Something's Gotta Give…

Jackson upset with contract terms. What a surprise…

Today on ESPN.com Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson admitted that he didn't give a full effort last season because he didn't want to get injured before signing a new contract. However, we know that this wasn't the full extent of his lack of effort. He wasn't happy with his current contract and showing his unhappiness meant playing horribly in big games. In playing the Seattle Seahawks at Centurylink field last year, there were obvious plays where Jackson literally jogged down the field on live passing plays, in a game that had great meaning. It was pathetic to watch and it was a black eye for every NFL player that wouldn't think of dogging it on one play, let alone, the entire game or in Jackson's case, an entire season. He embarrassed himself and the game itself. I just don't understand why those affected weren't visibly as angry as I was watching him give up play after play, with a sneer on his face and a glare in his eye… It was plain to see… Jackson is a paycheck player, no doubt.

 When asked about instances when his effort was questioned, Jackson said: "I let it get to me, even though I tried not to let it. I was trying to protect myself from getting hurt -- now I'm just giving it all." - DeSean Jackson, Philadelphia Eagles WR

After receiving the Eagles' franchise tender, Jackson signed a five-year, $51 million extension with $15 million guaranteed in March. Jackson said he was "happy to finally get the contract. I felt with what I had done for the team, I deserved it."

Jackson sought a contract extension last year and held out the first 11 days of training camp. During the season, Jackson was deactivated for a Week 10 game against the Arizona Cardinals and benched during a Week 12 loss to the New England Patriots.

What might be more troubling is why the coaching staff or the team owner would put up with such behavior from these selfish premadonnas who obviously care nothing about their bosses business. These players are nothing more than employees for the owners of these franchises and for the coaching staff as well, but what kind of owner would keep an employee that admitted that he cares only about the money, not the game, not his teammates, not his coaches and definitely nothing for his bosses business. He was being paid quite well, just not what he thought he deserved. And because of this, he outwardly refused to give his all while at work, being paid the amount he agreed on at one time, but now wanted more? There is a gigantic double standard in professional football and it's one of the burning questions that I have had for years. How is it that contract law only applies to the employer in professional football, not the employee? Nobody put a gun to these men's head, forcing them to sign contracts in the millions of dollars. In fact, Jackson smiled ear to ear when he signed his original contract with the Eagles. Oh, how things change when a little success comes their way.

Typically in pro sports a player is signed to a contract, usually for a year or multi-year contract for an agreed amount of money based on a projected value of the player for the team. Sometimes players sign contracts that are heavily guaranteed and sometimes contracts are laden with incentive clauses that payoff better for the athlete if he achieves certain levels of success negotiated before the contract is signed by both parties. However, this is where the double standard comes in; if a player, let's call him "DeSean", signs a contract for $2 million a year, but plays more like a $5 million a year player? Well, he can file a grievance with the team and request for his contract to be renegotiated to pay him more because he played better than he or the owner thought at the time the contract was signed, in turn providing a better product for the owner. Sometimes if the owner refuses to rework a certain players contract, they can "hold out" or in other words they can "go on strike" not rendering services. The NFL has a CBA or collective bargaining agreement, signed with the NFLPA or NFL players Association, determining exactly what the costs are for breach of contract situations where players refused to report to the team or owners breach the contract in some way, but the CBA has other purposes as well. They have come to a certain financial number (a fine) that a player under contract must pay if he does not report for mandatory OTA's (organized team activities), minicamps, training camp and then if they continue to hold out into the regular season, the player will begin to be docked "game checks" or in other words; the checks they would be paid for each of the 16 weeks of the season, one for each regular season game. However, the player is not required to play, but if he were to return to the NFL again at some point, those fines would accumulate and they would have to pay whatever that number accumulated to. Usually, a player does come to terms, or becomes traded to another team. After coming to terms or joining the new team, usually the player ends up signing a more lucrative contract. The players almost always win the battle. In addition, it is almost customary for the team that signs the player to a contract extension or new team's contract, to forgive the debt created by being fined for not showing up for mandatory team activities. Losing game checks cannot be recovered by rule of the CBA. I believe this sends a terrible message and encourages players to figuratively hold their breath until they get what they want, like a child, and then they're forgiven for for it all because of the so-called hardship to the player. What about the hardship to the employer? I guess that doesn't count in pro football, and history supports that. Now, conversely, if a player that we will refer to as "DeSean", signed a contract for $2 million a year, but he ends up playing more like a $100,000 a year player; He's terrible! The owner of the franchise is bound by the contract to pay the player the contract terms in their entirety. If part of the contract required incentives, those funds would not be subject for compensation, but all the guaranteed money and the money paid to a player for making the cut, in other words their "base salary", is guaranteed to be paid by the owner, unless the player is cut, or released the following year. If a player is traded, the team that receives the new player also absorbs the remainder of that players contract unless it is agreed during the details of the trade that the trading team agrees to pay for all or part of the players contract, then they would split the contract amount in whatever proportion that was agreed to before the trade was consummated and the trade details of the contract signed by both parties. The bottom line is that there is a clear double standard when it comes to the acceptable paradigm of breach of contract and contract law terms for any other industry other than pro sports… at least that I'm aware of.  Now, I'm not a lawyer (and I don't mean to brag) but there are aspects of contract law that even the layperson understands for the most part. To me, contract law for pro sports seems to be stacked on the players side of benefit, not the owners. It seems that the owners take the majority of the financial risk, even though contract law for them doesn't benefit them in really any manner. In addition, if a player signs a contract with a franchise, if they're injured, they make the full amount of the contract, minus any incentive clauses built into the contract that they would obviously be unable to achieve. I don't know if there is any safeguards built-in to the contract to protect player are owner for chronic or acute injury ending a players career, but I seem to remember players getting their own high premium insurance coverage through places like Lloyd's of London, and other firms that take on high risk clients.

In closing, I just want to say that players like DeShawn Jackson represent the ugliness of the pro athlete. There are players in the NFL that wouldn't think of "dogging it" or taking off a play or just not hustling for even one play. Brian Urlacher, Kevin Willis, Earl Thomas, Marshawn Lynch or Ray Lewis come to mind. These men wouldn't dare deteriorate the league, disappoint their teammates, embarrassed themselves or their families or show up their coaches or franchise owners simply because they were unhappy about their contract, the way the game is being called by the coaches or for how much playing time they didn't get. The game means too much to players like these and they're what keeps people like me in front of the television watching what they do, their craft, their passion. I just hope that the NFL has less; DeSean Jackson's, Randy Moss', Chad Johnson's and Terrell Owens and more players like; Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Jerry Rice, Steve Largent and Raymond Berry. These are the men that belong on highlight reels for NFL films, with that classic music and those timeless narrators and magical cameramen. I don't want to remember a single play from spoiled manchild like DeSean Jackson. We don't want him and we don't need him… I just wish somebody would tell coach Andy Reid who had to watch him jog down the field against the Seahawks last year or the Philadelphia Eagles owner who had to watch it from his seat at Centurylink or his living room television set. This cannot be tolerated because it cheapens what some great men do in this game that America loves so much. We can do better and we should expect better…