Bret Farve is talented enough to play as a starter in the NFL for almost any team he would join. Ironically, he may not be the starter for the team where he built his legend, The Green Bay Packers. The crux of the issue is that Farve retired earlier this year after a prolonged debate as to whether or not to play another year. He reached his decision, after some prodding by Packer management, in March. This led the Packers to begin planning their future post Farve, and not unreasonably, have prepared for another man to become their starting quarterback for the upcoming season. During the past month, Farve has sent signals to the Packers and the media that he would like to play again, and either join the Packers or another team looking for a veteran quarterback.
So, now the Packer dilemma. Whether to allow Farve to return as the starter and go back on their word to thier expected future franchise quarterback, or to allow him to play for another team and possibly him have beat the Packers at some point during the season. In an ideal world, Farve would be able to continue his career and amuse fans and fellow players alike with his grit and amazing throws. Alas, in an ideal world Farve and his fellow players would play for the love of the game, while fans could watch for free. But the NFL is full of moral hazard problems which have resulted in very complex contracts to enforce optimal behavior on the part of players and owners.
Farve’s 2001 contract illustrates how both players and management try to protect their interests and illustrate that the NFL is big business, fan emotion aside. Into 2001, Farve signed a 10 year contract worth approximately $100 million. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, anywhere from $20 to $30 million of that contract was guaranteed whether Farve performed up to the team’s expectations or not. By accepting such security, Farve effectively sold his options to choose where to play football over the next 10 years. Alternatively, Green Bay took the risk of Farve under performing or getting hurt during the term of his contract in exchange for the guaranteed money they paid. Additionally Green Bay also accepted the risk that Farve may decide to retire early, creating a succession problem for them at the quarterback position.best
Because sports has such emotional appeal, what in most circumstances is an absurd concept suddenly becomes open to debate. For example, lets say you contract with the best language teacher in town to prepare you for an exam required to get your dream job. You arrange for 20 lessons, of which 10 must be pre-paid. Unfortunately, after lesson 5 your instructor decides to retire and refunds you the 5 lessons you pre-paid. How would you feel? Would you try to find a replacement? If you found a new instructor you were very comfortable with, would you hire the original instructor if she decided to “unretire”? What if you still had a contract with the original instructor and had to hire him regardless of whether or not you hired a replacement? Now lets say that in addition to your new instructor, you also have the original instructor, but he asks that you let him out of his contract so he can train your main rival for this job? What would you do? No one wants to be in this situation, but if you were forced to pay the original instructor, my guess is you would certainly want to prevent him from training your rival.
The Green Bay situation plays out in a similar to this, except the team has guaranteed and already paid Farve tens of millions of dollars, and has made significant financial and operational commitments to adjust to Farve’s retirement. Given that Green Bay seems comfortable with its prospects without Farve for 2008 is not the same thing as saying it is comfortable seeing Farve play for a rival. It is unreasonable to think the team will allow Farve to walk away and go to a division rival and possibly ruin Green Bay’s chances for a Super Bowl win. In order to maintain that privilege, Green Bay must pay Farve approximately $10 million, which is the option they purchased with the 2001 contract. In exchange for is contract, Farve’s choice is to stay retired, accept a lesser role in Green Bay, or work out a situation with the team where he is traded to another, mutually acceptable team. Regardless of legal issues in tis contract, Farve is trying to effect his desired solution via a public relations campaign to force Green Bay’s hand. So far the team seems to be holding out for a solution that maximizes its value, regardless of the public relations nightmare it is enduring at the moment.
So what is a realistic solution to this problem? In general any solution should be tilted in Green Bay’s favor, as they have the strongest legal position, and if they have planned correctly will over come short term PR problems. At the same time, to respect the history of the game, they should be willing to make some accommodations to allow one of the greatest to play quarterback to continue entertaining. It seems to me that any solution should have as a component Farve returning or forgoing some of his guaranteed money, and an agreement that Farve will not be traded to a division rival or a losing team. While this may not result in an optimal solution for either party, it should prove workable. Farve can return to play where he is wanted with a shot to return to the playoffs, and Green bay can recoup part of its busted investment and not have to face Farve twice in the regular season. Both sides tried to minimize their risk with Farve’s current contract, and as a result neither is able to secure their current optimal outcome, but that is the fundamental nature of risk.
The Chicago Sports Guy has some Farve thoughts here.
