table? Non Guareenteed contracts are common place in the NFL and NBA, they offer the clubs some protection and keeps the players honest. To me it allows the players to earn the right to the entirety of their contract, it also allows clubs to control the narrative on contract negotiations.


I would love to hear other woofers opinion on this? Will we see it? Can it work in the AFL?

[Greystache]

Players always point to the American system and say that's what we want. Well here it is in all it's glory. Of course they actually only want the best bits of the American system while keeping the best bits of the Australian system.

This should happen, no question.

[Dry Rot]

What is a Non Guareenteed contract?

[Bulldog Revolution]

What is a Non Guareenteed contract?

Get a non-guaranteed contract - Come to pre-season, train and get paid a wage for doing so - if you are on the roster/list after a certain point in the season then your contract gets fully guaranteed

[Greystache]

Get a non-guaranteed contract - Come to pre-season, train and get paid a wage for doing so - if you are on the roster/list after a certain point in the season then your contract gets fully guaranteed

It means more than that. Basically the club can tear up your contact at any point and not be obliged to pay out the remainder. So if the player gets injured, loses form, or a better option becomes available the club can cut or trade the player without consultation with the player.

[SlimPickens]

What is a Non Guareenteed contract?

Let’s use the Chad for example. The dogs say we will give you 5 million over 5 years of which 2.5 million of it is guaranteed. The other 2.5million will be paid to you if you meet XYZ of our expectations. Maybe be B&F finish or other factors. Wingard backs himself in and performs earns his 5 million (both parties are happy) or he comes over pisses it up against the wall and the club move him on. Saving 2.5 million in the process, club isn’t happy as the player hasn’t performed but can save face in the long run.

The way the league is going I think this process will be essential to allow clubs to control the narrative and not the players.

[Twodogs]

Interesting. This is the bits the cheer squad media never mention. It's all about the players and their rights when you read the paper or listen to the radio.


So how do they work? Is it a certain percentage of the playing list on them or the entire playing list has an element of non guaranteed money built in or are they handed to players who otherwise wouldn't have been on an AFL list?

[jeemak]

I like the idea in principle, though I'd be concerned about the components relating to injury and players being cut loose completely should they lose their ability to meet their contracted obligations from a performance perspective.

However, I don't see how this will stop players from nominating their preferred club and breaking contracts as soon as the season is finished. Isn't the reason players break contracts so readily because they have a sweetheart deal ready to go elsewhere? If and once this type of contract becomes the norm, the market will adjust players will still hold the whip hand in terms of where they end up.

[ratsmac]

Don't some contract have triggers written in them already like this? I'm all for a system that protects the smaller weaker clubs and if guaranteed contracts help then bring it on.

As much as I hate The Suns and The Giants because of everything they got given, but let's put that aside for now, I would be gutted if I supported one of those teams and other clubs were constantly circling and convincing their best players to leave. Clubs do need more control imo. Why don't we have transfer fees like FIFA? That way at least the clubs are getting back in return of their investment into players.

[SlimPickens]

Possibly Ratsmac. But not to the full extent we see in the US. Our system is more “bonus” based and usually involves a lump sum at the end of year.

[hujsh]

Is the idea that these are in every contract? Because if not why would any elite talent agree to a contract that is part Non-Guaranteed?

[SlimPickens]

Is the idea that these are in every contract? Because if not why would any elite talent agree to a contract that is part Non-Guaranteed?

Yes, and i hope it becomes the norm, because what other choice would they have? Not be a professional athlete?

Take Aaron Rodgers (Green Bay Packer QB) for example he recently signed a $134 Million dollar contract for 5 years, $100 Million of it is guaranteed. He has runs on the board, multiple Superbowls, multiple league MVP's and he is a good citizen. So Green Bay are comfortable to guarantee the majority of his contract as they don't see the risk. The club is happy and the player is happy. The club can dictate the terms and the player can accept or test out the market.

[Greystache]

Yes, and i hope it becomes the norm, because what other choice would they have? Not be a professional athlete?

Take Aaron Rodgers (Green Bay Packer QB) for example he recently signed a $134 Million dollar contract for 5 years, $100 Million of it is guaranteed. He has runs on the board, multiple Superbowls, multiple league MVP's and he is a good citizen. So Green Bay are comfortable to guarantee the majority of his contract as they don't see the risk. The club is happy and the player is happy. The club can dictate the terms and the player can accept or test out the market.

And players of questionable character, highly speculative, or prone to not performing once they have the safety of a contract often have none of it guaranteed and they need to perform or they get nothing. This is the full reality of the American system that the Australian players often bemoan not having.

Players can also be traded against there will while under contract. So when a player's manager goes to the media and says X player wants to be traded to West Coast, despite being under contract, or they'll leave the next year as a free agent for nothing, the club can say fine we've just traded you to Gold Coast for a 1st round pick. Call X he's the footy manager at Gold Coast and he'll arrange your travel, good luck.

[Twodogs]

Rogers is a gun. He's everything a professional sportsman should aspire to. I'd happily guarantee all 134 mil if I was another club.

[Mofra]

Don't some contract have triggers written in them already like this? I'm all for a system that protects the smaller weaker clubs and if guaranteed contracts help then bring it on.
They do - 2 year contracts with a trigger for a third aren't uncommon in the AFL.
They're not quite as tenuous as the NFL system but there are also bonuses for AA squads, B&F finishes, etc.

I don't know for certain but I'd imagine each club's marketing allowance is also used for this sort of flexibility.

[GVGjr]

Really enjoying the discussion, thanks to everyone so far

[Happy Days]

Non-guaranteed contracts are so prevalent in the model of US sports (at least in part) because of the nature of their player movement; guys get cut and signed at any time rather than just in the off-season, so non-guaranteed contracts are necessary to facilitate this movement.

If we wanted a real US-system this would be adopted - I don't think it's really for the best, but the AFL do love dominating the news cycle.

[SlimPickens]

Non-guaranteed contracts are so prevalent in the model of US sports (at least in part) because of the nature of their player movement; guys get cut and signed at any time rather than just in the off-season, so non-guaranteed contracts are necessary to facilitate this movement.

If we wanted a real US-system this would be adopted - I don't think it's really for the best, but the AFL do love dominating the news cycle.

For whom- the league? The clubs? The players?

[Happy Days]

For whom- the league? The clubs? The players?

For the fans - hyperactive player movement can kill off the emotional connection that you have to a team and make the whole thing kind of soulless.

[SlimPickens]

And players of questionable character, highly speculative, or prone to not performing once they have the safety of a contract often have none of it guaranteed and they need to perform or they get nothing. This is the full reality of the American system that the Australian players often bemoan not having.

Players can also be traded against there will while under contract. So when a player's manager goes to the media and says X player wants to be traded to West Coast, despite being under contract, or they'll leave the next year as a free agent for nothing, the club can say fine we've just traded you to Gold Coast for a 1st round pick. Call X he's the footy manager at Gold Coast and he'll arrange your travel, good luck.

Absolutely, if anything it will protect the Northern state clubs more. I find it amazing that a player will say, "i want to come back to Melbourne" and still gets to nominate a club. Sure come back to Melbourne, but surely the club should be allowed to negotiate with the club in Melbourne offering the best deal?

[SlimPickens]

For the fans - hyperactive player movement can kill off the emotional connection that you have to a team and make the whole thing kind of soulless.

Guess it depends on whether you support the club or you support the players.

[bornadog]

Guess it depends on whether you support the club or you support the players.

A club is not a club without the players.

[jeemak]

I like the idea in principle, though I'd be concerned about the components relating to injury and players being cut loose completely should they lose their ability to meet their contracted obligations from a performance perspective.

However, I don't see how this will stop players from nominating their preferred club and breaking contracts as soon as the season is finished. Isn't the reason players break contracts so readily because they have a sweetheart deal ready to go elsewhere? If and once this type of contract becomes the norm, the market will adjust players will still hold the whip hand in terms of where they end up.


And players of questionable character, highly speculative, or prone to not performing once they have the safety of a contract often have none of it guaranteed and they need to perform or they get nothing. This is the full reality of the American system that the Australian players often bemoan not having.

Players can also be traded against there will while under contract. So when a player's manager goes to the media and says X player wants to be traded to West Coast, despite being under contract, or they'll leave the next year as a free agent for nothing, the club can say fine we've just traded you to Gold Coast for a 1st round pick. Call X he's the footy manager at Gold Coast and he'll arrange your travel, good luck.

This bit answers my question, I didn't see that side of it. Thanks.

[Greystache]

This bit answers my question, I didn't see that side of it. Thanks.

Sorry I missed your question along the way.

Yep, if the player announces they don't want to be at your club anymore, then sell them to the highest bidder and move on.

As it currently stands, if a player under-performs or gets injured they have the luxury of falling back on a guaranteed contract at their current club that will pay them the maximum they could negotiate at the time of signing. If they over-perform they can demand to break their contract and be traded to the club of their choosing who's offered them even more than they're getting now, otherwise they'll be sad and under-perform. It's all one way in the player's favour and it's ridiculous. You can be sure there'd be a lot less players putting their hand up demanding a trade while under contract if they know they're highly likely to be playing at Carlton or Gold Coast the next season.

[jeemak]

For the fans - hyperactive player movement can kill off the emotional connection that you have to a team and make the whole thing kind of soulless.


Guess it depends on whether you support the club or you support the players.


A club is not a club without the players.

I don't think we can underestimate the work the AFL, the players association and to some extent the clubs have done to disentangle the emotional attachment fans have with players.

From the AFL's perspective they can't lose if a marquee or heart and soul player either stays at the one club and becomes a club icon, nor can they if said player is speculated to leave a club over a long period of time, or actually does. The latter two scenarios keeps them in the news cycle for longer, the former provides the feel good factor they love to cash in on from time to time.

The reasons of the players association are clear, they want the most flexibility for their stakeholders. As for the clubs, they're pragmatists and understand that while fan backlash can be the result of key or loved players leaving, fans ultimately want to see wins on the board. Being able to remove or acquire players freely improves their chances of controlling the quality of their lists to produce wins more readily.

I guess what I'm saying is that all stakeholders within the game - aside from fans - have been on this journey over a longer period of time than we might actually realise.

[wimberga]

Great topic and thanks to all who have commented so far - great read.

Would I be correct in thinking this would also be really helpful with young players just drafted early?

We have seen quite a few players leave in their first couple of years from clubs and in general, this has hurt those developing and interstate clubs. Say for example the current two year draftee contract went out to four years, with the first two being guaranteed and the second two being much higher but not guaranteed. This would mean player has certainty over where they are going and entitlement to earn good $$ if they fulfill their contract, but also give the club more negotiating power at the table should they want to hold that player to their initial contract or tear it up and let them leave.

I really like this idea.

[SlimPickens]

A club is not a club without the players.

Of course, unless that player *!*!*!*!s up completely. No player is bigger than the club....ever! I was at the game where Carey played his first game against North. I assure you people weren’t barracking for Wayne.

[Go_Dogs]

And players of questionable character, highly speculative, or prone to not performing once they have the safety of a contract often have none of it guaranteed and they need to perform or they get nothing. This is the full reality of the American system that the Australian players often bemoan not having.

Players can also be traded against there will while under contract. So when a player's manager goes to the media and says X player wants to be traded to West Coast, despite being under contract, or they'll leave the next year as a free agent for nothing, the club can say fine we've just traded you to Gold Coast for a 1st round pick. Call X he's the footy manager at Gold Coast and he'll arrange your travel, good luck.

The trade clause is one I'd like to see included. Don't think it'd ever fly though....

I look at the NBA and quite often, players get to where they want regardless. The better players actually negotiate shorter contracts to leverage their position more frequently and control where they go.

If we see any further reductions in FA rules (ie lower threshold to qualify) it would be good to offset that with non guaranteed contracts and the ability to trade contracted players without consent.

[SlimPickens]

Great topic and thanks to all who have commented so far - great read.

Would I be correct in thinking this would also be really helpful with young players just drafted early?

We have seen quite a few players leave in their first couple of years from clubs and in general, this has hurt those developing and interstate clubs. Say for example the current two year draftee contract went out to four years, with the first two being guaranteed and the second two being much higher but not guaranteed. This would mean player has certainty over where they are going and entitlement to earn good $$ if they fulfill their contract, but also give the club more negotiating power at the table should they want to hold that player to their initial contract or tear it up and let them leave.

I really like this idea.

It’s a good point. An interesting thing that happens when a player is drafted in the NFL, they are not assured a contract (of course they will mostly get one) but there are cases when the don’t. Attitude, professional in preseason can be a big factor and cost players their job before they start. Like AFL they have to earn the right to be a Free Agent.

[bornadog]

Of course, unless that player *!*!*!*!s up completely. No player is bigger than the club....ever!.

Of course

[Topdog]

The other part missing from the US style is the transparency of the contract. How much money each player is on its known to all, this also makes teams salary cap situation known

[Greystache]

The other part missing from the US style is the transparency of the contract. How much money each player is on its known to all, this also makes teams salary cap situation known

Very good point. It would stop situations like Essendon currently being conservatively 30% over the salary cap with AFL endorsement so they didn't lose drug banned returning players.

[bornadog]

Breaking player Contracts are getting worse and worse. Papley has 4 years left on his contract, Howard 3, nothing is sacred anymore.

I really am against players breaking contracts unless there are exceptional circumstances. I know we have chased players on contract as well but it will happen to us when someone puts a big contract in front of a player when we think we have them stitched up for a few years.

[GVGjr]

Breaking player Contracts are getting worse and worse. Papley has 4 years left on his contract, Howard 3, nothing is sacred anymore.

I really am against players breaking contracts unless there are exceptional circumstances. I know we have chased players on contract as well but it will happen to us when someone puts a big contract in front of a player when we think we have them stitched up for a few years.

I agree, the players are getting a great deal. Get their managers to negotiate the best possible deal because everyone loves the security a long term deal provides but then they keep looking around for an even better deal putting the clubs under the pump.
Clubs and the AFL are allowing this to happen because of the nature of the industry

I get that some players are looking for better opportunities to play and that sounds reasonable but many are making things up on the fly to get their own way

I've mentioned this before but if players want to break a contract because they are homesick they should forfeit the right to pick and choose which club they go to in that home state. If you want to go back to WA for example then your current employer/club should be able to negotiate with both WA teams to get the best deal for them. Some of these players playing the homesick card but still only want to go to one club (because lets face it in most instances they will pay them more) is just an out and out manipulation

Players could also be fined if they break a contract just because they want to secure more money elsewhere

There needs to be a financial incentive for players to play out their contracts and this will sort out the genuine ones from the ones focused more on the financials

[Bulldog Joe]

There could be a couple of disincentives put in place.

One would be to have the new club required to count 150% of the player contract counted in their salary cap, with the club losing the player able to use the equivalent extra cap for the remaining period of the departing player contract.

Additionally the new contract for this purpose must be averaged over the life of the contract to prevent manipulation through a back ended arrangement.