According to Wikipedia, a franchise player is an athlete who is not simply the best player on their team, but a player that the team can build their "franchise" (team) around for the foreseeable future. The misunderstanding that a franchise player is only "the best player on a team" disregards the fact that an inordinately bad team will undoubtedly still employ a player with superior skills, relative to his team. However, such a player could be so bad in comparison to players at large that labeling such a player a franchise player would be inappropriate. It is an elite status, but it is not necessarily a singular position; a large team such as an American football team might have a few franchise players at different positions. The term may be used alongside a particular position name to describe a player, such as a "franchise quarterback".
There seems to be a lot of arguing about the impact of a franchise quarterback and their importance to the team along experts and analysts. Everyone seems to think that a franchise quarterback is necessary to win championships. I agree to a certain extent, but lets not get all caught up in this quarterback mystique. Let’s look at who people argue is the best quarterback in the game. Peyton Manning has been without a doubt the most consistent dynamic quarterback of his generation. Manning however only has won one super bowl in his career.
If you look across the league, the quarterback position is important, but good teams have two things in common; they run the ball and they play good defense. No disrespect to the quarterback position, but teams that have won the Super Bowl has all had very good running attacks in the big game. Look at the one Super Bowl that Manning won. It was a game dominated by Dominic Rhodes. Even when you look at some of the elite quarterbacks that won the championship,