What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

78% of players in poorhouse by 2yrs after football (1 Viewer)

Matt Waldman

Footballguy
Great story on NFL players and finances

The statistic is downright alarming: By the time they are out of the game for two years, 78 percent of NFL players are bankrupt or financially distressed.

By Tim McManus in Philly Sports Daily

The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now.

In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end. Almost all of them are outmatched and undereducated compared to the wolves that begin circling the campfire well before the first paycheck is deposited.

History has shown that the union will fold a couple strides into a work stoppage, and will be forced to concede to the owners’ demands. They will do so because they hold almost no leverage. The men cutting the checks have enough money to survive not just a lost season but a nuclear winter, while a bulk of the players cannot endure even a small dam in the revenue stream.

Think that’s an exaggeration? Just look in your own back yard.

Despite warnings from the NFLPA, there are players on the Eagles who are financially ill-equipped for the looming lockout. Brandon Graham is not one of those people. Thanks to a first-round contract that reportedly guarantees him $14 million, as well as the guidance of a trustworthy management team, the former Michigan Wolverine is set up for long-term wealth despite short-term hurdles.

This makes him attractive to the needy and the greedy seeking some liquid – including his own teammates. By Graham’s count, at least two fellow Eagles have asked him for substantial loans to get them through the lockout.

The most he’s gotten hit up for?

“100K,” said Graham.

“They try not to make it awkward. They’ll come to you like they’re joking, but they’re serious. They’re trying to feel you out, to see what you’ll say.”

Graham always has the same reply: No.

“I’ll be like, ‘What are you going to do with it, other than blow it?’ I don’t want to be beefing with guys on my team because they owe me money,” said Graham.

It is hard to grasp that, with the league minimum around $300,000 a year, any player could be so strapped that he couldn‘t afford to temporarily do without one bonus check. How can it come to this?

For that answer, you have to go back to well before they hit the big leagues, when only a small group (which included friends and vultures alike) knew that stardom was on the horizon.

Ganglands, Jim Brown and a bike ride to Berkeley

A gangland undesirable wanted to do DeSean Jackson a favor.

Heading into his freshman year at Cal, Jackson didn’t have a car to take to school nor the means to buy one. Seeing an opportunity the shady character stepped in, and offered his vehicle free of charge.

His father – the late Bill Jackson – was concerned, and sought the counsel of a local writer whom he had grown tight with. It was suggested that DeSean go speak with Jim Brown, and a meeting was soon arranged.

It is through this meeting that the Jackson family connected with Mike Ladge, senior vice president of investments at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney who oversees the finances of some entertainment luminaries.

According to Ladge, Brown told Jackson: “OK you can take the car if you want it, but you’ve got to think – if it is ever found out that the car was bought with drug money, are you willing to throw away your college career over a vehicle?”

Jackson ended up riding his bicycle around Berkeley that fall.

“It was hard growing up in a gang-proven town and it was even harder to stay away from that environment,” said Jackson. “It was more difficult to make it to the NFL. Lucky for me I had a strong mom and dad to keep me grounded and focused. I’m successful because I was able to stay away from that environment and work hard to make my dreams come true.”

Jackson was able to make it out of Cal clean and debt free. And even without the big pay day to date, he is more than comfortable financially thanks in large part to the guidance of Ladge and Compass Management (More on them later).

He is one of the lucky ones.

Many of the future stars get sucked into the underworld of collegiate sports, where “financial advisors” dig their claws into an athlete with the lure of money now while they await their first big pay day. Before his first NFL check is even cashed a player can be in debt upwards of six figures. Best-case scenario, he starts his career having to fight out of a financial hole. Worst-case, an injury or other unforeseen circumstance prevents his first pay day from ever happening.

Of course, the greed often comes from within as well.

“I’ll have players that tell me, ‘I want to get a credit line; I want to go to Hawaii; I want a Mercedes,’ ” said Ladge. “I say, ‘You are not going to spend a dime until you get signed. You’ve been broke for 22 years. Suck it up another six months.’ But most aren’t willing to do that.”

Riches to rags

The poor decision-making and mismanagement only begin on the collegiate level.

The statistic is downright alarming: By the time they are out of the game for two years, 78 percent of NFL players are bankrupt or financially distressed.

Many fall victim to the same type of sharks who feasted on them in college. There are countless stories of money being funneled out of a player’s account without his consent, and scams that have players invest in a business that does not even exist.

“People see them as uneducated targets and they take advantage,” said Daniel Sillman, founder of Compass Management Group, which safeguards athletes through a comprehensive service ranging from financial management to marketing. Both Graham – a college friend of Sillman’s – and Jackson are under Compass’ stewardship.

Sillman explains that players are led to believe that having a financial advisor is protection enough, when in reality all that does is guarantee that your money will be played in the market. Compass’ goal is to provide a business management platform that covers tax-planning, estate-planning, trust work and education funds, for starters. Essentially, all the benefits usually allotted to the wealthy, which are inexplicably all but absent in the juggernaut NFL world.

“I will ask a client, ‘Alright, how old do you want to live to be?’ ” said Sillman. “And they will just about always say, ‘100’. I will say, ‘Alright, we have to assume that this is the only contract you will ever get. You’re 25. Let’s spread the wealth out over 75 years. All of a sudden, they say, ‘Wow. I don’t have much money.’ ”

Most don’t get that message, or simply don’t want to hear it.

A new age

The concept that the money you make in the NFL should carry you for a lifetime is a new one.

Former Eagles running back Keith Byars, for example, started working two years after his retirement in 1998. He is now the head football coach at Boca Raton High School in Florida. When Philly Sports Daily caught up with him he was swamped, his office that day filled with college coaches as he worked to find homes for his players.

“I was born 10 years too soon,” he joked.

Byars, selected 10th overall in the ‘86 draft, inked a four-year deal worth under $2 million, he said. To contrast, Graham – the 13th overall selection by the Eagles in 2010 – signed a five-year contract worth a reported $22 million.

“Less than two million over four years, that didn’t set me up for life – it gave me a great start on life,” said Byars. “I have to work.”

Byars has a unique perspective on the current NFL environment because he was a second-year player during the strike in ’87. That year, the league was forced to cancel one week of the season, and played three more with replacement players.

“We sacrificed a quarter of our paychecks that season,” Byars said. “Is anyone today willing to sacrifice a quarter of their paychecks? I don’t think so.”

Still, many of the same vulnerabilities existed in that era as they do now. A lot of the players crossed the picket lines and played on the “scab” teams. The union was ultimately broken because of one major factor – money.

“Players become dependent on checks every two weeks that have a whole lot of zeros,” said Byars. “The owners are banking on that.”

In Mom We Trust

There are those who spend lavishly, and those who are like Graham that try and not spend at all. In fact, he doesn’t even like to splurge on food, and instead has his mom cook for him every night.

She is part of a small nucleus of people around Graham that he knows he can trust. The Detroit native has seen the way the behavior of some friends and family members have changed since he began earning an NFL wage. It has gotten to the point where he can’t hang out in certain crowds like he used to, because the only topic that will be discussed is the money in his bank account.

“People say that we change when we get to this level, but it’s the people that are changing,” said Graham. “People have the wrong idea of how they think we’re living out here.”

From loved ones to strangers; entourage members to former lovers; there is a long line of people who are looking to dip their hand into the Armani pockets of these athletes.

And as Graham has discovered, sometimes the digging comes from within their own locker rooms.

“Some guys still think like a kid, like nothing bad can happen to you and somebody is going to help you,” said Graham.

“I only give out money I am not expecting to get back. I don’t want to create no monster.”

 
How did they arrive at that number?
Follow McManus on Twitter and ask him or email him. I'm sure he'll give you an answer.
Cool.I think the main question is: What qualifies someone as an "NFL player"? If this includes a lot of guys who make league minimum and aren't in the league very long (maybe even a few games - contracts aren't guaranteed), then that could account for a huge chunk of players who aren't all that wealthy a couple years later.
 
How did they arrive at that number?
Follow McManus on Twitter and ask him or email him. I'm sure he'll give you an answer.
Cool.I think the main question is: What qualifies someone as an "NFL player"? If this includes a lot of guys who make league minimum and aren't in the league very long (maybe even a few games - contracts aren't guaranteed), then that could account for a huge chunk of players who aren't all that wealthy a couple years later.
Even if they were all guys who played 3 games, made a few grand along the way, and never played again...that 78% is well above what it would be for the general population leaving college. These guys think they're making more money than they truly are, spend way above their means, and think another payday is coming...all while not building any real skills/knowledge in college that will make them employable.
 
How did they arrive at that number?
Follow McManus on Twitter and ask him or email him. I'm sure he'll give you an answer.
Cool.I think the main question is: What qualifies someone as an "NFL player"? If this includes a lot of guys who make league minimum and aren't in the league very long (maybe even a few games - contracts aren't guaranteed), then that could account for a huge chunk of players who aren't all that wealthy a couple years later.
Even if they were all guys who played 3 games, made a few grand along the way, and never played again...that 78% is well above what it would be for the general population leaving college. These guys think they're making more money than they truly are, spend way above their means, and think another payday is coming...all while not building any real skills/knowledge in college that will make them employable.
First, I'm not suggesting they are all 3-game guys. I'm just wondering how that 78% breaks down. It's definitely shocking that Mark Brunell got into his situation (from what I understand), but it wouldn't be so shocking if some 5th WR who played one season at $300k is broke 2 years later.Also, many of these guys aren't "general population leaving college" type of people. They may not be the types to grab some steady $50k/year job right out of college with a good chance at some moderate advances in their company. Some are only in college because they can play football. I guess maybe that's part of the point here.
 
How did they arrive at that number?
Follow McManus on Twitter and ask him or email him. I'm sure he'll give you an answer.
Cool.I think the main question is: What qualifies someone as an "NFL player"? If this includes a lot of guys who make league minimum and aren't in the league very long (maybe even a few games - contracts aren't guaranteed), then that could account for a huge chunk of players who aren't all that wealthy a couple years later.
Even if they were all guys who played 3 games, made a few grand along the way, and never played again...that 78% is well above what it would be for the general population leaving college. These guys think they're making more money than they truly are, spend way above their means, and think another payday is coming...all while not building any real skills/knowledge in college that will make them employable.
First, I'm not suggesting they are all 3-game guys. I'm just wondering how that 78% breaks down. It's definitely shocking that Mark Brunell got into his situation (from what I understand), but it wouldn't be so shocking if some 5th WR who played one season at $300k is broke 2 years later.Also, many of these guys aren't "general population leaving college" type of people. They may not be the types to grab some steady $50k/year job right out of college with a good chance at some moderate advances in their company. Some are only in college because they can play football. I guess maybe that's part of the point here.
Not sure I see that "they are only in college because they can play football," as a major point here. I agree it is a very tangential point, but not the main thrust of the argument. Football players, like entertainers (of most eras), are targets because the money comes fast up front. More than they know what to do with. Money management is a not a mandatory skill taught in school. And it's far from a mandatory skill taught at home. It has less to do with being smart as it does with being wise or wise enough to listen to someone with wisdom to teach you. Players are regularly duped, but they also lose money in business deals that just go bad because they weren't wise deals to make in the first place. When you have money available to make these choices with greater frequency, you're ripe to lose dough. Just curious, why is it shocking shocking that Mark Brunnell lost money?
 
they learn to afford so many excesses in life that they seem essential in retirement.

There's some story about Dr. J. IIRC it's something like this- he invested in both Pepsi and Coke "a million years ago" and while that seems ginormous, he got ripped off selling shares and "only" made 50 mil when he could have made 500 mil. He might have had 25% of each at one time. It's sorta became a legend or myth that gets harder to believe each year with exaggerations and all.

We don't have all that much to relate to in our lives. The entourage guys and how they quickly run out of money when vince doesn't have a movie is probably a decent current relative example we could discuss.

 
Take a new start-up fantasy draft in a huge league with 30-40 roster spots.

Now study it a bit and ask yourself "at what point does the shine of this wear off? At what point does it go from being excited of snagging Arod and AJ, to the point of 'I'm just filling in depth and trying to round out my team.' ?"

If you're like me and the draft I'm in right now, It's about round 6-7 where all the difference makers are gone, save for the unknown gems, etc. So, yeah, right there, you can kind of see that about 905 of the glam we associate with NFL stars is really only about 15-20% of the players. The rest, although they make generous comparative salaries, are the poor kids on the block trying to live the lifestyle that the vast majority perceives exists but are playing with far less resources.

So, yeah, I totally buy this number when I consider how many kids come intot he league with incomplete educations, peer pressure out the wazoo to live a certain lifestyle, vulturous "friends" asking for help, and sometimes a lower educational background to start with (that segment of athletes that are granted scholarship despite not truly having the academic records to support the normal requirements the university normally requires).

 
Even more sad since the NFL actually does a fairly decent job of trying to educate rookies when they come into the league. The NFL could do better though.

Mike Brown and the Bengals get bashed a lot, but it was just a year or two ago where they got into trouble because they were offering players free access to a financial advisor. The league determined that it was a benefit to the players and was getting around the salary cap rules. Seemed silly to me. Providing them with doctors, etc. when they get hurt isn't treated as a benefit for salary cap purposes.

The reality though, is that a lot of these guys dream of making it big, and assume that once they do they'll be making millions and millions of dollars for years and years and years. And for most, that never happens. But they live the lifestyle that they think a pro sports player is entitled to live anyway.

When you read this, you can kind of understand why owners may look at that and think "Why should we keep giving these guys tons of money that they just waste when it doesn't even benefit them longterm and doesn't benefit the game in any way when we would take that money and put it back into the advancement of the game through better stadiums, more marketing, etc."

 
Even more sad since the NFL actually does a fairly decent job of trying to educate rookies when they come into the league. The NFL could do better though.Mike Brown and the Bengals get bashed a lot, but it was just a year or two ago where they got into trouble because they were offering players free access to a financial advisor. The league determined that it was a benefit to the players and was getting around the salary cap rules. Seemed silly to me. Providing them with doctors, etc. when they get hurt isn't treated as a benefit for salary cap purposes. The reality though, is that a lot of these guys dream of making it big, and assume that once they do they'll be making millions and millions of dollars for years and years and years. And for most, that never happens. But they live the lifestyle that they think a pro sports player is entitled to live anyway. When you read this, you can kind of understand why owners may look at that and think "Why should we keep giving these guys tons of money that they just waste when it doesn't even benefit them longterm and doesn't benefit the game in any way when we would take that money and put it back into the advancement of the game through better stadiums, more marketing, etc."
All true. And another point to consider is that these guys are kids. Yes, I know that the position they're in and the income they make should invite more maturity, but all I have to do is reflect back on myself and my friends right after college, and I KNOW that the way I approach financial planning is vastly different. When you get that first taste of income, and you're young, you have an innate feeling that there's TIME to plan, TIME to make more money. You don't have the life experience or perspective to make the right decisions. To be clear, I'm not making excuses for the reckless decision-making, but I think we have to remember that a lot of young people in their early 20s, regardless of their wealth or educational levels, make really poor decisions. The difference for most of us is that being stupid when your young isn't a death knell because the vast majority of our income comes AS (and beyond) we mature. These guys make most of their lifetime fortunes right up front, smack dab in the middle of their "dumb ###" years. :goodposting:
 
To be fair, it must be very difficult for the mid-level or league minimum guys to be teammates and friends with some of the multi-millionaires they're around.

You leave your school, have to start over with friends, and the pressure to "live large" must be great.

 
To be fair, it must be very difficult for the mid-level or league minimum guys to be teammates and friends with some of the multi-millionaires they're around.You leave your school, have to start over with friends, and the pressure to "live large" must be great.
Absolutely, and it cuts both ways. The 1st rounder whose new to town wants to be buddies with other young players, and he knows they're playing for the league minimum. So he says, "I got this." Except that this isn't a case of one of us buying a round of beers for friends, it's the case of often dropping thousands, if not tens of thousands, on a night out because you feel like a "have" surrounded by guys who don't have as much.
 
Similar to the failures of Lotto winners. People who don't grow up with money just don't know how to handle it.

 
To be fair, it must be very difficult for the mid-level or league minimum guys to be teammates and friends with some of the multi-millionaires they're around.You leave your school, have to start over with friends, and the pressure to "live large" must be great.
Absolutely, and it cuts both ways. The 1st rounder whose new to town wants to be buddies with other young players, and he knows they're playing for the league minimum. So he says, "I got this." Except that this isn't a case of one of us buying a round of beers for friends, it's the case of often dropping thousands, if not tens of thousands, on a night out because you feel like a "have" surrounded by guys who don't have as much.
I remember reading a story about David Beckham when he came to America. The whole team went out and then the check came. He chipped in his percentage but described it as a situation where others were looking at him to pay more because he made more. He said he couldn't set that precedent. They thought he was being cheap even though he was paying his fair share.
 
Either no one has taught these players that they (most of them, obviously) have to spread their football career earnings over a lifetime or they just don't listen (or get it). They think the $ will just keep rolling in. Can't feel sorry for the stupid.

Most people would fall into the same trap. I'll show you why. If you receive $ from the IRS at tax time, you would fall into the 78% category. The #1 response as to why you want that refund is that if you had it throughout the year, you would spend it. You couldn't buy that big screen TV. The smart, pay the gov't at the end of the year and actually use the govt. $ to make more $. I of course pay near the maximum allowed without penalty.

 
How did they arrive at that number?
Follow McManus on Twitter and ask him or email him. I'm sure he'll give you an answer.
Cool.I think the main question is: What qualifies someone as an "NFL player"? If this includes a lot of guys who make league minimum and aren't in the league very long (maybe even a few games - contracts aren't guaranteed), then that could account for a huge chunk of players who aren't all that wealthy a couple years later.
Even if they were all guys who played 3 games, made a few grand along the way, and never played again...that 78% is well above what it would be for the general population leaving college. These guys think they're making more money than they truly are, spend way above their means, and think another payday is coming...all while not building any real skills/knowledge in college that will make them employable.
First, I'm not suggesting they are all 3-game guys. I'm just wondering how that 78% breaks down. It's definitely shocking that Mark Brunell got into his situation (from what I understand), but it wouldn't be so shocking if some 5th WR who played one season at $300k is broke 2 years later.Also, many of these guys aren't "general population leaving college" type of people. They may not be the types to grab some steady $50k/year job right out of college with a good chance at some moderate advances in their company. Some are only in college because they can play football. I guess maybe that's part of the point here.
Not sure I see that "they are only in college because they can play football," as a major point here.
I meant that sentence to refer to that paragraph overall and the general idea that these guys are different. They have different backgrounds than most of the general public.
Just curious, why is it shocking shocking that Mark Brunnell lost money?
Because he earned so much. But, I admit I'm not sure exactly what his situation was. I was just using his name as an example. There may be other players that are more shocking.
 
Good article Matt.For those wondering where that 78% number came from, it stems from a 2009 Sports Illustrated article about the same concept: Athletes and their financial failings.http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364/1/index.htmIt's an awesome read, with very specific examples of what can -- and does -- go wrong.
That just shows an earlier reference to the number, right? It doesn't actually detail how it's calculated?
 
The difference for most of us is that being stupid when your young isn't a death knell because the vast majority of our income comes AS (and beyond) we mature. These guys make most of their lifetime fortunes right up front, smack dab in the middle of their "dumb ###" years. :suds:
:shrug:Not sure what I would have done with $10M at the age of 22.
 
I found the Saints salaries on this link. Looks like it ignores bonuses, but 17 players made over $2 million in 2009. Using $2 million as a cut off, I'd guess that over half of that goes to taxes and agents--leaving them with $1 million/year. If you assume a 4-year career, then there were only 17 people on that team that will take home over $4 million from the NFL. Only 29 would take home over $2 million using that math. It looks like only the top 8 guys or so would really rake in the money with longer careers, huge salaries and endorsements.

I can see why $2 million to $4 million in take home pay doesn't last long in that environment at that age.

 
Interesting article and comments about NFL players that come into huge sums and lose it quickly. However, this pattern is not restricted to those making huge sums of money. This is the American way. I must have what my parents had, except that it needs to be newer and better and I need it all right now.

Saving for the future is a lost art in America.

 
The difference for most of us is that being stupid when your young isn't a death knell because the vast majority of our income comes AS (and beyond) we mature. These guys make most of their lifetime fortunes right up front, smack dab in the middle of their "dumb ###" years. :clap:
:blackdot:Not sure what I would have done with $10M at the age of 22.
:shrug: The best thing I ever did with any sum of money I had available was buy a house and 18 years later I still wish I did more than just listen to my dad about saving.
 
Good article Matt.For those wondering where that 78% number came from, it stems from a 2009 Sports Illustrated article about the same concept: Athletes and their financial failings.http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364/1/index.htmIt's an awesome read, with very specific examples of what can -- and does -- go wrong.
That just shows an earlier reference to the number, right? It doesn't actually detail how it's calculated?
That's right. I recall reading that SI article when it came out and made the rounds, and thought -- as you are -- that it would've been nice to see how that number came about. Because realistically we could make the argument that a big chunk of our American citizenry would be considered financially impaired by the same criteria, considering that the vast majority of people live paycheck to paycheck.
 
I saw a study awhile back that said that the worst way to get money is in some form of lump sum with no sort of future payment schedule. Remeember 70% of large lottery winners are also broke within a few years. Musicians and entertainers also have above average person financial bust rates. In short, most people are not good at handling money.

 
:blackdot:

That article is a bunch of hooey.

Someone tell me why I (or anyone) should care. Why should I feel sorry for the players of today, even if they do go broke 2 years afterwards. Is there someone feeling sorry for the people that work an entire year for $40K (or less)? People who live paycheck to paycheck. How about the guy that supports his wife and 2 kids on $110K/year and then loses his job? How about the guy that risks all to open a business and then it fails?

Is this article really supposed to make me (or any football fan) sympathize with the players of the CBA? The first 2 sentences tells me that I should. Those sentences read: "The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now. In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end."

BULL!

First, it IS millionaires vs. billionaires.

Second, I love how the author states wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Oh, those poor, poor athletes. How about adding 'wildly successful' in front of the athletes as well?

Third, "a race against the INEVITABLE end?" Give me a freaking break. Hey Mr. Author, these are grown (expletive) men. They can make their own (expletive) decisions. Don't try and make me feel an ounce of sympathy for these guys that blow through their money. Just last week, Bryant McKinnie had a bar tab of $100,000! You mean to tell me that I should feel sorry for him if he goes bankrupt. Tough (expletive) bounce.

So, Mr. Author (and apparently Matt Waldman), spare me the kings speech on how I should feel sorry for athletes.

:shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:)

That article is a bunch of hooey.

Someone tell me why I (or anyone) should care. Why should I feel sorry for the players of today, even if they do go broke 2 years afterwards. Is there someone feeling sorry for the people that work an entire year for $40K (or less)? People who live paycheck to paycheck. How about the guy that supports his wife and 2 kids on $110K/year and then loses his job? How about the guy that risks all to open a business and then it fails?

Is this article really supposed to make me (or any football fan) sympathize with the players of the CBA? The first 2 sentences tells me that I should. Those sentences read: "The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now. In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end."

BULL!

First, it IS millionaires vs. billionaires.

Second, I love how the author states wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Oh, those poor, poor athletes. How about adding 'wildly successful' in front of the athletes as well?

Third, "a race against the INEVITABLE end?" Give me a freaking break. Hey Mr. Author, these are grown (expletive) men. They can make their own (expletive) decisions. Don't try and make me feel an ounce of sympathy for these guys that blow through their money. Just last week, Bryant McKinnie had a bar tab of $100,000! You mean to tell me that I should feel sorry for him if he goes bankrupt. Tough (expletive) bounce.

So, Mr. Author (and apparently Matt Waldman), spare me the kings speech on how I should feel sorry for athletes.

:hot:
I agree. Hell I was pissed that my sons school sent home an empty bag begging for "loose change" donations and want me to give them my deposit bottles too. I already pay taxes for school thats enuff IMO People pray on these rich athletes and they are dumb enough to get taken, big deal I dont feel sorry for them 1 bit

 
Either no one has taught these players that they (most of them, obviously) have to spread their football career earnings over a lifetime or they just don't listen (or get it). They think the $ will just keep rolling in. Can't feel sorry for the stupid.
Have you ever moved across the country? Moved a significant distance? It was quite involved and extremely stressful right?These kids all do that and when they arrive, there is usually a coach ready and waiting to make them more tired and more sore than they've ever been in life.After that they have to learn a few hundred plays and a hundred or so names+faces with the team. Their job depends on them knowing these.The NFL trains rookies at a rookie symposium then they return to be thrust back into that life.The rookie symposium is pretty great. Every year I enjoy reading about all they had to offer the rookies. Agents (good ones) and the NFLPA also offer a wealth of information for the rooks as well. The totality of everything is too much to digest. It also involves far too much trust even in someone as ordinary as a realtor. "Real life" comes at these kids like a bullet. 5? years ago, there was a Jet(or Giant?) that drove his old beatup pickup truck and parked it next to the "hot rods" in the team parking lot, while living at a hotel along the highway. That's the alternative. He took his time and thought things through.Some college admin decided what dorm they lived in and they may not have even owned their own car yet if it's a city campus. Chances are they haven't worked much, if at all, in their life.For normal people, a move or a new job is stressful. This is everything rolled up into one. The stress these kids go through for a few months is surprisingly not enviable. The life after it is, sure, but initially...wow.
 
:sadbanana:

That article is a bunch of hooey.

Someone tell me why I (or anyone) should care. Why should I feel sorry for the players of today, even if they do go broke 2 years afterwards. Is there someone feeling sorry for the people that work an entire year for $40K (or less)? People who live paycheck to paycheck. How about the guy that supports his wife and 2 kids on $110K/year and then loses his job? How about the guy that risks all to open a business and then it fails?

Is this article really supposed to make me (or any football fan) sympathize with the players of the CBA? The first 2 sentences tells me that I should. Those sentences read: "The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now. In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end."

BULL!

First, it IS millionaires vs. billionaires.

Second, I love how the author states wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Oh, those poor, poor athletes. How about adding 'wildly successful' in front of the athletes as well?

Third, "a race against the INEVITABLE end?" Give me a freaking break. Hey Mr. Author, these are grown (expletive) men. They can make their own (expletive) decisions. Don't try and make me feel an ounce of sympathy for these guys that blow through their money. Just last week, Bryant McKinnie had a bar tab of $100,000! You mean to tell me that I should feel sorry for him if he goes bankrupt. Tough (expletive) bounce.

So, Mr. Author (and apparently Matt Waldman), spare me the kings speech on how I should feel sorry for athletes.

:hot:
:unsure:
 
:thumbup:

That article is a bunch of hooey.

Someone tell me why I (or anyone) should care. Why should I feel sorry for the players of today, even if they do go broke 2 years afterwards. Is there someone feeling sorry for the people that work an entire year for $40K (or less)? People who live paycheck to paycheck. How about the guy that supports his wife and 2 kids on $110K/year and then loses his job? How about the guy that risks all to open a business and then it fails?

Is this article really supposed to make me (or any football fan) sympathize with the players of the CBA? The first 2 sentences tells me that I should. Those sentences read: "The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now. In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end."

BULL!

First, it IS millionaires vs. billionaires.

Second, I love how the author states wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Oh, those poor, poor athletes. How about adding 'wildly successful' in front of the athletes as well?

Third, "a race against the INEVITABLE end?" Give me a freaking break. Hey Mr. Author, these are grown (expletive) men. They can make their own (expletive) decisions. Don't try and make me feel an ounce of sympathy for these guys that blow through their money. Just last week, Bryant McKinnie had a bar tab of $100,000! You mean to tell me that I should feel sorry for him if he goes bankrupt. Tough (expletive) bounce.

So, Mr. Author (and apparently Matt Waldman), spare me the kings speech on how I should feel sorry for athletes.

:excited:
And spare us the righteous indignation. I don't see Matt, or most people in this thread for that matter, arguing that we should feel sorry for the players. Instead, it's articulating a REALITY with which I think many would be surprised by, at least the magnitude of the problem. It's an informative look into just how difficult it will be for the players to sustain any kind of willpower if a hold out starts eating into their game checks. And I, for one, am glad Matt posted it.
 
I remember when Chris Cooley deposited his signing bonus (something like $7-10M) check in his bank using the drive thru teller.

 
:bow:

That article is a bunch of hooey.

Someone tell me why I (or anyone) should care. Why should I feel sorry for the players of today, even if they do go broke 2 years afterwards. Is there someone feeling sorry for the people that work an entire year for $40K (or less)? People who live paycheck to paycheck. How about the guy that supports his wife and 2 kids on $110K/year and then loses his job? How about the guy that risks all to open a business and then it fails?

Is this article really supposed to make me (or any football fan) sympathize with the players of the CBA? The first 2 sentences tells me that I should. Those sentences read: "The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now. In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end."

BULL!

First, it IS millionaires vs. billionaires.

Second, I love how the author states wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Oh, those poor, poor athletes. How about adding 'wildly successful' in front of the athletes as well?

Third, "a race against the INEVITABLE end?" Give me a freaking break. Hey Mr. Author, these are grown (expletive) men. They can make their own (expletive) decisions. Don't try and make me feel an ounce of sympathy for these guys that blow through their money. Just last week, Bryant McKinnie had a bar tab of $100,000! You mean to tell me that I should feel sorry for him if he goes bankrupt. Tough (expletive) bounce.

So, Mr. Author (and apparently Matt Waldman), spare me the kings speech on how I should feel sorry for athletes.

:shrug:
And spare us the righteous indignation. I don't see Matt, or most people in this thread for that matter, arguing that we should feel sorry for the players. Instead, it's articulating a REALITY with which I think many would be surprised by, at least the magnitude of the problem. It's an informative look into just how difficult it will be for the players to sustain any kind of willpower if a hold out starts eating into their game checks. And I, for one, am glad Matt posted it.
It's arguing a reality that a holdout will be tough on the players. Jason, that, by definition, is feeling sorry for the players. Who would post an article if they don't believe it? I.e., I don't believe in global warming. Why would I post an article that supports global warming, especially since most of that crap is supported by fringe science, IMO. I wouldn't. Matt, can post any article he pleases, but it's an article defending a ridiculous notion that people should feel sorry for the problems of financially troubled athletes. Of which, in 100% of cases is brought upon by themselves.

If that is what you (or Matt) believe, then that's fine. Just try not to hide behind a facade while posting an article that clearly exposes the opposite point of view.

Jason, I'm glad Matt posted the article as well. To that, I say; so what.

 
:lol:

That article is a bunch of hooey.

Someone tell me why I (or anyone) should care. Why should I feel sorry for the players of today, even if they do go broke 2 years afterwards. Is there someone feeling sorry for the people that work an entire year for $40K (or less)? People who live paycheck to paycheck. How about the guy that supports his wife and 2 kids on $110K/year and then loses his job? How about the guy that risks all to open a business and then it fails?

Is this article really supposed to make me (or any football fan) sympathize with the players of the CBA? The first 2 sentences tells me that I should. Those sentences read: "The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now. In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end."

BULL!

First, it IS millionaires vs. billionaires.

Second, I love how the author states wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Oh, those poor, poor athletes. How about adding 'wildly successful' in front of the athletes as well?

Third, "a race against the INEVITABLE end?" Give me a freaking break. Hey Mr. Author, these are grown (expletive) men. They can make their own (expletive) decisions. Don't try and make me feel an ounce of sympathy for these guys that blow through their money. Just last week, Bryant McKinnie had a bar tab of $100,000! You mean to tell me that I should feel sorry for him if he goes bankrupt. Tough (expletive) bounce.

So, Mr. Author (and apparently Matt Waldman), spare me the kings speech on how I should feel sorry for athletes.

:thumbup:
And spare us the righteous indignation. I don't see Matt, or most people in this thread for that matter, arguing that we should feel sorry for the players. Instead, it's articulating a REALITY with which I think many would be surprised by, at least the magnitude of the problem. It's an informative look into just how difficult it will be for the players to sustain any kind of willpower if a hold out starts eating into their game checks. And I, for one, am glad Matt posted it.
It's arguing a reality that a holdout will be tough on the players. Jason, that, by definition, is feeling sorry for the players. Who would post an article if they don't believe it? I.e., I don't believe in global warming. Why would I post an article that supports global warming, especially since most of that crap is supported by fringe science, IMO. I wouldn't. Matt, can post any article he pleases, but it's an article defending a ridiculous notion that people should feel sorry for the problems of financially troubled athletes. Of which, in 100% of cases is brought upon by themselves.

If that is what you (or Matt) believe, then that's fine. Just try not to hide behind a facade while posting an article that clearly exposes the opposite point of view.

Jason, I'm glad Matt posted the article as well. To that, I say; so what.
Shocking those this may seem, all things on internet message boards do not need to be combative. Matt saw an article that fostered DISCUSSION. And until you chimed in, there were some very rational, logical and balanced discussions going on about it. I didn't see many, if any, suggesting pity. I saw people interested in the facts of the article, what it might mean for the labor negotiations, and a broader discussion of what drives athletes to be so reckless with their finances.You appear to be inferring intent about the author and Matt where there hasn't been any. Until Matt chimes in and says, "Man, these players sure do have it tough", you're reaching and, in the process, sullying what was a pretty engaging dialog between a bunch of other folks.

 
This is hilarious! You really think I'm trying to get you to feel sorry for players? You think I sent this due to the CBA negotiations? Really?

Wow.

I think you're projecting your own issues with players onto my interest in the topic. I posted the article because I think its alarming that 78 percent of the players post-football have financial issues. I didn't say why I think its alarming. You projected your beefs with players and what they deal with onto some fictional take I never gave. Personally, I think they should do a better job saving their money and I think its insane that they don't keep better track. While I do believe they are more prone to making foolish decisions due to age, lack of experience managing money, fast money coming in,etc., it's still ultimately their responsibility.

I also posted the article because I thought the stories about Brandon Graham and DeSean Jackson were interesting anecdotes within the story. I thought it was cool that Jackson's parents sought out Jim Brown to talk to their son about the realities of potentially taking that car. I thought it was interesting how teammates were trying to hit up Graham for money.

Where the heck you got the idea I posted this as a way to influence people to emotionally sympathize with players is beyond me. I'm not Fox News Corp or some MSNBC program. I could care less what anyone thinks about the players, the owners, the league, or anything else. I just like good stories. I believe this happens to be one.

Anyhow, I'm through explaining some of the multiple dimensions that a story like this can cover.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I emailed Tim McManus. His reply:

My understanding is those employed by NFL teams. Thanks.Tim
I take that to include practice squad players and guys who play 2 games on a non-guaranteed minimum contract. I think this story has merit, but I'd like to see that number tweaked. Something like 25% of all players who earn at least $X million in the NFL are in the poorhouse after two years would be more meaningful, IMO, than the current number.
 
I remember when Chris Cooley deposited his signing bonus (something like $7-10M) check in his bank using the drive thru teller.
LOL - I remember hearing about Donte Stallworth leaving weeks of uncashed game checks in the trunk of his car. I think I talk about this on The Audible once a month. But somehow I'm trying to engender sympathy for players by posting an article about some players' experiences dealing with finances. *Warning: Mentioning Donte Stallworth in this post does not mean in any way that I endorse his winning of the Ed Block Courage Award or defend his actions with an automobile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting article and comments about NFL players that come into huge sums and lose it quickly. However, this pattern is not restricted to those making huge sums of money. This is the American way. I must have what my parents had, except that it needs to be newer and better and I need it all right now.

Saving for the future is a lost art in America.
This. It's pretty simple. I don't have a bit of sympathy for the players. And I certainly don't see it as relevent to the CBA debate. More money made will be more money wasted. Give an idiot $1K a month, he'll spend $1K (or more) a month. Give him $1K a day, he'll do the same. More money doesn't fix stupid.And the idea that someone who has the chance to go to college for free is somehow entitled to earn enough in 4-6 years to never have to work the rest of his life is crazy at the get go. Good on you if you can make enough and handle it wisely enough to do that, but the idea that it's some injustice to these guys because they have to go to work a regular job after they leave the NFL speaks loudly to their sense of entitlement.

 
:unsure:

That article is a bunch of hooey.

Someone tell me why I (or anyone) should care. Why should I feel sorry for the players of today, even if they do go broke 2 years afterwards. Is there someone feeling sorry for the people that work an entire year for $40K (or less)? People who live paycheck to paycheck. How about the guy that supports his wife and 2 kids on $110K/year and then loses his job? How about the guy that risks all to open a business and then it fails?

Is this article really supposed to make me (or any football fan) sympathize with the players of the CBA? The first 2 sentences tells me that I should. Those sentences read: "The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now. In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end."

BULL!

First, it IS millionaires vs. billionaires.

Second, I love how the author states wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Oh, those poor, poor athletes. How about adding 'wildly successful' in front of the athletes as well?

Third, "a race against the INEVITABLE end?" Give me a freaking break. Hey Mr. Author, these are grown (expletive) men. They can make their own (expletive) decisions. Don't try and make me feel an ounce of sympathy for these guys that blow through their money. Just last week, Bryant McKinnie had a bar tab of $100,000! You mean to tell me that I should feel sorry for him if he goes bankrupt. Tough (expletive) bounce.

So, Mr. Author (and apparently Matt Waldman), spare me the kings speech on how I should feel sorry for athletes.
And spare us the righteous indignation. I don't see Matt, or most people in this thread for that matter, arguing that we should feel sorry for the players. Instead, it's articulating a REALITY with which I think many would be surprised by, at least the magnitude of the problem. It's an informative look into just how difficult it will be for the players to sustain any kind of willpower if a hold out starts eating into their game checks. And I, for one, am glad Matt posted it.
It's arguing a reality that a holdout will be tough on the players. Jason, that, by definition, is feeling sorry for the players. Who would post an article if they don't believe it? I.e., I don't believe in global warming. Why would I post an article that supports global warming, especially since most of that crap is supported by fringe science, IMO. I wouldn't. Matt, can post any article he pleases, but it's an article defending a ridiculous notion that people should feel sorry for the problems of financially troubled athletes. Of which, in 100% of cases is brought upon by themselves.

If that is what you (or Matt) believe, then that's fine. Just try not to hide behind a facade while posting an article that clearly exposes the opposite point of view.

Jason, I'm glad Matt posted the article as well. To that, I say; so what.
Shocking those this may seem, all things on internet message boards do not need to be combative. Matt saw an article that fostered DISCUSSION. And until you chimed in, there were some very rational, logical and balanced discussions going on about it. I didn't see many, if any, suggesting pity. I saw people interested in the facts of the article, what it might mean for the labor negotiations, and a broader discussion of what drives athletes to be so reckless with their finances.You appear to be inferring intent about the author and Matt where there hasn't been any. Until Matt chimes in and says, "Man, these players sure do have it tough", you're reaching and, in the process, sullying what was a pretty engaging dialog between a bunch of other folks.
In GIM's defense, I thought the article's author might have a pro-player bias that was seeping in a bit. Hence the references he quoted.But I didn't assume the author's ideas, agendas or biases were Waldman's.

But having seen Waldman say he was "alarmed" at the phenomenon, as opposed to it being merely "interesting", he has clearly let on that he wears his bleeding heart on his sleeve and should be called out fo being the leftist he really is. :bag:

 
:unsure:

That article is a bunch of hooey.

Someone tell me why I (or anyone) should care. Why should I feel sorry for the players of today, even if they do go broke 2 years afterwards. Is there someone feeling sorry for the people that work an entire year for $40K (or less)? People who live paycheck to paycheck. How about the guy that supports his wife and 2 kids on $110K/year and then loses his job? How about the guy that risks all to open a business and then it fails?

Is this article really supposed to make me (or any football fan) sympathize with the players of the CBA? The first 2 sentences tells me that I should. Those sentences read: "The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now. In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end."

BULL!

First, it IS millionaires vs. billionaires.

Second, I love how the author states wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Oh, those poor, poor athletes. How about adding 'wildly successful' in front of the athletes as well?

Third, "a race against the INEVITABLE end?" Give me a freaking break. Hey Mr. Author, these are grown (expletive) men. They can make their own (expletive) decisions. Don't try and make me feel an ounce of sympathy for these guys that blow through their money. Just last week, Bryant McKinnie had a bar tab of $100,000! You mean to tell me that I should feel sorry for him if he goes bankrupt. Tough (expletive) bounce.

So, Mr. Author (and apparently Matt Waldman), spare me the kings speech on how I should feel sorry for athletes.
And spare us the righteous indignation. I don't see Matt, or most people in this thread for that matter, arguing that we should feel sorry for the players. Instead, it's articulating a REALITY with which I think many would be surprised by, at least the magnitude of the problem. It's an informative look into just how difficult it will be for the players to sustain any kind of willpower if a hold out starts eating into their game checks. And I, for one, am glad Matt posted it.
It's arguing a reality that a holdout will be tough on the players. Jason, that, by definition, is feeling sorry for the players. Who would post an article if they don't believe it? I.e., I don't believe in global warming. Why would I post an article that supports global warming, especially since most of that crap is supported by fringe science, IMO. I wouldn't. Matt, can post any article he pleases, but it's an article defending a ridiculous notion that people should feel sorry for the problems of financially troubled athletes. Of which, in 100% of cases is brought upon by themselves.

If that is what you (or Matt) believe, then that's fine. Just try not to hide behind a facade while posting an article that clearly exposes the opposite point of view.

Jason, I'm glad Matt posted the article as well. To that, I say; so what.
Shocking those this may seem, all things on internet message boards do not need to be combative. Matt saw an article that fostered DISCUSSION. And until you chimed in, there were some very rational, logical and balanced discussions going on about it. I didn't see many, if any, suggesting pity. I saw people interested in the facts of the article, what it might mean for the labor negotiations, and a broader discussion of what drives athletes to be so reckless with their finances.You appear to be inferring intent about the author and Matt where there hasn't been any. Until Matt chimes in and says, "Man, these players sure do have it tough", you're reaching and, in the process, sullying what was a pretty engaging dialog between a bunch of other folks.
In GIM's defense, I thought the article's author might have a pro-player bias that was seeping in a bit. Hence the references he quoted.But I didn't assume the author's ideas, agendas or biases were Waldman's.

But having seen Waldman say he was "alarmed" at the phenomenon, as opposed to it being merely "interesting", he has clearly let on that he wears his bleeding heart on his sleeve and should be called out fo being the leftist he really is. :D
LOL! I'm alarmed you're still a Browns fan...just saying :bag:

 
:lmao:

That article is a bunch of hooey.

Someone tell me why I (or anyone) should care. Why should I feel sorry for the players of today, even if they do go broke 2 years afterwards. Is there someone feeling sorry for the people that work an entire year for $40K (or less)? People who live paycheck to paycheck. How about the guy that supports his wife and 2 kids on $110K/year and then loses his job? How about the guy that risks all to open a business and then it fails?

Is this article really supposed to make me (or any football fan) sympathize with the players of the CBA? The first 2 sentences tells me that I should. Those sentences read: "The current NFL labor strife has been labeled a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires. The lockout could begin at 11:59 p.m. Thursday night, so the clock is ticking quickly now. In reality, it is a battle of wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Some players are millionaires, some are dead broke, and the rest are simply racing against the inevitable end."

BULL!

First, it IS millionaires vs. billionaires.

Second, I love how the author states wildly successful businessmen vs. young athletes. Oh, those poor, poor athletes. How about adding 'wildly successful' in front of the athletes as well?

Third, "a race against the INEVITABLE end?" Give me a freaking break. Hey Mr. Author, these are grown (expletive) men. They can make their own (expletive) decisions. Don't try and make me feel an ounce of sympathy for these guys that blow through their money. Just last week, Bryant McKinnie had a bar tab of $100,000! You mean to tell me that I should feel sorry for him if he goes bankrupt. Tough (expletive) bounce.

So, Mr. Author (and apparently Matt Waldman), spare me the kings speech on how I should feel sorry for athletes.
And spare us the righteous indignation. I don't see Matt, or most people in this thread for that matter, arguing that we should feel sorry for the players. Instead, it's articulating a REALITY with which I think many would be surprised by, at least the magnitude of the problem. It's an informative look into just how difficult it will be for the players to sustain any kind of willpower if a hold out starts eating into their game checks. And I, for one, am glad Matt posted it.
It's arguing a reality that a holdout will be tough on the players. Jason, that, by definition, is feeling sorry for the players. Who would post an article if they don't believe it? I.e., I don't believe in global warming. Why would I post an article that supports global warming, especially since most of that crap is supported by fringe science, IMO. I wouldn't. Matt, can post any article he pleases, but it's an article defending a ridiculous notion that people should feel sorry for the problems of financially troubled athletes. Of which, in 100% of cases is brought upon by themselves.

If that is what you (or Matt) believe, then that's fine. Just try not to hide behind a facade while posting an article that clearly exposes the opposite point of view.

Jason, I'm glad Matt posted the article as well. To that, I say; so what.
Shocking those this may seem, all things on internet message boards do not need to be combative. Matt saw an article that fostered DISCUSSION. And until you chimed in, there were some very rational, logical and balanced discussions going on about it. I didn't see many, if any, suggesting pity. I saw people interested in the facts of the article, what it might mean for the labor negotiations, and a broader discussion of what drives athletes to be so reckless with their finances.You appear to be inferring intent about the author and Matt where there hasn't been any. Until Matt chimes in and says, "Man, these players sure do have it tough", you're reaching and, in the process, sullying what was a pretty engaging dialog between a bunch of other folks.
In GIM's defense, I thought the article's author might have a pro-player bias that was seeping in a bit. Hence the references he quoted.
Yes. That is where my "beef" is.
But I didn't assume the author's ideas, agendas or biases were Waldman's.
I probably shouldn't have assumed this even though it is okay if Matt agrees with it. It's not like this is breaking news. It is well known that athletes (in general) don't know how to save money. There are countless examples of the riches to rags story in sports. That's why I did assume that Matt agreed with the authors' pro-player bias, otherwise, why post an article stating information that isn't new.
But having seen Waldman say he was "alarmed" at the phenomenon, as opposed to it being merely "interesting", he has clearly let on that he wears his bleeding heart on his sleeve and should be called out fo being the leftist he really is. :thumbup:
Roger that. And that let me state, that I wasn't intending to 'call out' Matt on his view/opinion. That article is clearly player bias and brings nothing new to the table. The author is asking us to feel sorry for the poor players. By posting the article, I thought Matt was asking us to do the same. If I was wrong, I apologize. With that said, Matt, I would like to know your opinion on the CBA matter. Who's side are you on and why?

 
GIM - No worries. It's all good-natured debate.

Gotta tell you, I just want to see football. I don't pretend to believe that I know the issues well enough while I'm watching 12 hours of games per day during the past three months as research for the 2011 Rookie Scouting Portfolio that I have a grasp on the situation or a worthwhile opinion.

But I'll give it a quick shot:

I think the NFL probably has some very worthwhile points about trying to think ahead so they keep the league in a good financial situation in the future, which is the basis for their revenue sharing argument. I believe players should be thinking of ways to enhance the types of benefits during and after their career because if they are going to be unionized they might as well get the best care they can.

Personally, I don't want an 18-game season. I think 16 is enough, but as a fan I'm going to go along with the concept as long as it works out. As far as finances...again, I'm not thinking about that angle. The most important thing to me is that we have a football season and they come to an agreement. Noting trying to be PC - I just don't really care.

What I do feel I have a worthwhile opinion about is that as a nation we could do a better job as parents, schools, communities, companies and governments to improve educational opportunities that could have a positive impact on individuals so we don't see the type of story in this thread. As far as what I think a good answer is? I don't have the knowledge or expertise. It's enough that I have time in the day to just read and post stuff online right now :kicksrock:

And yeah, I tend to be a bleeding heart about some things. Just don't try to shoot me for it - I already have to deal with Paul Broun, Jr. as my local representation and apparently some people thinks he's tacitly agreeing with one of his constituents asking when someone was going to shoot a fairly prominent dude in our government who works from the left. And I might be bleeding heart about some stuff (depending on your perspective), but I'm stone cold on other things where no one wants to test me.

 
I saw a study awhile back that said that the worst way to get money is in some form of lump sum with no sort of future payment schedule. Remeember 70% of large lottery winners are also broke within a few years. Musicians and entertainers also have above average person financial bust rates. In short, most people are not good at handling money.
This is a tangent, but I wasn't aware of this, and I find this more interesting and somewhat more difficult to believe. Perhaps it has something to do with the definition of "large" here. But lottery winners wouldn't have the same peer pressures as athletes and entertainers to "live large", nor would they have any future expectation of continued high earnings, as athletes and entertainers might. Also, on average, lottery winners would be more of a cross section in ages and demographics, which I would think means would include a higher percentage of older people and people with higher education levels... which could suggest that they would be better prepared to be smarter with the money. Or is this a situation where 70% of those who buy lottery tickets are young, immature, and/or uneducated, making them more similar to the athletes and entertainers, and it is essentially this group that goes broke, while the 30% of winners who are older and smarter are the ones who don't?Personally, I play the lottery occasionally, and if I ever won I have always thought I'd take the lump sum, give 10% to charity, give maybe 10% to family, spend up to another 10% or so on a nicer house, cars, etc., and bank/invest the rest. I have no idea how I would go about spending enough to go broke. Again, though, perhaps it depends on how much you win... winning $1M would of course be great but is obviously far different than winning $50M.

 
GIM - No worries. It's all good-natured debate.

Gotta tell you, I just want to see football. I don't pretend to believe that I know the issues well enough while I'm watching 12 hours of games per day during the past three months as research for the 2011 Rookie Scouting Portfolio that I have a grasp on the situation or a worthwhile opinion.

But I'll give it a quick shot:

I think the NFL probably has some very worthwhile points about trying to think ahead so they keep the league in a good financial situation in the future, which is the basis for their revenue sharing argument. I believe players should be thinking of ways to enhance the types of benefits during and after their career because if they are going to be unionized they might as well get the best care they can.

Personally, I don't want an 18-game season. I think 16 is enough, but as a fan I'm going to go along with the concept as long as it works out. As far as finances...again, I'm not thinking about that angle. The most important thing to me is that we have a football season and they come to an agreement. Noting trying to be PC - I just don't really care.

What I do feel I have a worthwhile opinion about is that as a nation we could do a better job as parents, schools, communities, companies and governments to improve educational opportunities that could have a positive impact on individuals so we don't see the type of story in this thread. As far as what I think a good answer is? I don't have the knowledge or expertise. It's enough that I have time in the day to just read and post stuff online right now :)

And yeah, I tend to be a bleeding heart about some things. Just don't try to shoot me for it - I already have to deal with Paul Broun, Jr. as my local representation and apparently some people thinks he's tacitly agreeing with one of his constituents asking when someone was going to shoot a fairly prominent dude in our government who works from the left. And I might be bleeding heart about some stuff (depending on your perspective), but I'm stone cold on other things where no one wants to test me.
Fair enough. Thanks for answering.As for the bolded part, you just don't want to work for another 2 games per year you lazy SOB. :lmao:

 
I don't have the stats, but I have heard many a time that lottery winners have a significantly high percentage of going broke quickly. And I believe its also a fact that the highest percentage of funds that are played come from the lowest incomes and people with the least education. Even if a more "educated" person wins, I don't think that changes the pressures of family members and friends trying to soak them and giving in.

I know plenty of people with college degrees who I wonder how they earned one and they aren't athletes. So as I'm thinking about this, presuming athletes and entertainers are less prepared than the average college-educated person might be a mistake - especially when they are just as "college educated" as the average person.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't find this alarming or interesting. I see it as a matter of fact. I believe the numbers are similar amongst all Americans as far as being in financial distress. It's simply a matter of the "American way of life" We've been brought up in a want it now get it now society and none of our educational systems teach how to be fiscally responsible. People scoff at the government being in such debt but the truth is most of those people are in the same predicament, if they went a month without paychecks they would be in dire straights. Thank God I have my family on the right track and am getting out of the debt hole. Help can be found by reading a book by Dave Ramsey called "The Total Money Makeover." But even by reading and learning you still have to change your lifestyle. The fact is no matter how much money you make if you are not responsible with that money you are going to be broke. It's not the NFLs fault nor responsibility to make sure athletes invest their money wisely. The same as it's not your employers responsibility to do so for you. It would be nice to see some of this taught in the school systems but the fact is those systems are set up to help you "Find a good job" and that's it. If you want to get ahead in life you need to find your own educational materials and act on them. Weather it's being fiscally responsible or becoming successful in business ( Even collegiate business courses don't teach you most of what you need to know about actually owning a business, they teach about how to run a business for someone else.) you are on your own and you have to be willing to make mistakes and learn from them to get to where you need to be. It's called Life.

Sorry for the rant but facts are facts. This is not a plug for Dave Ramsey or his book, I simply added that in case someone reading this is looking. If you read this and you are in good financial standing good for you, you are in the extreme minority. :lmao:

 
(Even collegiate business courses don't teach you most of what you need to know about actually owning a business, they teach about how to run a business for someone else.) You are on your own and you have to be willing to make mistakes and learn from them to get to where you need to be. It's called Life.

This is extremely true. When I cover entrepreneurial programs for the university for which I write, there's a difference between running a component of a business and running the entire ship. I've also suggested the idea of doing some lighter-topic content with profs about personal money management and some of them laugh about it because they know that's not what they're at a university to teach or in most cases research.

 
GIM - No worries. It's all good-natured debate.

Gotta tell you, I just want to see football. I don't pretend to believe that I know the issues well enough while I'm watching 12 hours of games per day during the past three months as research for the 2011 Rookie Scouting Portfolio that I have a grasp on the situation or a worthwhile opinion.

But I'll give it a quick shot:

I think the NFL probably has some very worthwhile points about trying to think ahead so they keep the league in a good financial situation in the future, which is the basis for their revenue sharing argument. I believe players should be thinking of ways to enhance the types of benefits during and after their career because if they are going to be unionized they might as well get the best care they can.

Personally, I don't want an 18-game season. I think 16 is enough, but as a fan I'm going to go along with the concept as long as it works out. As far as finances...again, I'm not thinking about that angle. The most important thing to me is that we have a football season and they come to an agreement. Noting trying to be PC - I just don't really care.

What I do feel I have a worthwhile opinion about is that as a nation we could do a better job as parents, schools, communities, companies and governments to improve educational opportunities that could have a positive impact on individuals so we don't see the type of story in this thread. As far as what I think a good answer is? I don't have the knowledge or expertise. It's enough that I have time in the day to just read and post stuff online right now :)

And yeah, I tend to be a bleeding heart about some things. Just don't try to shoot me for it - I already have to deal with Paul Broun, Jr. as my local representation and apparently some people thinks he's tacitly agreeing with one of his constituents asking when someone was going to shoot a fairly prominent dude in our government who works from the left. And I might be bleeding heart about some stuff (depending on your perspective), but I'm stone cold on other things where no one wants to test me.
Fair enough. Thanks for answering.As for the bolded part, you just don't want to work for another 2 games per year you lazy SOB. :lmao:
Pretty much nailed that bold portion. That's exactly how I feel.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top