Sam Acho: Proposed CBA “eliminates superstar economics”

Getty Images

Finally, someone has pointed out that which has been obvious to anyone paying attention to the ongoing CBA squabble within the NFL Players Association: The league is made up of haves and have-nots (or perhaps more accurately haves and have-mores), and they are naturally going to differ on whether the proposed labor deal is good for their individual interests.

“The fact of the matter that this is both a good deal and a not-so-good deal, depending on what kind of player you are,” NFLPA presidential candidate Sam Acho says in a video posted on Twitter. “Sixty-five percent of players in the NFL last year made minimum salaries. So when you talk about 20-percent increase effectively year over year in exchange for one extra game, that’s a really good deal. These are the kind of players that get excited about a fourth preseason game, because that’s another chance for them to show the coaches and the team their value. These are also the players that get excited about another playoff game, because for them that’s a pay raise and not a pay cut.”

This meshes with a point we’ve been making for the past few days. Roughly 20 guys on a given roster have genuine job security from one season to the next. For the other 43 (including practice-squad players), the question isn’t whether they want to play 17 games but whether they’ll eventually play in one.

“There’s a different kind of player that this deal isn’t as appealing to, and that’s the superstar player,” Acho explains. “Here’s why. Franchise tags are still in place. If you look at last year, 111 players were restricted in some way, shape, or form. That’s 111 out of 1900. It’s about half of one percent. Those players aren’t gonna love this deal. That franchise tag and the transition tag restricts them from free agency.”

(While 111 is actually 5.8 percent of 1,900, only six players were restricted by the franchise tag or the transition tag last year. That’s three tenths of one percent of all players. Five of the six franchise-tagged players in 2019 signed long-term deals; the lone exception was Jadeveon Clowney.)

“Also you look at the fifth-year option, which affects first-round picks,” Acho adds. “Thirty-two first-round picks aren’t gonna like that deal. But let’s not be fooled. This deal is a really good deal for a majority of NFL players who like most Americans who work get paid more if you play more. This deal eliminates superstar economics and it brings everyone up with a tidal wave.”

The deal isn’t a perfect deal. Collective bargaining will never create a perfect deal for one side or the other. The question is whether the deal is good enough; and NFLPA leadership has decided that it is. Acho, or some other candidate who supports the deal, seems like to eventually get the same 17 votes from members of the board of player representatives who agreed with NFLPA leadership 13 days ago.

20 responses to “Sam Acho: Proposed CBA “eliminates superstar economics”

  1. Just tell the players the new contract will take their guns away. That’s how we get people to vote against themselves in the real world.

  2. It’ll be interesting to see the details because the troubling thing the last few years for non-superstar veterans has been the trend towards guys still on their rookie contracts taking the jobs that used to be dominated by more experienced players. The veteran playing backup is becoming rarer all the time. Under the present rules, if you can’t grab a starting job you are almost certainly going to lose out to somebody still on their rookie deal.

  3. I was told there would be no math! Sam Acho probably thought so too, heh. Sounds like a reasonable guy though.

  4. Finally, someone that can see it…it is a union…in a union, some people make out more than others, but on the whole…everyone advances in the long run…the haves should be considered ‘management’…and therefore, not be part of the union. Noticed 3 or 4 ‘HAVES’ didnt even show up…enough said.

  5. While Acho is correct, not sure I would want him in charge of the decimal points. .05 is greater than .005

  6. My concern with 17 or 18 games is greater chance of injury, making the playoffs more of a crap sheet and some of the better teams will lose a key starter or two and not go as far.

    I’d like to see a 16 game limit on all players except kickers and punters.

    I don’t have an opinion on the other aspects.

  7. I don’t think the argument here is whether or not the proposed CBA is better than the current one. The question is whether or not it’s the owners best offer, and it’s probably not.

  8. Can someone show me which team from the last Playoff run was beset by injury because they played more than 16 games?

    They currently play 16 so that they can play 3 to 4 more at an even higher intensity. Yet as far as this very website reported, both teams from the last Super Bowl were completely healthy.

    This idea of more than 16 games being a health issue is a myth.

    More players get seriously hurt at the start of the Season than to the end. Serious injury.

    In fact when was the last time a player got seriously hurt in the Playoffs? Ganes 17 18 or 19 played by teams who has played their hearts out to earn the right.

    Asking allnplayers to play one moregame is not the issueit is being made out to be.

  9. I think all we need to know is that Aaron Rodgers , Richard Sherman, Eric Reid, etc. is against this CBA. I mean, (insert name here) is a guy who when faced with adversity never says a word, just puts his head down and goes to work. Never blames others. No drama. Just a regular joe who cares about everyone and is all about team.

    Oh wait….

  10. In reality, the new CBA is good for all players. It’s just not “good enough” for the superstars. Everyone will make more money than before and have better benefits. The superstars just wanted some things that they would probably never get and they would never be satisfied. No matter how good a deal is, someone will always have a problem with it.

  11. The owners were smart to craft this deal so it appeals to the majority of players. I don’t care about some guy making tens of millions of dollars whining about how it’s bad for them. Most of those players making the league minimum are the hardest working players in the league as opposed to guys with big contracts (Haynesworth) mailing it in once they sign that contract.

  12. Makes me wonder what would happen if instead of a full strike where the “have nots” go bankrupt, most/all of the big name stars who stand to benefit the most (and can afford it) don’t show up. This way, the guys who live paycheck to paycheck can still collect but an XFL type product without the leagues stars puts pressure on the owners to get a deal done. Paying fans and tv partners will get pissed pretty quickly paying full price for a lesser product, tightening the screws on the owners.

    The “haves” often claim to want to use their platform as stars for different ventures, this would be an opportunity to sacrifice for what they’re saying they believe is the greater good.

  13. Leftism at its finest. You are the best in your career field and you should be paid accordingly. Everyone gets a trophy. Redlikethepig, can always move to Mexico. You can’t own a gun there and everyone is extremely safe.

  14. What ever the propose they can and will do better so don’t sign and holdout for the goodstuff

  15. If every NFL player making more than 20 million a year quit and started their own league… I would not watch 1 second of their games.

    The NFL is the league I watch. I watch it for the teams, not the current players. I will just draft different guys for fantasy football, like I do every year.

  16. Terrytown says: The question is whether or not it’s the owners best offer, and it’s probably not.

    I agree it’s probably not, but for good reason. 10 years is a long time to have to agree on a services rendered contract when there’s so much worldwide economic uncertainty. It’s a smart move on the owners part to keep as much as a safety margin as possible while still offering a more than fair increase to the players. I’m surprised the owners and their broadcast partners are agreeing to 10 years. Do any of you feel certain of what the economy will be then?

  17. They could cap salaries at each position. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea but it could help spread the money around better.

  18. Just tell the players the new contract will take their guns away. That’s how we get people to vote against themselves in the real world.
    So true!

  19. skiski7 says:
    March 9, 2020 at 10:57 pm
    Leftism at its finest. You are the best in your career field and you should be paid accordingly. Everyone gets a trophy. Redlikethepig, can always move to Mexico. You can’t own a gun there and everyone is extremely safe.


    Congrats on the dumbest post here! You get a wonderful Keep America Great cap and some bad orange self tanning lotion.

    This is nothing like “leftism” or what ever you’re implying. This is a CBA that’s trying to get a deal done for a 17th game and giving the guys that make league min a pay raise.

  20. Pay scales should have player specific (and pertinent) standards by which contracts could be objectively created. If you are a wide receiver, there are certain things you have to do to be competent. And if you exceed those “minimums” you get an increase in pay relative to those standards.

    The only real issue will be the fake QB’s who run. These clowns would have to choose which position they are declared for and are paid for. They don’t get to double dip or receive ANY increase because they play one position while impersonating another.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.