I am just about done with pro sports...

Demiurge

bobman1235 wrote: »

They also generally die a lot younger than the average person and often live the rest of their lives in pain. How much would you have to be paid to endure that?

The above article / quote / analogy is ludicrous, I agree, but there's more to the story than "millionaires playing a game." The NFL nets BILLIONS every year.

Oh, the poor things.

I look at my 83 year old grandfather today who was a master carpenter for most of his life and realize why he's in such pain now. He must have been a real chump providing for his family in such a manner without a multi-million dollar a year salary and endorsement deals, huh? :rolleyes:

Is it a wonder why it's usually the prima donna NFL stars that do all of the pissing and moaning about slavery and not the humps that are making the league minimum and are just happy to be there?

If you don't like that the league is making billions, and your compensation isn't suitable, stop *effing* playing.

bobman1235

Demiurge wrote: »

Oh, the poor things.

I look at my 83 year old grandfather today who was a master carpenter for most of his life and realize why he's in such pain now. He must have been a real chump providing for his family in such a manner without a multi-million dollar a year salary and endorsement deals, huh? :rolleyes:

Is it a wonder why it's usually the prima donna NFL stars that do all of the pissing and moaning about slavery and not the humps that are making the league minimum and are just happy to be there?

If you don't like that the league is making billions, and your compensation isn't suitable, stop *effing* playing.

And if you're just going to pretend that the four loudmouths who make stupid comments about slavery and act like prima donnas represent the entire squad of 1700 or so roster players in the entire NFL, STOP EFFING WATCHING.

Demiurge

bobman1235 wrote: »

And if you're just going to pretend that the four loudmouths who make stupid comments about slavery and act like prima donnas represent the entire squad of 1700 or so roster players in the entire NFL, STOP EFFING WATCHING.

Makes me wonder if you bothered to read the post...

Is it a wonder why it's usually the prima donna NFL stars that do all of the pissing and moaning about slavery and not the humps that are making the league minimum and are just happy to be there?

That's the majority, right there.

bobman1235

Look, Demi, if your grandfather the carpenter was one of a tiny percentage of the population who could do his job, making him almost indispensible, and he was paid a tiny percentage of the net income for his company? Yes, he was a chump, and he should have quit. He wasn't. We do not live in a purely merit-based society. "Important" jobs are not the ones that make money, "popular" jobs are.

I think if the NFL players who are at the top of the game -- and prima donnas or no, there's a reason we pay what we do to watch them -- SHOULD quit if they're not paid what they think they're worth. The problem with that is that football is the only sport I actually enjoy, so I have a vested interest in them staying. I want the product (the games) to be as good as it can be, and that means having the best players on the field. Instead, if things go the way they're going, we (fans) get nothing. Anyone here who says they'd rather watch scrubs are delusional or just being flippant. You can go to your local high school on any Friday and watch scrubs who "care" about the sport. They also generally suck at it, and unless it's your kid (or you're one of those weirdos who cares way too much about his high school) you don't care.

EndersShadow

Joe08867 wrote: »

I hate paying from 100-175 per person for a football game mid season. Why not bring the price down were it should be. Say 50-75 for the game.

Personally I would rather take the ticket cost, invest it in beer and burgers and put the remainder toward a bigger TV or projector :biggrin:

Nothing like sitting in your comfy recliner with your own drinks that cost 10000x less than stadium ones with the ability to pause, take a wizz and not miss anything

That and traffic to and from the event is not nearly as a PITA to deal with lol....

bsoko2

All of this sounds like the oil compainies telling members of Gongress that they deserve the tax breaks even though they made 35 billion last year. They claim other companies get tax breaks so they should to. And gas is over $4 a gallon! Still the fan/consumer still foots the bill no matter what.

Gadabout

I read the thread last night and have been thinking about it a bit. My comments don't deal with the fox news story, I certainly can't and won't defend the attitudes of some players. That being said you don't think Jerry Jones has the same kind of ego? He just states his positions more eloquently.

First of all this is a "lockout". This was initiated by the owners. In 2008, the owners exercised their option to back out of the agreement 2 years early. The players and the players union have repeatedly stated that they liked the existing deal that they had last year and the years before. Yes, they would have liked a few changes but overall they thought it was a pretty good deal for the players. If the players had initiated this, it would be called a "strike". The owners didn't feel they were getting their proper share of the profits and wanted to renegotiate the contract, hence the early opt out. Once it gets to contract negotiations then everything is on the table and everybody is going to scream for what they personally and collectively think is best for their side.

The NFL shares TV revenue and has a salary cap. To me this is a good thing as it has made the league very competitive unlike baseball where the sharing is different. We usually continue to see the same teams year after year at the top and the others where they usually are. In reality, the Yankees have player expenses of $236 million while the Pirates have player expenses of just $61 million. Kind of hard to compete with a team that can spend 4 times what you do in Salaries. The NFL changed all this several years ago with the better revenue sharing plan and salary cap that is the same for all teams. In my opinion, this has made the game better and more competitive for all the teams in the league.

Yes, the salary cap can be circumvented by signing bonuses and a few other things, but generally every team deals with the salary cap and what they are going to pay the various players every year when they put a roster together. Yes, there are some very high dollar contracts in the NFL but most of the of the players make the league minimum. The salary cap structure allows you pay a few of the big dogs that you think deserve it and the rest get the minimum. Now the minimum salary is a pretty decent salary. In 2010, for rookies it was $325K and for 10+ year vets it was $860K. The league minimum salaries are not guaranteed. No pay if you don't play.

Also, I think most NFL players would be considered elite athletes. From a pool of 100K high school students, 9000 will play college football. From those 9000 college athletes, only 310 will be asked to camps or drafted. From those 310 only 215 make NFL rosters. That's 0.2%, on average from a pool of 100,000 high school athletes that make the NFL.

On the other side, somebody is funding and managing all the salaries that need to be paid, facilities so the teams can play/train and the support structure that each team needs. There is a lot of money involved and a lot of risk. This risk is what the owners take on and they deserve to be compensated for this as well.

So, here we sit in the middle. Each side fighting for their share of who deserves more. Ideally, they would find the magic numbers and everyone would walk away happy. That probably won't happen, but you should make your own decision as to deserves the larger side of the pie (even if it is a sliver larger). Do the owners deserve the larger share for the all the dollars they finance and risks they take? Do the players, the talent, deserve the larger share of the dollars?

For me it will always fall on the side of the talent. Yes, I marvel at how nice and big the cowboy stadium is, but I watch football to see the players compete. I can appreciate what the owners have done and how hard they have worked, but I still watch football to see the talent of it's elite players. Perhaps an analogy might help you make your decision. You go out and buy a CD. Who deserves the largest portion of the revenue from that sale. The artist that created and performs the music or the label that the artist has signed with?

Just my $.02 (well perhaps a bit more than that)

Scott

Demiurge

bobman1235 wrote: »

Look, Demi, if your grandfather the carpenter was one of a tiny percentage of the population who could do his job, making him almost indispensible, and he was paid a tiny percentage of the net income for his company? Yes, he was a chump, and he should have quit. He wasn't. We do not live in a purely merit-based society. "Important" jobs are not the ones that make money, "popular" jobs are.

I think if the NFL players who are at the top of the game -- and prima donnas or no, there's a reason we pay what we do to watch them -- SHOULD quit if they're not paid what they think they're worth. The problem with that is that football is the only sport I actually enjoy, so I have a vested interest in them staying. I want the product (the games) to be as good as it can be, and that means having the best players on the field. Instead, if things go the way they're going, we (fans) get nothing. Anyone here who says they'd rather watch scrubs are delusional or just being flippant. You can go to your local high school on any Friday and watch scrubs who "care" about the sport. They also generally suck at it, and unless it's your kid (or you're one of those weirdos who cares way too much about his high school) you don't care.

He wasn't a tiny percentage of a population that could do his job, just like NFL players aren't a tiny percentage of the population that can do theirs. To perform at their level? Sure. A very small number of people can play the game as it's structured today, but the level at which they play still depends entirely on the individual athlete.

That's why right now some earn more than others. Nnamdi Asomugha is worth way more to a team than all of the other no name free agents out there. He should be compensated more, just like crybaby Adrian should be.

Just like carpenters, pipe fitters, architects, lawyers, and on and on. There's no set wage/salary for a carpenter, just like there shouldn't be a set salary for playing football in the NFL unless the NFL feels compelled to offer one to make sure they still have fans. It's in their best interest not to short change anyone.

If they don't compensate their athletes at a level they're willing to play for, they will have a crappy product on the field or none at all. Amazingly, the NFL will cease making much money each year with a crappy product on the field or none at all.

It's crazy how well the free market works when it's allowed to work unencumbered. We're so used to thinking that everyone is getting *effed* these days.

Why am I supposed to feel sorry for or compelled to sympathize with a bunch of millionaire crybabies that are simply mad that their rich bosses, who invested capital in their business, make more than them?

I'm a fan of the sport, not the egos. If this crashes the NFL (it won't), so be it. I'll find something else to do on Sunday's in fall just like I do the other 5-6 months out of the year there's no professional football.

The owners can hold out because they have deeper pockets. I only feel sorry for those NFL players who realize just how blessed they are to play a child's game professionally and be compensated handsomely for it and just want to put on that uniform again this year.

Interesting to think about where this would all be if a ridiculous union that wants to fill it's own pockets wasn't in the way of the NFL and it's on-the-field employees and they could hash this out on their own.

Joe08867

EndersShadow wrote: »

Personally I would rather take the ticket cost, invest it in beer and burgers and put the remainder toward a bigger TV or projector :biggrin:

Nothing like sitting in your comfy recliner with your own drinks that cost 10000x less than stadium ones with the ability to pause, take a wizz and not miss anything

That and traffic to and from the event is not nearly as a PITA to deal with lol....

That is why I don't go to games anymore either. I realized how good I had it at home.

bobman1235

Demiurge wrote: »

There's no set wage/salary for a carpenter, just like there shouldn't be a set salary for playing football in the NFL unless the NFL feels compelled to offer one to make sure they still have fans. It's in their best interest not to short change anyone.

If they don't compensate their athletes at a level they're willing to play for, they will have a crappy product on the field or none at all. Amazingly, the NFL will cease making much money each year with a crappy product on the field or none at all.

It's crazy how well the free market works when it's allowed to work unencumbered. We're so used to thinking that everyone is getting *effed* these days by some fat rich guy with a stogie in his mouth.

I'm supposed to feel sorry for a bunch of millionaire crybabies that are mad their bosses who invested capital in their business make more than them, though.

Jesus Christ, get over the whole millionaire crybaby thing, it's so frigging childish. The owners are "millionaire crybabies" in this situation too, they just have better publicists, but both of them are besides the point.

Regardless of that idiocy, the rest of your post is kind of my point - the market DOES work, and AS A FAN i do not want the product to suffer. If this was an auto factory with the exact same dynamic, but with a product I couldn't give a **** about, I would say 'eff 'em all.

I don't think the fans, or the players, are getting "effed" by the rich fat guy owners, or that the black athlete is being kept down by the rich white man, or any of the other nonsense tropes. I want football to be good. If the best players - the ones that get paid the most - aren't sticking around, or aren't playing at all, FOOTBALL WON'T BE AS GOOD. I don't care who you feel sorry for, or how this relates to your views on global politics and capitalism. Every Sunday for four months a year I like to watch a football game or two. Whatever has to happen to make that the most enjoyable for me, I want to happen. It is my view that the way that will happen is if the owners give in to the players wishes. Period. No wide-sweeping statements about how the market works or millionaire crybabies or anything else.

Demiurge

bobman1235 wrote: »

Jesus Christ, get over the whole millionaire crybaby thing, it's so frigging childish.

No, I don't think I will. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

When I go to ESPN no longer read about a professional athlete comparing his job status to slavery, I'll stop calling them crybabies.

bobman1235 wrote: »

The owners are "millionaire crybabies" in this situation too, they just have better publicists, but both of them are besides the point.

Is there an argument out there that NFL owners aren't rich? Perhaps I missed it.

None of the owners are crying about slavery and some of the players are, hence the thread. Far be it for me to suggest they're smarter than your average NFL athlete that they don't say such stupid things.

On top of that, they probably have a better grasp on how wealth is earned and how money works. As evidenced by the high level of bankruptcies among current and former NFL athletes.

bobman1235 wrote: »

Regardless of that idiocy, the rest of your post is kind of my point - the market DOES work, and AS A FAN i do not want the product to suffer. If this was an auto factory with the exact same dynamic, but with a product I couldn't give a **** about, I would say 'eff 'em all.

I don't think the fans, or the players, are getting "effed" by the rich fat guy owners, or that the black athlete is being kept down by the rich white man, or any of the other nonsense tropes. I want football to be good. If the best players - the ones that get paid the most - aren't sticking around, or aren't playing at all, FOOTBALL WON'T BE AS GOOD. I don't care who you feel sorry for, or how this relates to your views on global politics and capitalism. Every Sunday for four months a year I like to watch a football game or two. Whatever has to happen to make that the most enjoyable for me, I want to happen. It is my view that the way that will happen is if the owners give in to the players wishes. Period. No wide-sweeping statements about how the market works or millionaire crybabies or anything else.

They aren't going to stop playing football because the vast majority of them have no marketable skills that will net them anywhere near what the most bottom of the barrel limp dick practice squad player is pulling in.

I realize the intelligence level is low with a lot of these guys, but even a moron can figure out that they're not going to make the league minimum $325k a year (2010) humping it for a goddamn construction company.

That's why there's little sympathy from a lot of fans. That said, the NFL is making billions! They always default to that. Even though these guys are compensated more than fairly, Americans love to believe someone is getting a 12" lube free shot in the old **** chute.

I hope the owners don't give an inch and call their bluff. When fall comes around and that fat check isn't coming in for a new whip and the cheddar starts running dry they'll wish they'd have told their union to *eff* off. Several players have already expressed their disdain for those asshats.

cnh

I have no vested interest in this either way. But to say that: We're so used to thinking that everyone is getting *effed* these days. Why would one suppose 'we're used to thinking that' if there is NO basis in reality? As far as I can tell. Most people think the Free Market is some Godlike thing that will save us..if only we...if only we...if only we...? Recent elections and most political 'posturing' seems to suggest this at least?

Ciao!

cnh

bobman1235

Demiurge wrote: »

That's why there's little sympathy from a lot of fans. That said, the NFL is making billions! They always default to that. Even though these guys are compensated more than fairly, Americans love to believe someone is getting a 12" lube free shot in the old **** chute.

I hope the owners don't give an inch and call their bluff. When fall comes around and that fat check isn't coming in for a new whip and the cheddar starts running dry they'll wish they'd have told their union to *eff* off. Several players have already expressed their disdain for those asshats.

Compensated more than fairly according to who? Why do you get to decide what's fair? The only people qualified to make that determination are those involved. Your standard Joe Six Pack making 45k a year would say that even 325k a year is "unfiar" to play a game for four months a year, and that's the league minimum. Maybe we should force these guys to make teacher salaries! You're all against telling private business how to run itself until it doesn't benefit the owners? I just don't get it. You're a business owner, I'd say your'e MORE than a little biased over who you side with on this thing.

No matter how you slice it, billionaires are fighting millionaires, and everyone's calling the millionaires rich crybabies while the billionaires somehow get a pass. If it's about rich spoiled people, I'd say the richer group should be criticized. If it's about the facts of the specific case, the players union is asking for the same deal it got the year before, which was hugely profitable and agreeable for everyone involved.

Instead it's about a) hating on loudmouth athletes and b) hating on unions. While I'm not keen on either of those things, I just don't think that either of them are the point of this debate (though I suppose they are the point of this thread, given the original story).

kevhed72

Being a hardcore fan of the NFL since I can remember...sure, I could pile on the debate at this point. What I do find shocking is such a hard-hitting, controversial (although fair and balanced) story such as this came from Fox News.

Adrian Peterson's comments are at least a month old, and this article was posted yesterday. Most people will tell you Adrian Peterson is one of the most stand-up guys in the NFL, along the lines of Walton Payton, for example.

And last time I checked, the owner's signed the current deal they have with the players, and now they want out.....and instituted the lock-out.

Go Bears either way....

Demiurge

Bobman -

I get to decide what's fair as a customer of the NFL. It's called an opinion. If I don't like what they're up to, I'll stop patronizing the NFL or run my mouth like everyone else in hopes they're listening.

There's not an NFL player that's not being fairly compensated today. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, it's my opinion.

Whether or not you, me, or Tom, Dick & Harry finds the league minimum fair or unfair is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that many of these athletes aren't going to lose their multi-million dollar a year contracts as a result of the owners standing tall. The owners still have to pay big bucks to attract the talent before....*gasp*...the talent suffers. There's a wide chasm between the salaries of today and that happening, though, and the owners know it.

The NFL is not making money by running a slave operation. They know as well as anyone else that their athletes need to be compensated for an amount they're willing to play for or they won't play. When it's a union involved, all of the players who want to play can't, because their union won't let them.

That's bull ****.

Whatever the NFL can pay its athletes without putting a crappy product on the field I'm happy with as a fan.

On the matter of compensation and this whole NFL labor dispute, I have an opinion, and a consistent one at that on all matters of labor. I don't think these players are due anything other than to be compensated for doing their job. What that compensation is should be up to their employer and them, the employee, on an individual basis.

I'm of the opinion that unions should be outlawed. There's no bias. What I have is a strong, defensible opinion.

Some of the athletes are being called rich crybabies because they're acting like rich crybabies. Anyone out on their **** right now in 2011 trying to find a job has got to be rolling their goddamn eyes when Adrian Peterson or any of these other clowns makes a comment about being a slave with the kind of money they're compensated to play a sport.

I didn't say anyone could do it at the level of most of them, but compared to a lot of jobs out there that don't pay a pittance of what these big babies get, it's really a walk in the damn park to be an NFL athlete.

Some dip **** at the NFLPA sends out a letter to one of these non-thinking brick heads that can't manage their own cash (78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or have severe financial problems two years after they leave the league) and tell them that they're being screwed.

Then you get quotes from the likes of Adrian Peterson, a true dumb dumb when it comes to economics, clearly.

nooshinjohn

I wonder how much of the mega-billion dollar pie the poor toothless minimum wage shlub handing out the programs on Sunday gets... The workers that support this NFL Empire are the ones that need a bigger cut IMHO... the players and owners already got theirs. In this fiasco, the little guys are the ones getting their jobs cut and/or their salaries reduced.

The tavern owner a block away from the stadium also gets a cut in income and is forced to lay off a few people. The owners are being weenies and the players are a collective bunch of idiots by making these moves at a time when their average fan is being nickled and dimed to death at the pump on the way to the game, by the parking attendant taking twenty bucks to park, and by the ticket attendant at the gate taking 300 bucks to get in. Let's not forget the 10 bucks each for 4 beers, 8 bucks a pop for the hot dogs and the rest of the BS...

The ones who really deserve a break from all this are those that are front and center caring for the fans, not those that live in mega-million dollar estates, too busy to sign a freekin autograph or the owners flying their corporate jets to their weekend homes in the Cayman's... When the talk is about how they can be better human beings instead of richer for the sake of being rich, maybe then I will tune back in... til then, I'm done.

bobman1235

nooshinjohn wrote: »

The ones who really deserve a break from all this are those that are front and center caring for the fans, not those that live in mega-million dollar estates, too busy to sign a freekin autograph or the owners flying their corporate jets to their weekend homes in the Cayman's... When the talk is about how they can be better human beings instead of richer for the sake of being rich, maybe then I will tune back in... til then, I'm done.

No, they don't. Those people don't do anything that any other schlub could do, and thus they're worth very little, and get paid accordingly.


I understand that the rest is opinion, I just can't agree with your opinion.

Polkie2009

I see it as greed. The owners and the players are pricing themselves out of John Q. Public"s budget. In today's economy, fewer and fewer people have the kind of money to spend as nooshinjohn mentioned to go see the game. This isn't just football, baseball is just as bad. I don't watch basketball so maybe it's also affected with the greed. Those extra $300 or so bucks to take you wife and kid or kids to a game is needed to pay the mortgage,groceries,insurance,utility bills, buy gas,clothes,medical bills etc. Then if there's something left over, save for a new peice of gear:)

inspiredsports

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Saw this today...

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/05/31/frustrations-nfls-lock-prompted-controversial-remarks/

How can any of these rich, pampered and spoiled egotistical **** possibly make any comparison between getting payed millions of dollars by the NFL to play what is a childhood fantasy of most men(some women too) and the horrific plight that was slavery???:mad:

Nobody forces these douchebags to play the game. If they are so tired of it then perhaps they should work a real effin' job like everybody else and let real men of character play the game for the hell of it like Vince Papale did.

Give me a fricken' break!

Ditto!

Polkie2009

+1, I was going to add Art Donovan to that list of players who played for the game.