MORE CARPING ABOUT COACHING CONTRACTS

We’re developing a bit of a thorn in our side regarding the inability of some football writers to grasp the realities of a contract -- or their conscious effort to distort such realities in order to stir up the audience. Here are the realties. A contract is a document pursuant to which two parties enter into an agreement. Each side gives what the law calls “consideration.” In an employment contract, the employee’s consideration is his time, effort, and attention. The employer’s consideration is the pay and benefits that the employee will receive. For NFL coaching contracts, the duration of the deal is one of the key terms. The longer the contract, the greater security the employee has, given that the coach will receive the balance of the contract (less coaching money earned elsewhere) if he is fired before the contract expires. The only downside for the employee is that he loses the ability to take another job for the life of the deal, unless it’s an NFL head-coaching job or unless his current employer allows him to do so. But the folks who have penned the recent wave of articles slamming teams like the Browns and the Chiefs for allowing assistant coaches under contract to twist in the wind need to keep two things in mind. First, the teams have the right to do it. Second, the coaches will get paid if they’re ultimately fired. As to the Browns, Pat McManamon of the Akron Beacon Journal recently took issue with the decision of the new regime not to allow some assistant coaches to interview for other jobs. But why is that a problem? It’s one of the rights that the team secured by providing employment and significant sums of money to the employee. It’s the same reason why the Jets had no reason to allow offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer to leave, despite the obvious media campaign that Schottenheimer and/or those close to him launched in order to push the Jets into making Schottenheimer the head coach. At the end of the day, Schottenheimer realized he had no other option -- and so he opted to secure even further job security by signing a contract extension. Though McManamon (whom we know and respect) seems to suggest that the Browns are possibly trying to frustrate their assistant coaches to the point that they resign and thus won’t get paid, the truth is that forcing the assistants to stay potentially costs the Browns money. If one or more of the assistants ultimately are released at a time when it’s too late for them to find other work for the 2009 season, the Browns will be on the hook for their full salaries. If the Browns let them leave on their own for other jobs, then the Browns owe them nothing. So while whining about a situation that seems shoddy on the surface might score points with the readers, few of them would be feeling badly if they knew that the men in question will earn well into the six figures this year regardless of whether they work for the Browns, work for someone else, or don’t work at all.