What Can NFL Running Backs Learn From Strike in Hollywood?
What Can NFL Running Backs Learn From Strike in Hollywood?
Famous actors and actresses on picket lines have dominated Hollywood headlines in recent weeks, after the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) and Writers Guild of America (WGA) joining in a worker’s strike.
Their cause is straightforward: they want appropriate pay for their work, specifically residuals (or royalties) for content that is streamed online more than it was when it was first released.
Although it is not an exact comparison, what the WGA and SAG-AFTRA are fighting for is akin to the situation that running backs confront in the NFL.
Saquon Barkley, Josh Jacobs, and Tony Pollard are just a few recent instances of athletes who haven’t been able to push for higher pay during their careers and are thus at the whim of a depreciating market.
However, unlike the actors and authors, the NFL running backs and the NFL Players Association do not have a clear road to resolution.
There have been numerous suggestions about how to address the NFL’s running back compensation issue. Some have proposed creating a money pool for athletes who outperform their contracts.
Others advocated for the franchise tag to be changed or eliminated. Another crazy notion is to exclude running backs from the NFL Draft and make them free agents immediately.
All of these solutions, however, are hypothetical and speculative, and will not be available until collective bargaining agreement negotiations resume in about seven years, with the new CBA due to expire at the end of the 2030 season.
Meanwhile, NFLPA president J.C. Tretter said that players may fake injuries, but even that is a steep slope.
There is basically just one alternative that will result in any change within the year and hopefully result in better agreements for Barkley, Jacobs, Pollard, and others: running backs will have to refuse to play games in the same manner that actors and writers refused to work on television shows and movies.
It’s what Le’Veon Bell did all season in 2018 and Melvin Gordon did for 64 days in 2019. However, neither ended up with the money they coveted, and both have since expressed sorrow over their decisions.
Barkley even pondered sitting out games before the extension deadline, but added, “Anybody who knows me, knows that’s not something I want to do.”
However, it is, sadly, the best method to try and remedy the situation.
“I don’t think anything will get done until players are educated on all of the issues and have proper representation in the collective bargaining agreement negotiations,” said 18-year NFL agent Blake Baratz to media.
“Ultimately, I don’t think anything will get done until players are willing to walk off the field.”
More than one or two guys would have to miss games. As Bell pointed out on Wednesday, the running back contract situation is reminiscent of the 1998 Disney animated film “A Bug’s Life,” in which a colony of ants band together to fight oppressive grasshoppers (bear with us here) who demand a portion of their resources in exchange for allowing them to live peacefully.
The NFL players, like the ants in the movie, significantly outnumber the NFL owners, therefore a united front may bring about change in the league.
A full-fledged union strike occurred in the NFL once, in 1987, but another is improbable. But it is possible.
And just look at what’s going on in Hollywood right now as a result of the work stoppage: Production on several high-profile television shows and films has been halted, and studio bosses are apparently expecting the strike to last months.
That means the industry will be paralyzed while unions and their bosses bargain over money and influence.
NFL players skipping out would devalue the league’s product and give them — specifically, running backs — bargaining power at a time when they urgently need it.
Why do NFL running backs require leverage?
Because there is essentially no opportunity for a player to push for greater money, the running back market has been stagnant since 2011 and has actually fallen since 2020. And why is this so?
In the current CBA, there is no motive for a team to give a player a larger contract. The rookie wage scale, the fifth-year option for first-round picks, and the franchise tag provide teams with up to seven years of contractual control once a player is drafted, leaving little room for a player to negotiate a higher compensation.
“Your leverage is your ability to move on and have someone else pay you [in free agency],” explained Baratz. “The owners are astute. They made it impossible for players to have leverage if they refused to pay.”
This is where, ideally, the NFLPA would step in to help. It’s how actors and writers joined forces in a strike against the studios – the two unions decided to refuse to work until their demands were met.
However, this did not occur for NFL players during the most recent CBA discussions in 2020. And no one knows whether it will happen in 2030. And when there were movements, nothing truly changed.
The 2011 lockout came to an end. Both Bell and Gordon returned to the league but did not receive the contracts they desired. The NFL continues to play its games. This is because the owners recognize that there are more players prepared to settle for less than fight up for more.
“You can say you don’t want the franchise tag and fight for it all you want, but what’s the NFL’s reason for giving up on anything?” Baratz stated.
“They don’t have to give in on anything because they know that half of the players in the league live paycheck to paycheck, and a year off their career is like dog years, and they don’t have the ability to do it.” So they’re aware that they’ll have to fold at some point.”
RBs must band together. In the Hollywood strikes, wealthy and well-known celebrities rapidly joined the picket lines with the poorer and underpaid workers. This has already happened with running backs, when prominent players took to Twitter to raise awareness about the wage disparities.
They also allegedly created a group text chat to discuss the subject further, and they allegedly chatted on a Zoom call organized by Austin Ekeler of the Los Angeles Chargers on Saturday night.
The main difference is that running backs are fighting for the highest contracts, but the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikers are fighting for everyone, especially those who make the least.
When actors like Jason Sudeikis and Susan Sarandon refuse to work, their presence validates the requests of their underpaid or lower-paid counterparts, even if they are not personally harmed by the outcomes.
Meanwhile, running backs will almost certainly be arguing for better pay for more renowned players such as Barkley, Jacobs, and Pollard. They want a true open market, not one tainted by the franchise label.
It’s a great cause, but lesser-known gamers may be less likely to join, if only because they’d be fighting for something they might never have in the first place.
The most serious issue confronting any potential player strike
While the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes have detailed objectives, there is no unified goal for running backs as of yet. Part of it is due to the union, while the other is due to individual player decisions.
The goal cannot simply be “more money,” because it would be twisted into a negative story. Bell and Gordon were chastised for declining to play. Players who request more money are often viewed as the bad guys because their motivations appear greedy when compared to the reality of their million dollar paychecks.
In the larger scheme of things, the difference between Barkley or Jacobs making record-breaking money and signing a market-level contract is minimal.
As first-round picks, they’ve already amassed generational riches for their families, and that won’t change whether they sign a four-year, $64 million contract (Christian McCaffrey’s agreement) or a three-year, $36 million contract (Nick Chubb’s contract).
Pollard and Ekeler, both late-round or undrafted guys, would stand to benefit the most from this situation. However, this is an even smaller group.
So perhaps it could be stated in terms of “more guaranteed money.” However, these types of transactions typically only affect the top players. Only nine of the 73 running backs who signed free agency contracts or contract extensions in the last two years garnered at least $5 million in guaranteed money.
And there is currently an NFLPA investigation into alleged conspiracy by owners to deny fully guaranteed contracts to quarterbacks, so why would they cave for running backs?
The true goal should be to eliminate the systems that tether running backs to a depreciating market, such as the rookie wage scale, the fifth-year option for first-round picks, and the franchise tag.
The removal of at least one of the mechanisms used by teams to regulate player contracts increases leverage, which promotes better deals and, eventually, more money.
However, none of this is likely to alter for several years. But perhaps a little skepticism can oil the wheels of that theory, which has gained traction in recent weeks.
