Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Is it possible for NFL players to move to the UFL if a lockout were to occur?


sknz45

Recommended Posts

My question is this - the reason for the impasse is because of money. The UFL doesn't pay much at all relative to the NFL. Why would NFL players risk injury to play for peanuts? I don't see it happening.

The only reason they would do it is for leverage, and I doubt it really affords them much, if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this - the reason for the impasse is because of money. The UFL doesn't pay much at all relative to the NFL. Why would NFL players risk injury to play for peanuts? I don't see it happening.

The only reason they would do it is for leverage, and I doubt it really affords them much, if at all.

But if all the NFL players moved to the UFL wouldn't that make the UFL a heck of allot more valuable? Maybe they get better TV contracts if that were to happen....man if it did that would suck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if all the NFL players moved to the UFL wouldn't that make the UFL a heck of allot more valuable? Maybe they get better TV contracts if that were to happen....man if it did that would suck!

The franchises themselves still wouldn't have near the amount of money to compensate the players as much as the NFL could, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The franchises themselves still wouldn't have near the amount of money to compensate the players as much as the NFL could, though.

I think you're underestimating the creative abilities of lawyers when hundreds of millions of dollars are in play. Patchwork agreements involving percentages of TV revenue going to the players could be worked out pretty quickly with the proper motivation.

As a counter-thought, does anyone know if we could get scab games with a lockout? I might actually root for a lockout if the answer is yes. Just imagine, we could finally have Colt Brennan faking a handoff to Jesse Lumsden before throwing a bomb to Marko Mitchell. :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this - the reason for the impasse is because of money. The UFL doesn't pay much at all relative to the NFL. Why would NFL players risk injury to play for peanuts? I don't see it happening.

The only reason they would do it is for leverage, and I doubt it really affords them much, if at all.

Elite players wont but the 3rd stringers would, maybe some 2nd stringers

---------- Post added January-12th-2011 at 03:30 AM ----------

I would like to see it. The shield is getting way to big and GODdell sucks monkey butt as a commish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The franchises themselves still wouldn't have near the amount of money to compensate the players as much as the NFL could, though.

That and the NFL would still own all of the major TV contracts. It would take many years for the networks to turn on the NFL and defect to the UFL. The players will stay where the money is and that is the National Football League.

I could see some of the fringe players going to the UFL if there is a lockout. A lot of these guys probably have bills to pay that they will not be able to afford without a paycheck in 2011. The more marquee players will not want to risk injury for <100k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see some of the fringe players going to the UFL if there is a lockout. A lot of these guys probably have bills to pay that they will not be able to afford without a paycheck in 2011. The more marquee players will not want to risk injury for <100k.

Exactly, there's no way that big name players would ever play in the UFL. They've already made more than enough to survive a lock out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the NFL wants to sign a UFL player during the season, they are required to pay a hefty fee to the UFL for that right. I'd imagine the concept works both ways. If a player is currently under NFL contract through 2011, he will not be able to sign with the UFL even if there is a lockout. Free agents and unsigned rookies however, should be free to do whatever they want. Overall, the already rather impressive talent pool should be able to improve dramatically in the event of a lockout and league exposure would improve dramatically as the only game in town. These guys will have the oppurtunity to stay in game shape and show their talents for a better deal in 2012.

UFL players dont make peanuts as someone said, it is a lot less than the NFL pays but it's still a lot more than these guys would make at a real job in the three month span of the season. There are also a handful of franchise player contracts that allow the bigger names to draw a salary in the millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the NFL wants to sign a UFL player during the season, they are required to pay a hefty fee to the UFL for that right. I'd imagine the concept works both ways. If a player is currently under NFL contract through 2011, he will not be able to sign with the UFL even if there is a lockout. Free agents and unsigned rookies however, should be free to do whatever they want. Overall, the already rather impressive talent pool should be able to improve dramatically in the event of a lockout and league exposure would improve dramatically as the only game in town. These guys will have the oppurtunity to stay in game shape and show their talents for a better deal in 2012.

UFL players dont make peanuts as someone said, it is a lot less than the NFL pays but it's still a lot more than these guys would make at a real job in the three month span of the season. There are also a handful of franchise player contracts that allow the bigger names to draw a salary in the millions.

I concur. I was just about to say the exact same things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the UFL should be in the spring right after the Superbowl so those fringe 2nd and 3rd stringers could go and play to show themselves off for NFL teams.

It would make the league a legit minors for the NFL. But for a lockout, I don't see any full starters doing it. Young guys who were practice squad and backups should though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, there's no way that big name players would ever play in the UFL. They've already made more than enough to survive a lock out.

The NBA Lockout proved that an incredibly high percentage of pro athletes live paycheck to paycheck. Everyone thought that the NBA guys could survive for years. David Stern knew that a lot of them would be flat-broke within 6 weeks, and he broke the union as a result.

NFL players are probably slightly better prepared than NBA players, but if a lockout extends into October, a lot of players are going to be hurting. Does Antonio Cromartie strike you as

Having said that, being in desperate need of cash would not be necessarily mean playing for gas money in the UFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason they would do it is for leverage, and I doubt it really affords them much, if at all.

Leverage is a HUGE reason to do this, and playing (or acting like they are willing to play) for another league affords them a HUGE amount of leverage. If it actually happened, it would also keep them in shape, and it would also win points with the general public. You gonna go see the scabs play in the NFL, or the real players play in the UFL for much cheaper tickets, concessions, etc.

And it would bolster the claims of the union/players that it isn't "all about money" which I'm sure they'll say at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't a lot of the issues around benefits and such too? The UFL would enable benefits, again, and the 18 game season is out of the question.

Out of the question? An 18-game season allows both sides to come away with more money. It's quite likely regardless of the union's current public stance on the matter, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leverage is a HUGE reason to do this, and playing (or acting like they are willing to play) for another league affords them a HUGE amount of leverage. If it actually happened, it would also keep them in shape, and it would also win points with the general public. You gonna go see the scabs play in the NFL, or the real players play in the UFL for much cheaper tickets, concessions, etc.

And it would bolster the claims of the union/players that it isn't "all about money" which I'm sure they'll say at some point.

The NFL has done such a remarkable job of marketing itself as a team-first league, that I believe the vast majority of current NFL fans would stick with an NFL product for the short-term. And really, this labor dispute isn't going to last forever, so the short-term is all that really matters.

Would you honestly watch UFL games over NFL games for one season (if both were available) knowing that the NFL would be back to normal in a year or so? I'd just keep following the Redskins and the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people want other professional sports leagues to succeed? The AFL and ABA were interesting because the established leagues were smaller than the talent pool allowed and the style of play was different.

At this point' date=' all alternative leagues can do is dilute the style of play.[/quote']

Because the underdog always gains at least some form of sympathy. It's like the tiny family owned hardware store down the street from Wal-Mart. You feel bad for the hardware store but Wal-Mart is just so much more convenient! You can pick up motor oil and your Avatar DVD all in one place!

I personally like the smaller leagues in all sports. The experience and atmosphere is generally more fan and family friendly. They have to treat the fans better than the bigger leagues because it's harder to sell their tickets. And it works if done correctly.

I agree that the smaller leagues dilute the style of play. However, the good players are able to shake off those bad habits and perhaps proceed to the NFL. It's rare but Anthony Armstong is the prime example!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're underestimating the creative abilities of lawyers when hundreds of millions of dollars are in play. Patchwork agreements involving percentages of TV revenue going to the players could be worked out pretty quickly with the proper motivation.

As a counter-thought, does anyone know if we could get scab games with a lockout? I might actually root for a lockout if the answer is yes. Just imagine, we could finally have Colt Brennan faking a handoff to Jesse Lumsden before throwing a bomb to Marko Mitchell. :ols:

Not as I understand it, if there is a LOCKOUT, the owners made the decision and cannot do a selective lockout. Now, they could call a lockout, have the players on strike and then end the lockout. However, I think one of the reasons the union is killed if there is no agreement is to prevent such a strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this - the reason for the impasse is because of money. The UFL doesn't pay much at all relative to the NFL. Why would NFL players risk injury to play for peanuts? I don't see it happening.

The only reason they would do it is for leverage, and I doubt it really affords them much, if at all.

I bet there will be a lot of NFL players who make the jump if a prolonged lock out occurs. Some guys make a ton of money, but as Patrick Ewing told us, they spend a lot too. I bet a lot more NFL players live paycheck to paycheck than you might think,-think of all the guys who are the only bread winner for their family, or sometimes entire neighborhood, with a gaggle of close friends and distant family looking for hand outs- and it will be those players who make the jump to the UFL. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Ray Lewis etc will not go, but their backups might have to play simply to generate some income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the NFL wants to sign a UFL player during the season, they are required to pay a hefty fee to the UFL for that right. I'd imagine the concept works both ways. If a player is currently under NFL contract through 2011, he will not be able to sign with the UFL even if there is a lockout. Free agents and unsigned rookies however, should be free to do whatever they want. Overall, the already rather impressive talent pool should be able to improve dramatically in the event of a lockout and league exposure would improve dramatically as the only game in town. These guys will have the oppurtunity to stay in game shape and show their talents for a better deal in 2012.

UFL players dont make peanuts as someone said, it is a lot less than the NFL pays but it's still a lot more than these guys would make at a real job in the three month span of the season. There are also a handful of franchise player contracts that allow the bigger names to draw a salary in the millions.

Well, such a fee can only exist if there is a contract between the NFL and the UFL that specifically calls for said fee. Given the NFL owner's association's history, I would NOT be surprised if such a fee is one way. Further, a lockout could arguably make such a requirement unenforceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you honestly watch UFL games over NFL games for one season (if both were available) knowing that the NFL would be back to normal in a year or so? I'd just keep following the Redskins and the NFL.

Yes. I'd never in a million years buy a ticket for a scab game. And every year, I go to games.

So yeah, I'd probably follow the Skins out of morbid curiousity, but I certainly wouldn't spend a cent on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...