In a league where contracts often define perception as much as performance, few topics generate as much debate as player value. That debate has recently intensified around T. J. Watt and his $123 million deal with the Pittsburgh Steelers—a contract that, despite once being viewed as a major commitment, is now facing criticism in light of shifting market dynamics and the potential for Aaron Rodgers to secure another deal.

At first glance, the comparison may seem unusual.

Watt and Rodgers play entirely different positions, operate in different phases of the game, and contribute in fundamentally different ways. Watt is a defensive cornerstone, known for his ability to disrupt offenses, pressure quarterbacks, and change games with impact plays. Rodgers, on the other hand, is a quarterback—a position widely regarded as the most valuable in all of sports.

And that distinction is where much of the debate begins.

Quarterbacks have long commanded the highest salaries in the NFL, not just because of their individual performance, but because of their influence on the entire team. A top-tier quarterback can elevate an offense, dictate game flow, and, in many cases, determine the outcome of a season. As a result, teams are often willing to invest heavily in securing stability at that position.

This reality creates a ripple effect across the league.

When a player like Rodgers enters contract discussions, it doesn’t just impact his own situation—it reshapes expectations for other players and positions. Suddenly, deals that once seemed substantial can appear modest by comparison.

For Pittsburgh Steelers, Watt’s contract represents a significant investment in defensive excellence. He is not just another player on the roster; he is a defining presence, someone who embodies the team’s identity and sets the tone on defense. His ability to generate pressure, force turnovers, and lead by example makes him one of the most valuable defensive players in the league.

So why the criticism?

Part of it comes down to timing.

Contracts in the NFL are often judged not just by their value at the moment they are signed, but by how they compare to the evolving market. As new deals are signed and salary caps increase, older contracts can quickly look outdated—even if the player continues to perform at a high level.

Another factor is positional value.

No matter how dominant a defensive player may be, the quarterback position will almost always command a premium. This creates an inherent imbalance in how contracts are perceived. A defensive star like Watt may be considered underpaid relative to his impact, but the market structure makes it difficult to align his compensation with that of elite quarterbacks.

Rodgers’ situation adds another layer to the conversation.

As a veteran quarterback with a storied career, any potential new deal involving Rodgers is likely to draw significant attention. Even at this stage, his name carries weight, and teams recognize the potential impact he can have. If he secures a new contract, it could further widen the gap between quarterback salaries and those of other positions.

This raises important questions about fairness and value.

Should contracts be based purely on positional importance, or should individual impact carry more weight? Is it fair for a defensive player who consistently changes games to earn significantly less than a quarterback, regardless of performance?

There’s no simple answer.

The NFL is a business, and contracts are influenced by a combination of factors, including market demand, team needs, and long-term strategy. While players like Watt may be undervalued in a relative sense, their contracts still reflect a balance between performance and financial constraints.

For the Steelers, the focus remains on building a competitive team.

Investing in Watt is part of that strategy. His presence on defense provides stability and playmaking ability, both of which are essential for success. At the same time, the team must navigate the broader financial landscape, ensuring that resources are allocated effectively across the roster.

The criticism of Watt’s contract may be loud, but it also highlights a deeper issue within the league.

As salaries continue to rise and the gap between positions grows, debates about value are likely to become more frequent. Players, teams, and fans will all have their own perspectives on what constitutes fair compensation.

In the end, the conversation is not just about numbers—it’s about how the game itself is valued.

And as new contracts are negotiated and old ones are reexamined, one question continues to drive the debate:

In a league dominated by quarterbacks, can even the most elite defensive players ever truly be paid what they’re worth—or will they always fall short in the shadow of the game’s most important position?