Salary Disclosure, NDAs and NCAs

[theaardvark]

Weirdly enough, yes, QB's deals are almost immediately sussed out.  And weird situations, like Hansen's return for a ELC max contract for 2022 with the promise of a lot more in 2023 was "revealed" by the press.  Many years of Stamps QB's being underpaid led to discussions of under the table payments, leading to conjecture re:Bighill's WBB contracts being "great value", especially when renegotiated.  These are all discussions that cannot be made without reporters finding out actual contract details.

I'm sure, if they wanted to, reporters could find out every contract in the CFL. But would the legwork be worth it?

So, keeping the contracts secret really has no legitimate value.  Top contracts, interesting deals, will all be revealed, and usually quite accurately. 

No reason that the CFL/CFLPA should continue the ineffective subterfuge...

[Jesse]

Collaros salary was transparent. It will impact the salaries of other potential free agent QB's.

So it has everything to do with the downside of transparency. I don't know how you can say otherwise.

Agents and teams are going to know the numbers even if we don't. There's no additional impact by bringing fans in the loop (except for positive engagement).

There is no downside.

[Blue In BC]

Agents and teams are going to know the numbers even if we don't. There's no additional impact by bringing fans in the loop (except for positive engagement).

There is no downside.

We've never heard anything from the CFLPA or the league that they feel this would be a good thing. Obviously it isn't something that has been done.

Start a petition and send it off to them or have a reporter bring it up in any interview with the Commish.

[TBURGESS]

We've never heard anything from the CFLPA or the league that they feel this would be a good thing. Obviously it isn't something that has been done.

Start a petition and send it off to them or have a reporter bring it up in any interview with the Commish.

Never heard anything from either of them saying it would be a bad thing either.

Saying that's the way it's always been doesn't mean that's the right way to do it. When I became a manager I told my folks at my first meeting... 'Anyone who says that's the way we've always done things' gets to take the meeting minutes at the next 3 meetings. Say it twice and it's 6 meetings. No one ever said it twice & it forced people to justify why things were done the way they are, which often led to good changes being made.

[the paw]

Agents and teams are going to know the numbers even if we don't. There's no additional impact by bringing fans in the loop (except for positive engagement).

There is no downside.

I think agents and players always had access to salary information anyway. 

I think the rationale for not making it public, is that it (in theory) avoids situations where fans ride players out of town because they aren't "earning their contract".  It would also avoid some of the tinfoil hat speculation that would occur (and occasionally crops up here) about coaches and players gaming the system for various incentive bonuses that might be in the contract.

Having said that, I don't think the rationale holds up any more.  Social media and citizen journalism has created a climate where most of the contracts are leaked eventually (at least the big ones), so its kind of a moot point. 

[Blue In BC]

Never heard anything from either of them saying it would be a bad thing either.

Saying that's the way it's always been doesn't mean that's the right way to do it. When I became a manager I told my folks at my first meeting... 'Anyone who says that's the way we've always done things' gets to take the meeting minutes at the next 3 meetings. Say it twice and it's 6 meetings. No one ever said it twice & it forced people to justify why things were done the way they are, which often led to good changes being made.

You can't prove a positive because you never heard a negative.

I'm no where near being a status quo individual. In fact in my working career I was specifically the manager to change away from status quo situations. Change is made because of advantage found, not changing to where disadvantage is found.

Transparency would be good for some players and bad for others IMO. That would be bad for the " team " just as it would be bad within any non sport environment.

It's interesting that some posters are dead set in maintaining the status quo of the ratio. The league has constantly tweaked that away from status quo. 

The world is a funny place.

[blue_gold_84]

You can't prove a positive because you never heard a negative.

The same way you can't prove a negative because you've never heard a positive.

[Blue In BC]

The same way you can't prove a negative because you've never heard a positive.

You're getting funnier by the day. As I said in anther post, somebody could start a petition to send to the league and / or the CFLPA. They could ask any media personality that goes to interviews with the Commish about the topic.

You could even start a poll on the site to see whether this idea is considered something that should happen or whether they even consider it an important to them.

I can't think of any company I ever worked for ( besides unions ) that wanted this information shared.

[Jesse]

You're getting funnier by the day. As I said in anther post, somebody could start a petition to send to the league and / or the CFLPA. They could ask any media personality that goes to interviews with the Commish about the topic.

You could even start a poll on the site to see whether this idea is considered something that should happen or whether they even consider it an important to them.

I can't think of any company I ever worked for ( besides unions ) that wanted this information shared.

Obviously, companies wouldn't. Much harder for them to take advantage of their workers.

That point aside - Sports leagues are in an entirely different position because salary disclosures increase fan engagement. Ambrosie stood at a podium a few weeks ago saying we need to create more content. Salary cap transparency is free content for the league that would get fans talking and engaging with each other.

[Blue In BC]

Obviously, companies wouldn't. Much harder for them to take advantage of their workers.

That point aside - Sports leagues are in an entirely different position because salary disclosures increase fan engagement. Ambrosie stood at a podium a few weeks ago saying we need to create more content. Salary cap transparency is free content for the league that would get fans talking and engaging with each other.

Even if that was true it's a risk / reward question.

I mentioned that 246 players are potential free agents. We usually see about 70 players move to other teams each free agency. The lack of roster stability is a problem for fan interest and / or loyalty across many teams. Attendance is dropping.

Content and fans talking can be useful but does it relate to the on field product or game day experience?

I'm waiting to see how new ownership in Vancouver tries to resolve these sorts of issues. He has come up with decent ideas but it's still in the early stages. High profile music acts before or during half time. Discounted tickets and opening up the upper stadium level.

Bringing back the dinner and game with bus transport to and from the game. Incorporating Indigenous culture activities as part of the game day experience.

Bombers and some teams have done that with flying in people from across the province.



1 year contracts, NFL option ideas are good for players and not so good supporting the roster stability. We often hear arguments both supporting or complaining on one side or the other of that argument.

[TBURGESS]

The status quo is the opposite of change. You must question 'what we've always done' in order to change it.

I haven't heard anyone ask for it doesn't mean that it isn't something that folks want or even that folks haven't asked for it. It doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do or that it wouldn't make things fairer for most people.

It's funny that some folks assume that players salaries at the bottom of the scale would rise if everyone knew how much they were making. That assumption means that the 'No Disclosure' folks know that salary disclosure means justifying salaries & that the bottom of the scale are currently getting screwed.

A fan poll would be ignored and everyone knows that.

Do the owners want all salaries to be public? I doubt it. No employer wants their employees to know what everyone makes because it will cause problems for them. From a management point of view, it's scary to have to justify everyone's salary, including their own. It's easier to give the Type A people a pay bump when they ask for it knowing that they are the only ones who will and there are way more of the other types of people who won't get the salary bump.

[Jesse]

Even if that was true it's a risk / reward question

Stop. There's zero risk or downside to making the league more transparent.

Content and fans talking can be useful but does it relate to the on field product or game day experience?

This is literally what the NFL is built on. 24/7, 365 content throughout the year. More eyeballs, more advertisers, more money, etc.

The rest of your post is talking about completely separate issues that have no bearing on the discussion at all.

[blue_or_die]

You can't prove a positive because you never heard a negative.

I'm no where near being a status quo individual. In fact in my working career I was specifically the manager to change away from status quo situations. Change is made because of advantage found, not changing to where disadvantage is found.

Transparency would be good for some players and bad for others IMO. That would be bad for the " team " just as it would be bad within any non sport environment.

It's interesting that some posters are dead set in maintaining the status quo of the ratio. The league has constantly tweaked that away from status quo. 

The world is a funny place.

The only way it's "bad" for some players is because they would come under scrutiny if they're underperforming for what they're paid. That's a GOOD thing because it holds them accountable and a market correction would be used for their next contract. It already happens because teams know player salaries anyway so as others have said, the public knowing presents little extra influence nor downside.

There SHOULD be friction and questioning between those earning high vs. low salaries because it challenges us to question the pecking order at any given time and allows for a true free market of labour to efficiently and accurately assign value. Not having this means that some people will make more money vs the value they bring as well as the opposite and actually makes the company run less efficiently. The reason companies are less likely to adopt this sort of freedom of information is because, namely, they would rather have staff stability rather than having a dynamic bidding scenario. As long as everyone is quiet, they must be happy, right?

A perfect example is a coworker of mine who accidentally found out that a counterpart was making 40% more than her. She thought that she was being compensated at market rate and how would she possibly know she's not? She since quit and found a similar job getting paid much more. Her livelihood was literally changed forever because she accidentally found out that she was being lowballed. If there was a way of knowing more and sooner, that never would have happened and the company paying her more would have found her sooner and would have gotten that much more productivity out of her.

[blue_gold_84]

I can't think of any company I ever worked for ( besides unions ) that wanted this information shared.

Your anecdote is proof of nothing. Absolutely nothing.

You're getting funnier by the day.

How ironic.

Stop. There's zero risk or downside to making the league more transparent.

This is literally what the NFL is built on. 24/7, 365 content throughout the year. More eyeballs, more advertisers, more money, etc.

The rest of your post is talking about completely separate issues that have no bearing on the discussion at all.

Agreed.

[Blue In BC]

The only way it's "bad" for some players is because they would come under scrutiny if they're underperforming for what they're paid. That's a GOOD thing because it holds them accountable and a market correction would be used for their next contract. It already happens because teams know player salaries anyway so as others have said, the public knowing presents little extra influence nor downside.

There SHOULD be friction and questioning between those earning high vs. low salaries because it challenges us to question the pecking order at any given time and allows for a true free market of labour to efficiently and accurately assign value. Not having this means that some people will make more money vs the value they bring as well as the opposite and actually makes the company run less efficiently. The reason companies are less likely to adopt this sort of freedom of information is because, namely, they would rather have staff stability rather than having a dynamic bidding scenario. As long as everyone is quiet, they must be happy, right?

A perfect example is a coworker of mine who accidentally found out that a counterpart was making 40% more than her. She thought that she was being compensated at market rate and how would she possibly know she's not? She since quit and found a similar job getting paid much more. Her livelihood was literally changed forever because she accidentally found out that she was being lowballed. If there was a way of knowing more and sooner, that never would have happened and the company paying her more would have found her sooner and would have gotten that much more productivity out of her.

Stop. There's zero risk or downside to making the league more transparent.

This is literally what the NFL is built on. 24/7, 365 content throughout the year. More eyeballs, more advertisers, more money, etc.

The rest of your post is talking about completely separate issues that have no bearing on the discussion at all.

Billion dollar industry. 60K - 100K stadiums filled to capacity in most cities. Super Bowl tickets costing $5000 - $30000K? Population of 350M.

The rest of my comments were about status quo versus no status quo. Just gave another and more hard fought question about whether something should change.

BTW, your example of a co-worker. That's a bigger discussion about equity eliminating sexism and racism from the equation. I wouldn't agree that transparency was the primary issue. I also wouldn't agree that paying somebody more guarantees greater productivity.


One or more posters suggested there is zero risk. I said it's a risk to the company and you just provided that example. It creates friction. In your example 40% was significant enough to quit. What happens if the difference is lower into the 5%-10%? That creates friction.

What a person believes they are worth compared to another is a slippery slope. Counterpart is a wide meaning word. Similar age, training, experience, work ethic are never identical.