Adam Crowley

Adam Crowley

Want to know more about Adam Crowley? Get their official bio, social pages & articles on WBGG-AM!Full Bio


I understand why some players would vote "yes" on the new CBA

Up until yesterday, I was totally against the new proposed CBA. I just didn’t think there should be a rush to get it done.

There still isn’t a rush, per se, but I’m starting to come around on it.

I thought players should have asked for guaranteed contracts, the elimination of the franchise tag, less offseason activities, 50 percent of the damn pie. Especially if the owners were intent on going to 17 games.

All of that stuff would help the upper, what, 5 percent of NFL players? What about the rest of the lot?

Under the new proposed CBA, league minimum players would be paid an extra 100,000 dollars. To them, that’s a lot. Expanded rosters would mean that more players would be able to meet league minimums and hang around rosters. There would be an increase in the salaries for practice squad players.

For the 17th game, originally, the most that would be paid out was going to be 250,000 dollars per player. Well, there’s no longer a cap. Players will get their pro-rated salaries if they’re making more than 4.2 million dollars over the course of the year.

Sports fans tend to look at the CBA and say, “those millionaires are getting richer!” Well, this CBA is more about the bottom of the roster guys.

In 2004, Tom Brady was the highest paid QB in football. He made about six million dollars. Now, the question is whether or not Pat Mahomes will make 40 million dollars a year. The last CBA helped the rich players get richer.

It set it up for the mega star, and those guys are still reaping the benefits. Now, it’s time for the “little people."

Guaranteed contracts, the elimination of the franchise tag, and a 50/50 split wasn’t going to happen.

So the NFLPA should be happy to get what they can for the bottom of the work force. That appears to be what’s happening here.

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content