Joe Burrow keeps pressuring the Bengals to pay their best players

[Arkansas Bengal]

• By
• Mike Florio

  

Published February 12, 2025 04:42 PM

•  
•  

 

The Bengals have plenty of good players. The question is whether they can — or will — pay them what they’re worth.

 

Quarterback Joe Burrow, who has been paid what he deserves, said last week that the Bengals “have the cap space to get it done” with the team’s best players who currently are in line for new contract: receiver Ja’Marr Chase, receiver Tee Higgins, defensive end Trey Hendrickson, tight end Mike Gesicki.

“I want to make it happen,” Burrow said. "[W]e all want to stay together. When you have guys that are motivated like that I think you can get those things done.”

 

Burrow also said he’s willing to restructure. In an interview with the Pardon My Take podcast, Burrow elaborated on how that works. In so doing, he put more pressure on the team to do what’s needed.

 

“You could convert some of the money to a signing bonus, which will lower the cap hit,” Burrow told PMT, via Ben Baby of ESPN.com. “You can push some of the money to the back end of the contract. That lowers the cap hit. And then when you get to the back end of the contract, you can restructure it and convert it to a signing bonus. You can also just take less money.”

 

Few franchise quarterbacks ever take less money when they are still in their prime. Even delaying payment until later in the deal is a rarity. The usual approach is to take the salary for the current year, drop it to the league minimum, and convert the rest to a signing bonus.

 

Burrow has a $25.25 million base salary and a $10 million option bonus due in 2025. His cap number will be $46.25 million. His minimum salary would be $1.17 million. That allows $24.08 million of his base salary to be converted to a bonus that would be spread over multiple years.

 

With a five-year proration, this would clear $19.264 million in cap space without costing him a penny or deferring any amount of his cash to a future year.

 

It would boost the Bengals’ projected cap space for 2025 from, via spotrac.com, $49.467 million to $68.731 million. A new deal for Chase would also drop his $21.8 million cap number under the fifth-year option.

 

The bottom line is there’s a way to do it. As Burrow told PMT of the newest Super Bowl champions, “The Eagles are paying everybody. That seems like the way. Whatever they’re doing.”

 

But it’s one thing to be able to work the salary-cap niceties and another to cut the checks. The issue in Cincinnati doesn’t seem to be cap management but cash distribution.

 

As team owner Mike Brown said last year, “You can’t just pay people willy nilly.” In theory, you can. The question is whether you will.

 

The Bengals paid Burrow, because they really had no choice but to do it. With other players, they’ll possibly be more inclined to reload with draft picks (who are much, much cheaper) and let high-priced veterans walk. They did it with safety Jessie Bates III. They were going to do it with running back Joe Mixon, until the Texans came calling for a trade.

 

For Higgins, who would earn $26.16 million in 2025 if tagged for a second time, keeping him instead of drafting his replacement becomes a very expensive proposition — especially if Chase wants (as he should) $40 million or more per year.

 

That’s really the issue for the Bengals. The cap can be handled. The cash must be available. Are the Bengals willing to placate Burrow by writing big checks to multiple teammates? Or will they drag their feet and pinch their pennies?

 

If the Bengals choose the latter route, the clock could start ticking toward Burrow reaching the same conclusion that Carson Palmer once did.

Palmer explained it like this in 2019: "[I]f the most important thing is the financials and the second-most important thing is winning, then you don’t have a chance. And it’s so important that ownership is willing to do what it takes to win.”

 

Palmer determined after eight years in Cincinnati that winning wasn’t the most important thing. As Burrow enters year six, he’s essentially challenging the front office to prove that things have finally changed.

 

If they haven’t, the overriding question will be whether Burrow, like Palmer, will finally decide that he’s had enough.

 

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/joe-burrow-keeps-pressuring-the-bengals-to-pay-their-best-players

[-GoBengals-]

if mike florio got hit by a bus today the world would be exactly the same as it is now.

[sparky151]

Burrow should pressure the front office. They won't change their methods without external pressure. Hamilton County should likewise be asking what the family is going to do to field a winning team if they want taxpayer paid improvements. 

[|BlackJesus|]

Burrow is not only the best QB in the league, he's also the best OC and GM. 

[dex]

13 hours ago, sparky151 said:

Burrow should pressure the front office. They won't change their methods without external pressure. Hamilton County should likewise be asking what the family is going to do to field a winning team if they want taxpayer paid improvements. 

Spot on. 

 

Burrow should keep doing what he's doing. Don't change a thing.

[T-Dub]

I wish he didn't feel the need to keep doing that.

[alleycat]

7 hours ago, T-Dub said:

I wish he didn't feel the need to keep doing that.

He's setting the stage: make him happy, or don't be surprised (to try to paint him the villain), when he decides he has to leave due to management malpractice.

 

The only people who will hold it against him are that rare breed, all too common in Bengaldom, of FO apologists who somehow think defending bad owners or coaches proves their kind of loyalty is the real kind (these are the same people who love their daddies for all the abuse they heaped on them because it "made them stronger," so you kind of have to pity them a little). 

[Jamie_B]

If the front office doesnt get things done and Joe decides to move on are we going to call him a quitter too?

[Dautcom08]

Must be post-season February.  Lots of negative assumptive thoughts.

[I_C_Deadpeople]

1 hour ago, Jamie_B said:

If the front office doesnt get things done and Joe decides to move on are we going to call him a quitter too?

I know I will quit the team if that happens

[Cricket]

1 minute ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

I know I will quit the team if that happens

Nobody knows exactly how hurtful it will be to the Bengals to “lose” Joe Burrow in such a manner, but I certainly hope that the front office understands that the backlash from the fans will be nothing like what they have ever seen before.  😡

 

 

[New Jersey Bengal]

They force him out I'm out

[T-Dub]

16 hours ago, Cricket said:

Nobody knows exactly how hurtful it will be to the Bengals to “lose” Joe Burrow in such a manner, but I certainly hope that the front office understands that the backlash from the fans will be nothing like what they have ever seen before.  😡

 

 

 

After all the negativity leading up to the draft that he chose to ignore?  The "Lost Decade" of the 90's would be nothing compared to fucking things up with Joe, they'd be in absolute free-fall.  I'd question whether ownership could even survive that long enough to win people back.  They'd be pariahs.

[Le Tigre]

3 hours ago, T-Dub said:

The "Lost Decade" of the 90's would be nothing

As a season ticket holder during those days, I will testify that—even as bad as it was—Riverfront was at or near capacity on home Sundays. And not just opposing “fans”…quite the contrary. 
 

The power of team loyalty, I reckon. 

[sparky151]

If the family drove Burrow away, we might see a serious attempt at eminent domain vs the team. A Burrowless Bengals would have a lower value and the price is determined by a jury. I doubt the Brown family would fancy their chances in that situation. The city or county would have to come up with several billion dollars but could probably borrow it with the team as security. Maybe the voters would approve a 1% sales tax hike or something to get it done. 

 

 

[Le Tigre]

37 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

If the family drove Burrow away, we might see a serious attempt at eminent domain vs the team.

Ohio has a number of hurdles in order to grant eminent domain. 
 

• The Ohio General Assembly decides whether to use eminent domain. 
   
• The government must show that the use is necessary and for a public purpose. 
   
• The government must pay the owner just compensation, which is the fair market value of the property. 
   
• The government can take property before a jury decides compensation in certain circumstances, called a “quick take”. 

The rights of government to seize private business is even murkier. It can be done, but it must show “dilapidation of business against public (not private consumer business) interests”. Say what one will about the Bengals business model—“dilapidation” is not in the same solar system. 

[dex]

I think some people view this thing too narrowly. The Bengals front office has a credibility problem with their own players. It isn't just about Higgins/Chase/Burrow. Whenever a well-respected and productive player like Bates or Reader leave in free agency, the whole team feels like the organization isn't really going for it. An indoor practice facility (which they have not really needed since they haven't made the playoffs recently) and snazzy new lockers are just band-aids.

 

I can't prove this but if the front office had been able to close the extension with Chase right at the start of the season, I firmly believe the Bengals would have beaten the Patriots in the home opener. I just feel like that was a gut punch to every player on the roster. They need to feel like the organization is doing what it takes to win championships. Right now there are too many doubts.

[sparky151]

1 hour ago, Le Tigre said:

Ohio has a number of hurdles in order to grant eminent domain. 
 

 

• The Ohio General Assembly decides whether to use eminent domain. 
   
• The government must show that the use is necessary and for a public purpose. 
   
• The government must pay the owner just compensation, which is the fair market value of the property. 
   
• The government can take property before a jury decides compensation in certain circumstances, called a “quick take”. 

The rights of government to seize private business is even murkier. It can be done, but it must show “dilapidation of business against public (not private consumer business) interests”. Say what one will about the Bengals business model—“dilapidation” is not in the same solar system. 

 

Yes, the taking has to be for a public use and fair value paid. But during the "Save the Crew" saga, it became clear that it applies to more than just real estate. When OSU wanted to get rid of the south campus bars, they took the real estate. But the bars operated on an asset light model as tenants. Campus Partners, the OSU real estate development arm condemned not only the real estate but the businesses too, taking their liquor licenses, names, and IP as well as their glassware, etc. They didn't want the bars just relocating a block east from High street to Indianola.

 

That was a friendly takeover with generous payouts for the bar owners but the Brown family would be gambling if they think the city and county can't take over the team. 

[sparky151]

13 minutes ago, dex said:

I think some people view this thing too narrowly. The Bengals front office has a credibility problem with their own players. It isn't just about Higgins/Chase/Burrow. Whenever a well-respected and productive player like Bates or Reader leave in free agency, the whole team feels like the organization isn't really going for it. An indoor practice facility (which they have not really needed since they haven't made the playoffs recently) and snazzy new lockers are just band-aids.

 

I can't prove this but if the front office had been able to close the extension with Chase right at the start of the season, I firmly believe the Bengals would have beaten the Patriots in the home opener. I just feel like that was a gut punch to every player on the roster. They need to feel like the organization is doing what it takes to win championships. Right now there are too many doubts.

 

Well, yes, of course there are doubts. Burrow is just one of many people expressing them. They want the family to operate in a more aggressive manner to maximize the team's chances of winning. Athletes and fans are competitive. It's pretty obvious that profitability and risk aversion are higher priorities for the family than winning a championship. They were just happy to come close in the 3 prior attempts and think the fans and players should be happy too. 

[Le Tigre]

2 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

Yes, the taking has to be for a public use and fair value paid. But during the "Save the Crew" saga, it became clear that it applies to more than just real estate. When OSU wanted to get rid of the south campus bars, they took the real estate. But the bars operated on an asset light model as tenants. Campus Partners, the OSU real estate development arm condemned not only the real estate but the businesses too, taking their liquor licenses, names, and IP as well as their glassware, etc. They didn't want the bars just relocating a block east from High street to Indianola.

 

That was a friendly takeover with generous payouts for the bar owners but the Brown family would be gambling if they think the city and county can't take over the team. 

Much would depend on jurisdiction. In the Campus Partners cases cited, they—using OSU and the City of Columbus (as state actors)—made the threats of eminent domain under the premise of “dilapidation”…which of course, the area/businesses were just that. Alls well which ends well, and Papa Joes and the other run-down shit holes were more than handsomely paid.

 

Shift to a profitable business, with a beautiful facility, and a part of a well-developed business sports complex (remember to include GABP into this equation). The County—as owners of both properties…and still under contract for both properties—would have to convince the state legislature that seizures of both properties and business interests (including the Reds), were like Papa Joes/Magnolia Thunderpussy/Apollos. 
 

Tall order. 

[I_C_Deadpeople]

2 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

Well, yes, of course there are doubts. Burrow is just one of many people expressing them. They want the family to operate in a more aggressive manner to maximize the team's chances of winning. Athletes and fans are competitive. It's pretty obvious that profitability and risk aversion are higher priorities for the family than winning a championship. They were just happy to come close in the 3 prior attempts and think the fans and players should be happy too. 

I have said this many times but the risk aversion has nothing to do with the profitability. They could change their salary cap philosophy tomorrow and they will still get the same annual money from the league and all contract monies paid out will still eventually hit the cap. 
 

What they averse to is up front monies and guarantees BUT they get guaranteed money each year. Their risk aversion is simply bad judgement . 

[sparky151]

1 hour ago, Le Tigre said:

Much would depend on jurisdiction. In the Campus Partners cases cited, they—using OSU and the City of Columbus (as state actors)—made the threats of eminent domain under the premise of “dilapidation”…which of course, the area/businesses were just that. Alls well which ends well, and Papa Joes and the other run-down shit holes were more than handsomely paid.

 

Shift to a profitable business, with a beautiful facility, and a part of a well-developed business sports complex (remember to include GABP into this equation). The County—as owners of both properties…and still under contract for both properties—would have to convince the state legislature that seizures of both properties and business interests (including the Reds), were like Papa Joes/Magnolia Thunderpussy/Apollos. 
 

Tall order. 

 

Are you sure the legislature has to approve all uses of eminent domain? When cities take over some abandoned property whose owners can't be found, I don't think they have to get state approval. 

 

Regarding the Bengals, the city or county could take them without also taking the Reds. Nobody is saying it would be urban renewal, it would be providing entertainment to the public. There are plenty of examples of property being taken for fairgrounds, arenas and such to show that qualifies as public use. Ohio tightened the law post-Kelo but I'd imagine pro sports still qualifies. DeWine wants to raise a tax to give them money. 

 

The obstacles would be political will and finances, not the law. I'd guess the Brown family are Republicans but they aren't big donors like the Haslams. The latter will probably ask the General Assembly to bless their team moving from downtown to the suburbs via an amendment to the Modell law. No doubt there will be some anti-tax opposition to Hamilton (and perhaps adjoining) counties raising a tax to pay for the team. But it may be a great deal for the county if they buy the team for $4 billion and sell it 5 years later for $6 to owners committed to staying in Cincinnati and running the team in a more aggressive manner. 

 

[Le Tigre]

1 hour ago, sparky151 said:

 

Are you sure the legislature has to approve all uses of eminent domain? When cities take over some abandoned property whose owners can't be found, I don't think they have to get state approval. 

 

Regarding the Bengals, the city or county could take them without also taking the Reds. Nobody is saying it would be urban renewal, it would be providing entertainment to the public. There are plenty of examples of property being taken for fairgrounds, arenas and such to show that qualifies as public use. Ohio tightened the law post-Kelo but I'd imagine pro sports still qualifies. DeWine wants to raise a tax to give them money. 

 

The obstacles would be political will and finances, not the law. I'd guess the Brown family are Republicans but they aren't big donors like the Haslams. The latter will probably ask the General Assembly to bless their team moving from downtown to the suburbs via an amendment to the Modell law. No doubt there will be some anti-tax opposition to Hamilton (and perhaps adjoining) counties raising a tax to pay for the team. But it may be a great deal for the county if they buy the team for $4 billion and sell it 5 years later for $6 to owners committed to staying in Cincinnati and running the team in a more aggressive manner. 

 

Kelo, of course, was a SCOTUS decision—and raft with error, leading to abuses. 
 

Our Supreme Court performed some fixes in Norwood v Haney, saying that the Ohio Constitution does not permit eminent domain to be used solely for economic development. 

 

“We hold that an economic or financial benefit alone is insufficient to satisfy the public-use requirement,” the Court declared. “In light of that holding, any taking based solely on financial gain is void as a matter of law, and the courts owe no deference to a legislative finding that the proposed taking will provide financial benefit to a community.” 

The Ohio Supreme Court also ruled state courts must apply “heightened scrutiny” when reviewing governmental uses of eminent domain, and that cities could not constitutionally condemn non-blighted properties based on the idea that they might eventually become blighted.  

“After all, if one’s ownership of private property is forever subject to the government’s determination that another private party would put one’s land to better use,” the Court declared, “then the ownership of real property is perpetually threatened by the expansion plans of any large discount retailer, ‘megastore,’ or the like.” The Ohio Supreme Court’s holdings represent a dramatic improvement in the legal protections for home and business owners in the state. 

For all intents and purposes, that ruling did away with Campus Partners and their machinations. The legislature also enacted SB 7…giving some governmental restraint. 
 

The Modell Rule would not apply in your scenario, in my opinion. Nothing would be moved in order to satisfy “public interest”. 
 

The legislature has provided oversight (I apologize for stating it must approve takings beforehand): HB’s 64 and 698. These require a lot of purpose by governmental seizures to succeed. 
 

I stand by my contention that, because the County also owns GABP, that the Reds would be ancillary to “takings” against the Bengals. And, it all still—by established law—is dependent on “dilapidation”. No such thing exists in the scenario 

 

 

 

[sparky151]

I mentioned that the Haslams might use their influence with the General Assembly to get the Modell law modified to allow their move from downtown Cleveland to the suburb of Brook Park, next to the airport. Whether the legislature changes the Modell law or not won't affect the Bengals, at least in the near term.

 

Kelo involved a city in Connecticut taking a woman's house to transfer to a real estate developer to build a corporate campus that would pay more in property taxes. SCOTUS upheld the taking but it provoked a backlash and many states tightened their laws.

 

If Hamilton county or the city took the Bengals to operate the team, they wouldn't do so in partnership with a new owner, they would be the new owner, ala the Packers. The NFL would hate the idea but can't do much about it. Once the city/county owned the team, they would be free to sell to someone else, within the usual NFL rules. But the NFL couldn't use its rule against public ownership to block eminent domain. They'd just lose yet another antitrust suit and owe treble damages.

 

So, I stand by my contention that public ownership is simply a matter of political will and financial resources. Those are not easy obstacles to overcome but if the team drives Burrow away, public fury may translate to public ownership. 

[T-Dub]

10 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

As a season ticket holder during those days, I will testify that—even as bad as it was—Riverfront was at or near capacity on home Sundays. And not just opposing “fans”…quite the contrary. 
 

The power of team loyalty, I reckon. 

 

This would be so much worse.  We didn't know back then they were charging for Gatorade and making the team share last season's jockstraps.   Exact contract numbers & cap space were a mystery to most people.

 

Like, imagine how bad it was, and then how much worse it'd gone if you knew about all this stuff back then as it was happening.

 

I think we can rule out any eminent domain scenario, but they're standing at the corner of "Win a couple rings" and "Cardinals of the AFC".

 

It's more interesting than the usual off-season, at least.