Top 3 QB salaries

[Jesse]

Folks are fixated on the term marketing & are trying to tie the term to the amount of actual marketing players do. That's not what this is. It's simply an additional amount teams can pay players outside the SMS. It might as well be called the 'Outside The SMS Pot Of Dough'.

That's exactly what it is.

Whether teams abuse the rules ae try to colour outside the lines is another conversation, but it was negotiated to make sure players are paid for their work off the field. This is why it has to be assigned to the things they do off of the field.

[TBURGESS]

That's exactly what it is.

Whether teams abuse the rules ae try to colour outside the lines is another conversation, but it was negotiated to make sure players are paid for their work off the field. This is why it has to be assigned to the things they do off of the field.

You're arguing what it's meant to be, what it should be and why it has to change. 

I'm arguing what it is.

[Jesse]

You're arguing what it's meant to be, what it should be and why it has to change.

I'm arguing what it is.

I'm repeating what's been told to us by the league. You are saying what you believe to be true.

[TBURGESS]

I'm repeating what's been told to us by the league. You are saying what you believe to be true.

I'm following what the contract says and explaining that's what is actually happening, which doesn't match the idea that the league is floating. 

[Jesse]

I'm following what the contract says and explaining that's what is actually happening, which doesn't match the idea that the league is floating.

I don't think we have enough evidence yet to say what's actually happening. It hasn't been around long enough.

The league has told us what it's for, but if you want to make the claims that they're lying or teams are abusing a loop hole, you have to wait for proof as such. I feel like right now your only point is that Rourke will be making a significant sum of marketing money (for the 2025 year - not last year) with no evidence of what he is or is not going to do in the coming year to earn that money.

[TBURGESS]

I don't think we have enough evidence yet to say what's actually happening. It hasn't been around long enough.

The league has told us what it's for, but if you want to make the claims that they're lying or teams are abusing a loop hole, you have to wait for proof as such. I feel like right now your only point is that Rourke will be making a significant sum of marketing money (for the 2025 year - not last year) with no evidence of what he is or is not going to do in the coming year to earn that money.

When there is a difference in what's being said and what's in the contract. What's in the contract is the only correct interpretation. 

In the contract: MM has a minimum, no maximum, no definition of what marketing means, no rules around marketing at all. 

Being said: It's marketing money, with no definition. It's being audited. Against what? There's a gentlemen's agreement. Not in writing = means nothing. 

I'm not claiming that teams are lying, or that they are abusing a loophole. They are using the contract as written. 

There is no evidence of what Rourke will or won't do to 'earn' the MM because there are no rules that say he has to do anything to receive, not earn it. 

[theaardvark]

Its like the long puported CGY under the table payments to players wives, etc.  Anyone could do it, but only some had the balls to.

Marketing money has a very distinct connotation.  Now, if Dohman and compnay think that just being on the team is "marketing", then I guess they are justified in giving Rourke big bucks for "just being on the team", making the team more of a draw by having him on the field.

You could argue that his $SMS salary is for his play, and the marketing money is for his "presence".  He does make the Lions a larger draw just by being there.

So I guess it could be seen as "marketing".

Whereas non-marquee players would need to actually make an appearance to earn marketing money.

There, explanation that fits.

[TBURGESS]

Its like the long puported CGY under the table payments to players wives, etc.  Anyone could do it, but only some had the balls to.

Marketing money has a very distinct connotation.  Now, if Dohman and compnay think that just being on the team is "marketing", then I guess they are justified in giving Rourke big bucks for "just being on the team", making the team more of a draw by having him on the field.

You could argue that his $SMS salary is for his play, and the marketing money is for his "presence".  He does make the Lions a larger draw just by being there.

So I guess it could be seen as "marketing".

Whereas non-marquee players would need to actually make an appearance to earn marketing money.

There, explanation that fits.

Congrats. You've made up a scenario that fits your opinion. Now show me where that's in the contract. 

[Jesse]

When there is a difference in what's being said and what's in the contract. What's in the contract is the only correct interpretation.

In the contract: MM has a minimum, no maximum, no definition of what marketing means, no rules around marketing at all.

"It is understood and agreed by the C.F.L. and each of the Member Clubs that any
appearance or direct commercial endorsements ("Direct Commercial Endorsements") involving
individual Player or Players, or Player Images, shall be subject to separate agreements involving
the Players and/or the C.F.L.P.A. in accordance with the provisions of the C.F.L. Standard Player
Contract and this Collective Agreement"

[TBURGESS]

"It is understood and agreed by the C.F.L. and each of the Member Clubs that any
appearance or direct commercial endorsements ("Direct Commercial Endorsements") involving
individual Player or Players, or Player Images, shall be subject to separate agreements involving
the Players and/or the C.F.L.P.A. in accordance with the provisions of the C.F.L. Standard Player
Contract and this Collective Agreement"

That's interesting. My guess is that this is talking about making agreements with commercial enterprises, not the CFL. For example when players do commercials, but it talks about the contract and the collective agreement, so I looked a bit further.


In the standard player's contract:

19. The Player agrees that his picture may be taken from time to time for still photographs, motion

pictures, television or game action photographs in Club uniform at such times as the Club may designate and the

Club shall be free to use in any media such pictures and the Player's name and biographical data for Club and

League publicity purposes without the Player receiving remuneration therefor.





The parties agree that the Club shall have the right to permit any person, firm or corporation to display for commercial purposes pictures of the Player in Club uniform with the consent of the Player and the Player shall not allow either gratuitously or for remuneration any pictures of the Player in Club uniform to be used for any publicity or commercial purposes without the consent in writing of the Club first had and obtained. The parties further agree that no such pictures may be used for commercial purposes without the written authorization of the Player and the Player shall be entitled to negotiate remuneration payable to himself for the granting of such written authorization to be paid by any such person, firm or corporation and that further use of such pictures involving four or more Players of one or more Clubs in one commercial use shall be subject to the approval of both the Canadian Football League and the Canadian Football League Players' Association as the agent of such Players.

The standard player's contract says that the club can use the player's image etc. without paying the player, but the player can negotiate with 3rd parties such as doing ads.

The collective bargaining agreement says:

ARTICLE 33: MARKETING

The C.F.L.P.A. agrees to consent to the C.F.L., Member Clubs and C.F.L., and Member Clubs sponsor usage of Player images ("Player Image" or "Player Images" as defined below) during the term of this Collective Agreement.


For greater clarity, this involves the use by the C.F.L., Member Clubs, or their respective sponsors, of any Player Image of any single Player or group of Players for commercial or other promotional purposes in any media platform, and the C.F.L.P.A. further consents to (i) the C.F.L. and Member Clubs placing logos of major sponsors on C.F.L. Player uniforms during regular season, play-off and Grey Cup games; and (ii) the sale by the C.F.L. or any Member Club of Member Club jerseys including replicas or renditions thereof bearing the surname of any Player without additional compensation being payable to the Player or the C.F.L.P.A.   .....

In consideration for the consent of the C.F.L.P.A., the C.F.L. shall pay to the C.F.L.P.A. an annual fee in the sum of $450,000.00 payable in two equal installments of $225,000.00 on June 15th and October 15th for the term of this collective agreement.
 

The collective bargaining agreement says that the CFLPA gets an annual marketing fee not individual players.

[Jesse]

That's interesting. My guess is that this is talking about making agreements with commercial enterprises, not the CFL. For example when players do commercials, but it talks about the contract and the collective agreement, so I looked a bit further.


In the standard player's contract: The standard player's contract says that the club can use the player's image etc. without paying the player, but the player can negotiate with 3rd parties such as doing ads.

The collective bargaining agreement says:
The collective bargaining agreement says that the CFLPA gets an annual marketing fee not individual players.

CFL pays the CFLPA for all their images, but cannot use the player's face. We see the images of guys wearing their uniforms.

[TBURGESS]

CFL pays the CFLPA for all their images, but cannot use the player's face. We see the images of guys wearing their uniforms.

Where are you getting that from?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

When there is a difference in what's being said and what's in the contract. What's in the contract is the only correct interpretation.

In the contract: MM has a minimum, no maximum, no definition of what marketing means, no rules around marketing at all.

Being said: It's marketing money, with no definition. It's being audited. Against what? There's a gentlemen's agreement. Not in writing = means nothing.

I'm not claiming that teams are lying, or that they are abusing a loophole. They are using the contract as written.

There is no evidence of what Rourke will or won't do to 'earn' the MM because there are no rules that say he has to do anything to receive, not earn it.

There is some kind of value for money marketing dollars audit paid to players by the league and afterward, an independent party, if you believe what Randy Ambroise said when asked at last year's state of the league address.

I will repeat that it's really hard to argue for or against the marketing dollar system because too much of it is unknown. At this point, the only thing you can really say is that it likely hasn't had much affect on who wins football games.

One other thought - seeing as Rourke's contract seems to be the lightning rod - do you know how downright stupid it would for the league to not try and market the best Canadian quarterback to play in the CFL in 40 years? So in that sense the system being flexible is really great from a pure marketing perspective if you put on that hat specifically and forget about being a fan for a second.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Where are you getting that from?

Typically common in sports CBAs.

[Pete]

There is some kind of value for money marketing dollars audit paid to players by the league and afterward, an independent party, if you believe what Randy Ambroise said when asked at last year's state of the league address.

I will repeat that it's really hard to argue for or against the marketing dollar system because too much of it is unknown. At this point, the only thing you can really say is that it likely hasn't had much affect on who wins football games.

One other thought - seeing as Rourke's contract seems to be the lightning rod - do you know how downright stupid it would for the league to not try and market the best Canadian quarterback to play in the CFL in 40 years? So in that sense the system being flexible is really great from a pure marketing perspective if you put on that hat specifically and forget about being a fan for a second.

Its not so much as arguing for or against, its more about putting clarity to it. What are the parameters, expectations etc?
No cap league has a big loophole that everyone is aware of whereby the salary cap can be so easily circumvented.
 I do like the idea of each team having one player exempt from cap, allowing them to get that difference maker for their market