Collusion suspicions continue for NFL head-coach pay

When a report emerged earlier this week that Lions offensive coordinator Ben Johnson's asking price "spooked some teams," I objected to the characterization without more information.

What was the asking price, and did Johnson truly seek that amount?

Many believe the NFL colludes when it comes to head-coach pay. There's a loose understanding, as the theory goes, among owners as to how much will and won't be paid to coaches.

If it's happening, it's a blatant antitrust violation. Of course, the NFL has never had to worry about a head coach making an antitrust claim that, for example, his pay was kept lower than it should have been by a collective desire to keep the pay scale below a given limit.

For first-year, first-time head coaches, there's possibly an accepted range. If a coordinator has never before coached an NFL team, anything that goes beyond the wink-nod understanding of what coaches will be paid could result in the team being "spooked."

And it's not because they can't or won't pay the money to a great coach. It's that they don't want to get the cold shoulder driving up the price, the same way Browns owner Jimmy Haslam did after giving quarterback Deshaun Watson an unprecedented five-year, fully-guaranteed contract.

Here's the closest thing to a smoking gun that owners don't want to get "in trouble" for paying coaches too much money. Many of the highest-paid coaches have an official salary that gets reported to the league, along with money funneled to the coach from other companies owned and operated by the owner. If there wasn't some degree of collusion, there would be no reason for the extra payments to be disguised.

If Johnson's expectations "spooked" NFL teams, maybe they were spooked not by the prospect of paying fair value to a great coach but by the problems they'd cause for themselves by blowing the curve.