Contract holdouts used to irritate me in professional sports. An athlete and a team come together on a deal with the intentions of honoring said commitment. Then the athlete feels underpaid and holds his team hostage until he gets what he wants. Considering teams can’t ask for their money back when an athlete gives a Barry Zito-type performance year after year, the whole notion of a holdout didn’t sit right with me.
But that was a rather juvenile way of looking at the situation. In the NFL, teams can’t ask for money back but they can cut a player without honoring their commitment, so why shouldn’t athletes bargain for more money when they’ve outperformed their contract? At the end of the day, whether you’re a professional athlete or working out of a cubicle, you use the leverage you have to get as much as you can (within reason, of course) before that team or company decides it’s done with you.
Over the past week, there have been multiple reports that Chris Johnson will not report to training camp without a lucrative new contract. Set to earn just $800,000 this year despite being the NFL’s best back, it’s hard to blame Johnson for forcing the Titans into a corner. He still has two years left on his current deal, but it’s a deal in which he has outperformed.
There are a couple of reasons why the Titans shouldn’t give into Johnson’s demands (assuming he does holdout, that is), starting with the position he plays. Running backs just aren’t as valuable as they were 8-10 years ago. It’s a passing league now and if teams concentrate their efforts into building a decent O-line, they don’t have to break the bank for a top back. And considering the NFL is now a two-back league, committing a bunch of money to that position seems rather unproductive.
