Football <\/p>\n
The nature of football causes evolution over time. Some positions rise in importance, others fall to the wayside \u2014 and the cycle continues. That said, the NFL is in the midst of a mammoth problem when it comes to running backs, and something has to be done in order to address the issue of player compensation. For years waning RB pay has been unchecked, and now we\u2019re stuck in a situation where one of the league\u2019s most physical positions, with the shortest career span, is now seeing players earn a fraction of what they did in the past.<\/p>\n
This was underscored on Wednesday with the news that Saquon Barkley of the Giants will not be signing his franchise tender<\/a>, keeping him out of offseason drills. The former No. 2 overall pick, who earned $38.6 million on his rookie contract couldn\u2019t agree to a long-term deal in New York, and was set to play under a one year, $10.09M tag figure.<\/p>\n If that seems disgustingly low, it\u2019s because it is. The franchise tag figure is based off the average of the Top 5 highest paid players at the position, or 120 percent of the player\u2019s previous salary \u2014 whichever is higher. With the majority of teams choosing to allow running backs to hit free agency and draft a replacement, rather than re-sign players to big deals it\u2019s led to that highest paid average to plummet. Now running back is a lowest-paid position in the NFL, and it\u2019s not really close.<\/p>\n The only position that comes close to running back in pay is tight end, but the huge disparity comes in career length. A top-tier tight end can easily expect two-to-three major extensions over the life of their career. Travis Kelce, for instance, is now in his second major contract extension, both of which have paid him an average of $8-10M a year since entering the league in 2013. Meanwhile Ezekiel Elliott, who was drafted three years after<\/em> Kelce, is currently an unsigned free agent who will likely never match Kelce\u2019s career earnings.<\/p>\n The point isn\u2019t to make an apples and oranges comparison of Kelce to Elliott. We all know the NFL has moved to a passing game which has made traditional, between-the-tackle running backs less valuable. Meanwhile an elite pass-catching tight end like Kelce is the most valuable player on the Chiefs offense who isn\u2019t named \u201cPatrick Mahomes.\u201d The issue is that running backs already have the shortest average career in the NFL at 2.57 years<\/a>, and with Barkley not getting an extension, paired with Elliott being released, we might have seen the last chance for running backs to get any <\/em>real money in the future.<\/p>\n In 2021 I wrote about the football risk of giving running backs huge contracts<\/a>. Some people (correctly) took umbrage at the suggestion it wasn\u2019t worth paying running backs. I could have articulated the point better, but my general idea was that the NFL salary cap is based on resource allocation. Giving a substantial percentage of the cap to a running back is a bad football move for an organization. That doesn\u2019t mean RBs don\u2019t deserve<\/em> to get paid. Of the running backs I mentioned 18 months ago the current climate is terrifying.<\/p>\n We\u2019re talking about five of the biggest names at the position at the time, and less than two years later they\u2019re either gone, or on their way out. <\/p>\n This is trickling down to the draft as well. If this was 10-15 years ago we\u2019d be discussing Bijan Robinson as the potential No. 1 pick in the draft. Now the Texas phenom running back could easily be available in the 20s due to positional de-emphasis. Our latest mock has him going at 27th to the Cowboys<\/a>. <\/p>\n With the current NFL\/NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement running until 2030 there\u2019s not a lot of room for relief for running backs. However, in the interest of the health of football it behooves both sides to try and correct this issue.<\/p>\n There needs to be a structure in place that can both protect the salary cap of teams when it comes to such a short-lived position in RB, but also ensures the long-term financial health of players who might only see their small, rookie-scale contract before fighting for peanuts in free agency.<\/p>\n The best way to do this would be to have a separate pool of money, which exists outside of the salary cap, and is earmarked for players at positions like running back. This overflow pool would allow for a top-tier RB to earn an extra $10-15M a year, without risking the financial stability of the roster as a whole.<\/p>\n Over time the positional impact of players could be reassessed. Let\u2019s say in five years the league moves back to elite running backs and removes the need for safeties, for instance. Now that additional spending cap could be diverted to address another underpaid position to ensure they remain taken care of.<\/p>\n Nobody wants an NFL to exist where the running back position doesn\u2019t exist. Furthermore, nobody wants to see once-bright stars compete in the NFL for a few years, and then find themselves out of the league, struggling to stretch their rookie contract money. It\u2019s fine that football is changing tactically, but there\u2019s a human element to this that has to be addressed.<\/p>\n Right now what\u2019s happening to RBs isn\u2019t fair. Something has to be done.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
What\u2019s the solution?<\/h2>\n