Labor strife putting brakes on long-term Manning deal

February 16, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

What’s taking so long?

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay says he wants to make quarterback Peyton Manning the highest paid player in the National Football League, and you’d think Manning would be happy to oblige.

So why haven’t the two sides signed a deal? After all, they’ve had more than five weeks since the Colts season ended Jan. 8.

While I’m certain Manning wants his fair share, I don’t think he’s trying to break the bank. So why can’t Irsay and team president Bill Polian write up a contract worth a few bucks more than the contracts of Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning and Tom Brady and lock up their all-pro quarterback for the rest of his career?

Here’s why:

Signing a long-term deal before NFL owners and players sign a new collective bargaining agreement could have a devastating impact on the Colts efforts to surround Manning with the supporting cast he needs to win another Super Bowl.

That’s why the Colts slapped the franchise tag (a one-year $23 million deal) on Manning on Tuesday, and why I don’t expect the team to sign Manning before there’s labor peace in the NFL.

The new collective bargaining agreement could have a pretty dramatic impact on the salary cap, an issue lost in all the talk of the two sides being $1 billion apart, an adjusted rookie pay scale and the prospects of an 18-game season.

The Green Bay Packers most recent financial statement reported that player costs during the 2009 season were $161 million, up $22 million, while total operating revenue by comparison was up $10 million. The Packers, which are publicly owned, are the only NFL team to disclose team financials.

The Packers’ situation is being used by team owners like a hammer to pound home their point that player payrolls must be controlled.

If the owners get their wish of doling out a smaller percentage of team revenue to players, that could be a serious hit to the salary cap.

Manning’s large slice of the Colts’ total players salary pie could become extra large if the owners are able to strong-arm the players’ union into signing a contract that is less favorable than the one that expires March 3.

Manning (and his agent Tom Condon) knows a lot more about profit and loss statements, salary caps and collective bargaining agreements than Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson gives him credit for.

He knows another Super Bowl ring could do more for his legacy than the short-term cash of a fat contract.

Manning knows he can’t make a serious bid for another Super Bowl surrounded by a cast of practice squad-quality players. He knows the smartest move is to sit tight right now, and see how this ugly battle between the owners and players union works out.


Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1