Russell Wilson Signs a $1 Contract (supposition)

[falcongoggles]

This came up a week or two ago. Football players don't make as much money as you think on endorsements.

2013
Tom Brady made an estimated 7 million dollars in endorsements. Remember who he is married to. His Wife makes A LOT more money than him.
Aaron Rodgers: 6 million in endorsements
Joe Flacco: 850,000 in endorsements
Tony Romo 3 million in endorsements

There isn't enough money to make up the difference in the player's market value. QB's make a lot more money on contracts than they do endorsements.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000210472

But did any of these guys sign for the league minimum? Did any of them enable the other pieces of the team to be monsters by taking a cut in pay and thus almost guaranteeing they rack up SB's under an able coach and GM?

 

[CANHawk]

Now ask yourself - if he signed a contract for $1 and freed up all that cash for the team to be dominant for years, would he in the long-run earn more money from endorsements while also racking up more SB's?

Guaranteed money today or rolling the dice for being at the top of the greatest dynasty in history during the salary cap era as well as cash flowing out of your ears from endorsements ala Jordan?

Fan perspective looks at ONLY what's best for the team, you would not think this way if YOU were signing the contract. Stop suggesting this people!

And I see zero scenario where a 5 mil contract + endorsements could be greater than 18 mil contract + endorsements. You're valuing taking a smaller contract at 10s of millions PER YEAR to make that more financially worth it for Russell.

The only way I see any level of discount is if the contract is 90% guaranteed dollars. I'm more than happy to be wrong on this, but I think it's wrong for fans to dream up scenarios to make it work, Russell deserves to be paid.

Suggestion would include me saying, "I think" or "he should" I just threw a question out there in the OP to generate conversation. Just to be clear, I think RW will sign an equitable contract with this team and I will have problem with it.

Have some imagination people, gracious

dude, you can't say you threw out a question to generate conversation and then complain when the conversation doesn't go your way.

FWIW, I get the premise. I think you kind of got slapped with the "silly homer" label when you started talking $1 contract and haven't really been able to recover, but the question remains; would it behoove Russell in the long run to not handicap the team by taking up the majority of the salary cap? Would Joe Flacco have been better off in the long run by taking a smaller contract and allowing the team to remain championship caliber? Probably not because Flacco sucks, but that's the general concept.

I do think you're onto something. Russell has the potential to generate real legitimate brand power, and taking less from his football contract to allow the team to stay competing in the salary cap era for multiple championships might make him more in the long run (would people have paid as much for Jordans if he missed the playoffs every year?). But like so many others have said; that's a gamble and football is an incredibly violent sport. It could all come to an end tomorrow. It's not a bad plan to take what's guaranteed when you can get it.

That also being said though, Russell doesn't strike me as the type of guy who is only about the money like Flacco was. I can see him possibly making some concessions on his contract (not $1 or league minimum kind of concessions) to keep the team competitive. He's too smart to completely hamstring himself with a bad supporting cast like that and I think he puts a pretty high priority on on-field success.

I think reality will wind up being somewhere in between the extreme ends of this debate. He's going to get Paid, but not in a way that instantly destroys the team. Russell is the long term future of this team and everyone knows it. So to that end, I can see something like an 8 year contract with a buttload of guaranteed money, with somewhat smaller cap hits year to year (or maybe tweaked to take a big hit when everyone else is set to take a smaller hit. Leave it to the capologist). That way Russ gets paid, Russ guarantees his family's future security (for generations likely), the team can remain competitive, Russ can be a huge success on the field and also build his brand. Wins all around.

That's my two cents anyhoo...

 

[Always Fierce]

No he wouldn't and no he couldn't - the NFLPA wouldn't allow it

Yeah - because it would affect the "market price".

Sometimes I wish there was no salary cap - but at least it gives bad teams the chance to get good and vice versa if its not managed well and equitably.

 

[falcongoggles]

False-black bear

I am arguing against people associating what I'm asking to someone taking a few million less in a different thread. I'm talking about going balls out, league minimum, never been done before-holy hell what is going on in Seattle bonkers type stuff.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

This came up a week or two ago. Football players don't make as much money as you think on endorsements.

2013
Tom Brady made an estimated 7 million dollars in endorsements. Remember who he is married to. His Wife makes A LOT more money than him.
Aaron Rodgers: 6 million in endorsements
Joe Flacco: 850,000 in endorsements
Tony Romo 3 million in endorsements

There isn't enough money to make up the difference in the player's market value. QB's make a lot more money on contracts than they do endorsements.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000210472

Remember..those numbers are "reported reimbursements". I have no doubt that there just might be some money "under the table" to escape the IRS.

 

[Hawks46]

$1 ??

I think people are still drunk from the Superbowl.

 

[mikeak]

1) Less money I see - enough to make it a big deal in the media - maybe

2) Make it guaranteed. One reason QB contracts aren't guaranteed is because they are $20 million per year. If you get a guaranteed $10million per year for 6 years that is really not a risk for the team - at least not to the point of making them unable to compete

I don't see something that low. I do see something lower than market.

At the end of the day the NFLPA can put as much pressure as they want but they do NOT have the power to change anything. You also CANNOT compare the NFLPA with the MLBPA

MLB has a soft cap. When a player takes less it means money out of players hands

NFL has a hard cap. When a player takes less it means more money into a different players hands.

Actually the NFLPA would be pressured by more players making less if they put pressure on RW to take more. Their job is to protect the many and not the few

 

[falcongoggles]

$1 ??

I think people are still drunk from the Superbowl.

I will admit that I am still buzzing from the epic beatdown we all drank in two days ago.

 

[Basis4day]

This came up a week or two ago. Football players don't make as much money as you think on endorsements.

2013
Tom Brady made an estimated 7 million dollars in endorsements. Remember who he is married to. His Wife makes A LOT more money than him.
Aaron Rodgers: 6 million in endorsements
Joe Flacco: 850,000 in endorsements
Tony Romo 3 million in endorsements

There isn't enough money to make up the difference in the player's market value. QB's make a lot more money on contracts than they do endorsements.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000210472

But did any of these guys sign for the league minimum? Did any of them enable the other pieces of the team to be monsters by taking a cut in pay and thus almost guaranteeing they rack up SB's under an able coach and GM?

You're assuming the difference can be made up in endorsements. I'm telling you it can't. There is no guarantee of championships, regardless of who is on your team. The individual player has no say in where the team spends the money. Tom Brady restructured to get a team friendly contract (Rich Wife) and assumed it would be spent on keeping Welker. Remember how pissed he was that Welker didn't say?

It's an interesting idea, but it simply isn't a reality.

 

[Blitzer88]

RIght now I"m more worried about getting ET and Sherm locked up.

I got a really good feeling that Russell is the kind of guy that knows the importance of team.

Yeah, they will find a way to get Russell re-signed. I am worried about getting Sherm and ET locked up though.

 

[Basis4day]

This came up a week or two ago. Football players don't make as much money as you think on endorsements.

2013
Tom Brady made an estimated 7 million dollars in endorsements. Remember who he is married to. His Wife makes A LOT more money than him.
Aaron Rodgers: 6 million in endorsements
Joe Flacco: 850,000 in endorsements
Tony Romo 3 million in endorsements

There isn't enough money to make up the difference in the player's market value. QB's make a lot more money on contracts than they do endorsements.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000210472

Remember..those numbers are "reported reimbursements". I have no doubt that there just might be some money "under the table" to escape the IRS.

Correct. They are only estimates. Which assuming they're taking millions under the table (Which i don't really think they are in the tune on millions and millions) they would still need to present themselves as making the stated value.

The point stands. Football players don't make as much money on endorsements to as Basketball players or Tiger Woods to take a far reduced contract such that OP suggests. There are no guaranteed championships in the NFL, only chances.

 

[dino26]

Haha that was awesome

 

[CANHawk]

False-black bear

I am arguing against people associating what I'm asking to someone taking a few million less in a different thread. I'm talking about going balls out, league minimum, never been done before-holy hell what is going on in Seattle bonkers type stuff.

Well then you're just bat-shit crazy then cuz that ain't ever going to happen. You might as well be talking about how different football would be if WR's could fly and LB's could shoot lazers out of theri butts...

 

[mikeak]

Correct. They are only estimates. Which assuming they're taking millions under the table (Which i don't really think they are in the tune on millions and millions) they would still need to present themselves as making the stated value.
.

That is an incorrect conclusion

They are estimates since not all endorsements deals are made public

It is "somewhat" different than the contract they sign with the league which is public before anyone even signs it

 

[Snakeeyes007]

Now ask yourself - if he signed a contract for $1 and freed up all that cash for the team to be dominant for years, would he in the long-run earn more money from endorsements while also racking up more SB's?

Guaranteed money today or rolling the dice for being at the top of the greatest dynasty in history during the salary cap era as well as cash flowing out of your ears from endorsements ala Jordan?

I read part way down the thread and it appears most responders don't understand your premise, or just don't want to play in your sandbox. I love delving into economic hypothesis' and intelligent economic discussions in general, and your supposition intrigues me. :snack:

To play in this sandbox, one must throw out the, "you can't do that!" and "Russell deserves!" responses, as firmly entrenched in reality as they are, and deal in the hypothetical. Your what if scenario, though not the same type of comparison, is an argument the authors of Freakonomics would enjoy researching.

I don't have the time I'd like to really crunch the numbers, but off-hand, the answer to your question is a resounding YES.

The one response I read that holds the most merit in a discussion like this is the question of health. the NFL is a brutal game physically, and is the most significant wild card in your scenario. We could need to find a baseline to agree upon to account for Wilson's health variable, and the other variables; i.e. Carroll's age/health/longevity as coach, Schneider's willingness to remain in Seattle, assistant coaches and their influence on their respective units, the health of the other players, etc. But I digress.

A few quick examples of athletes who support my 'yes' and your hypothesis:

Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Michael Jordan
Shaquille O'neal
Tiger Woods
David Beckham

Each of these athletes transcend(ed) their sports, and make the lion's share of their wealth from outside sources. Even if paid nothing in their respective sport, each far out-earn(ed) the majority of their peers. One can confidently say that without a history of winning success in the sports they play, they wouldn't have the levels of wealth that each has. It also takes the right combination of intangibles, and other than perhaps sounding robotic in his press conferences, Russell has those in spades. As good as Carroll and Schneider have been at evaluating talent and building phenomenal depth with players that most other teams ignored, having an additional 18-25 million per year in salary to offer to key free agents would tip the scales in our favor even more. Thus providing the best chance for sustained winning/success needed to bring the attention and compounded wealth Wilson's way.

:icon_new:

 

[Basis4day]

Correct. They are only estimates. Which assuming they're taking millions under the table (Which i don't really think they are in the tune on millions and millions) they would still need to present themselves as making the stated value.
.

That is an incorrect conclusion

They are estimates since not all endorsements deals are made public

It is "somewhat" different than the contract they sign with the league which is public before anyone even signs it

They are made public and i trust the estimates. What's the point of endorsing something if no one knows about it?
You get someone endorse something so you can say "X uses my product".

 

[Polaris]

First and formost, there are certain league minimums, so Wilson would at least have to be paid that. That said the general notion of what the OP is suggesting is not completely insane. After all in very similiar circumstances Tom Brady delayed his payday (and there are other examples) to help his team continue to win. Here are some of my thoughts:

1) It's way to early to be talking about it. The Seahawks can't even discuss an extension until this time next year and a lot couple happen between now and then.

2) What the cap-hit of a contract is vs what the actual money paid can (and often are) two very different things when it comes to NFL contracts. I also think that given Wilson's notorious work-ethic (notoriously...dare I say...Peyton-like), Wilson and his agent may very well be willing to take a contract laden with "unlikely to be earned" incentives (that are in fact in his case likely to be earned), and I can even see him giving a discount to help keep everyone together.

3) I also think that Wilson's pay is going to go up significantly starting next year and there is no way the Seahawks will ever let him see free agency.

The going rate for SB winning QBs is about 20 million a year, but I could see Wilson agreeing to a contract for less than this. That said, if I were Pete and John, 20 million or so is what I'd budget for Wilson in the future.

One other factor: Watch the Niners. See if they extend Kaepernick and by how much.

 

[Basis4day]

Now ask yourself - if he signed a contract for $1 and freed up all that cash for the team to be dominant for years, would he in the long-run earn more money from endorsements while also racking up more SB's?

Guaranteed money today or rolling the dice for being at the top of the greatest dynasty in history during the salary cap era as well as cash flowing out of your ears from endorsements ala Jordan?

I read part way down the thread and it appears most responders don't understand your premise, or just don't want to play in your sandbox. I love delving into economic hypothesis' and intelligent economic discussions in general, and your supposition intrigues me. :snack:

To play in this sandbox, one must throw out the, "you can't do that!" and "Russell deserves!" responses, as firmly entrenched in reality as they are, and deal in the hypothetical. Your what if scenario, though not the same type of comparison, is an argument the authors of Freakonomics would enjoy researching.

I don't have the time I'd like to really crunch the numbers, but off-hand, the answer to your question is a resounding YES.

The one response I read that holds the most merit in a discussion like this is the question of health. the NFL is a brutal game physically, and is the most significant wild card in your scenario. We could need to find a baseline to agree upon to account for Wilson's health variable, and the other variables; i.e. Carroll's age/health/longevity as coach, Schneider's willingness to remain in Seattle, assistant coaches and their influence on their respective units, the health of the other players, etc. But I digress.

A few quick examples of athletes who support my 'yes' and your hypothesis:

Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Michael Jordan
Shaquille O'neal
Tiger Woods
David Beckham

Each of these athletes transcend(ed) their sports, and make the lion's share of their wealth from outside sources. Even if paid nothing in their respective sport, each far out-earn(ed) the majority of their peers. One can confidently say that without a history of winning success in the sports they play, they wouldn't have the levels of wealth that each has. It also takes the right combination of intangibles, and other than perhaps sounding robotic in his press conferences, Russell has those in spades. As good as Carroll and Schneider have been at evaluating talent and building phenomenal depth with players that most other teams ignored, having an additional 18-25 million per year in salary to offer to key free agents would tip the scales in our favor even more. Thus providing the best chance for sustained winning/success needed to bring the attention and compounded wealth Wilson's way.

:icon_new:

You need to scrap everyone but Brady and Manning from that list. It's misleading to include a guy like Beckham (42 million in endorsements in 2013). You need to look at how much the top contracts in football play vs. endorsements. American football players aren't a huge draw in other countries. Their endorsements are primary in the US, limiting their value.

Start with Manning. Estimated 12 Million in endorsements 2013 And 18 Million in his contract. Not exactly a Lions share in endorsements.
Brady's cap number is in the 13 to 15 million range a year due to a large singing bonus. Compare that to only 7 million in endorsements. Again, not a lions share in endorsement money (And this is a guy whose wife makes in the 42 million dollar range in 2013). Michael Vick who appeared to have endorsements all over the place was only getting 7 million a year before the dog-fighting scandal.

Wilson is going to get paid. I like the originality of the OP's idea, but football players do not make ridiculous endorsement money like athletes in other sports with international appeal and significantly longer careers. Their money comes from their contracts.

 

[AgentDib]

Tom Brady took less money this year so his team could re-sign Welker. Welker left anyway. Tom took one for the team, then ended up with a scrap heap of players to throw to for most of the year. He should have just taken all the money he could get.

I agree with you in concept, especially regarding fans who are selfish themselves to expect their favorite players to resign for cheap. There is a place for players to consider team friendly contracts, however. Money is just one variable and once you have $40m in the bank your legacy and satisfaction from playing on a winning team start to become more important. If I liked the way my team was run then I would absolutely give a small hometown discount to spend my career with that team, rather than worry about topping the contract of comparable players for ego purposes. Of course that does come down to how you feel about the front office.

 

[Spiderdan]

There's a reason players have agents negotiate for them.