General Question

JonnyCeltics's avatar

What is the significance of a "franchise tag" on NFL players?

Asked by JonnyCeltics (2690 points ) February 16th, 2011

…cause I’d like to know, outside of the written electronic reported word.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

6 Answers

funkdaddy's avatar

A quick summary as I understand it…

- Each team can franchise one player per year (usually a free agent, I don’t know why you would use it on anyone else)
– that player can’t leave unless the team they are going to gives up two first round picks
– the team is basically agreeing to pay the average of the top 5 salaries at their position for the next year
– it’s a one year deal
– players hate it because it isn’t a long term contract and it cuts back on their options
– there is also an “exclusive” franchise tag where the player can’t talk to other teams (so they can’t sign with anyone else, and the 2 draft pick rule isn’t in effect) This is what was put on Peyton Manning and Michael Vick this year
– the team and player can still negotiate a new deal while someone is “franchised”

The wiki has more.

meiosis's avatar

The feudal arrangements of American sports never ceases to amaze me. This would be illegal in Europe as it is a restriction of a worker’s fundamental freedom to choose where to apply their trade.

jlelandg's avatar

@meiosis like @funkdaddy it’s only for one year. Maybe that franchise player and the franchise want to work something out in the next year to keep that player in the city he’s in for a longer time. Many people would argue that players are TOO mobile in this day and age. It keeps fan favorites around.

meiosis's avatar

I think the right of a worker to ply their trade for who they like is significantly more important than the desires of fans to see their favourite player stay with the team. The team management should offer more favourable contracts if they want to keep their star employees, not force them to stay beyond their contract period. The right of a worker to choose who they want to work for is a fundamental, inalienable right.

funkdaddy's avatar

Come on, don’t they just straight up sell soccer players to other clubs?

And aren’t the transfer fees worth so much more than the player’s contract? So the club sees more money for the move than the player will?

I’m not saying either is right or wrong, but touting the superior nature of Europe’s laws for workers specifically for sports stars seems off base.

meiosis's avatar

Football clubs sell players who are still in contract to other clubs, but at the end of the contract period the player is free to move to whatever club he can agree terms with. In such out of contract cases his old club has no power to prevent this and will receive no money.

The Bosman ruling applies to all workers in Europe, not just sports stars.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther