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

[Choke]

Sounds about right to me.

The average career is 3.5 years. So for every guy who gets to play 5 years is a guy who plays 2.

And for every guy who plays 6, and reaches a 2nd contract, there is a guy who only lasts a year.

Then the minimum (which is closer to what most make) 285,000.

A 5th round pick is going to get 350k a year with 120k guaranteed, on a 3 year contract.

If he buys a decent house at 525k, and a car at 75k, his bank account wont be looking stellar when his career is over.

 

[coolnerd]

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.

Here is one source where I got the 70% number fromhttp://journalstar.com/special-section/news/article_ecba141b-3e59-5914-a321-38b4adb20733.html

The reality is that 70 percent of all lottery winners will squander away their winnings in a few years,” the Connecticut financial advisers said in a news release. “In the process, they will see family and friendships destroyed and the financial security they hoped for disappear.”

and as for the rich handle it better

“We know from studies and our own internal research that when new wealth is created in a family, there is a 90 percent probability that all of that wealth will be gone by the third generation,” LePage said in the release. “And that’s among families who have worked hard for years to achieve success. When people receive sudden wealth, like in a lottery jackpot, the numbers are much worse.”

and character

Worse yet, said the advisers who have served clients in 18 states, winning a bunch of money doesn’t build character. “(It) reveals character and magnifies all of the good and weak traits the winner lives by.”

Ouch again — that is, if you don’t have much character.

Also the poor (those least used to handling large sums of money) play the lottery in disproportion to the rest of society,

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/texas-lottery-relies-increasingly-on-the-poor-and-899333.html

-----------

What happens is that lottery winners essentially for their families and friends become star athletes or rock stars. They may or may not already have bad financial habits (I mean anything signifiantly above what you do as a ticket buyer probably is not smart money management). Now, that they have money (and everyone knows it was pure luck), those around them start asking for money, they srat buying really big stuff, and all of sudden have pressures that real money brings without any experience dealing with.

 

[texasbirdfan]

interesting aside related to the story from NFL Total Access tonight when they debated the future of Carson Palmer as a player and what he would do if he left football for good and retired with 4 years left on his contract.

Palmer apparently has relayed that since he now has earned a Harvard MBA (business gold) and has 50+ million in the bank- money wasn't a huge hook currently.

The dude got a Harvard MBA and kept his dough- I have a new found respect for a guy I was questioning as "losing it"

 

[Heatman]

interesting aside related to the story from NFL Total Access tonight when they debated the future of Carson Palmer as a player and what he would do if he left football for good and retired with 4 years left on his contract. Palmer apparently has relayed that since he now has earned a Harvard MBA (business gold) and has 50+ million in the bank- money wasn't a huge hook currently. The dude got a Harvard MBA and kept his dough- I have a new found respect for a guy I was questioning as "losing it"

Not so much losing it mentally or as a person. Losing it on the field. He has not been the same player he was before the infamous Steelers playoff game. I am a Bengals season ticket holder ( believe it or not we exist lol ) And he has not been the same player he was.

 

[Runningman]

people are really bad with money

Yeah something tells me the number would be about the same with a sample of the regular american public.

 

[Steed]

I just heard from a buddy of mine that Anthony Becht is on the verge of bankruptcy. Apparently he owes a decent amount to casino markers.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

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.

He was being cheap. sorry when you get signed to a 100 mill K and the rest of the league makes pennies compared to you, you pick up the check. Especially when you are new to the team and trying to foster camaraderie.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

This brings to mind what a caller on local sports talk the other day said. He said " I side with the players. The owners just will just shill their money away and use it to make some other land deal/investment that makes them money in the long run. The players will take that cash and turn around and spend it stimulating the economy by spending it like a drunken sailor.

I

In a sick way he's kinda right. The people everyones forgetting in the CBA talks are the strippers. Can you imagine what kind of financial beating they take if there is a lockout?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I remember when Chris Cooley deposited his signing bonus (something like $7-10M) check in his bank using the drive thru teller.

Be even better if he got a whole as a "less cash" on the deposit.

 

[massraider]

Sounds about right to me.The average career is 3.5 years. So for every guy who gets to play 5 years is a guy who plays 2.And for every guy who plays 6, and reaches a 2nd contract, there is a guy who only lasts a year.Then the minimum (which is closer to what most make) 285,000. A 5th round pick is going to get 350k a year with 120k guaranteed, on a 3 year contract.If he buys a decent house at 525k, and a car at 75k, his bank account wont be looking stellar when his career is over.

There is simply not enough of this reasoning going on. People yapping about millionaires vs. billionaires, a lot of these guys are not millionaires. A lot of these guys have families looking to be supported by them, and have a tough time saying no. I am sure all the financial experts checking here would have been much smarter with their money at the age of 22, and would have the discipline to say no to the family members with their hands out, and would drive a used Honda, and put their money in mutual funds. I don't feel bad for the players. I do, however, understand that getting drafted doesn't mean you are set for life financially, except for about 15 guys.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Local article about former Nebraska players in the nfl. It shows that not all nfl players are financially irresponsible.I think the most interesting comments are by Cody Glenn saying that he thinks 85-90% of the Colts players would be ok in a lockout because the team is filled with smart vets. Matt Slauson also makes a great point about late round picks. After reading his comments, it makes it even less surprising that 78% of nfl players would be facing financial difficulties within 2 years of leaving football since the bulk of the league's players are day 3 picks and UFA's.

NFL lockout could throw ex-Huskers for a lossBy Rich KaipustWORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER « SportsShare Related News•Golden Gloves hopes to benefit from... •NU beating the bushes for a guard •UCLA to bear the elements, visit... •Former Husker died from seizure Related Links•Photo Showcase: Huskers in the NFL Adam Carriker always planned for the possibility that something could go wrong, so a potential NFL lockout wouldn't throw him off-course financially.Shortly after signing a five-year contract as the No. 13 overall pick in the 2007 National Football League draft, the former Nebraska defensive lineman started investing and saving rather than flashing his cash.It went against the grain in a league loaded with big spenders, he found out, but Carriker didn't mind.“I'll be honest, I've gotten a little bit of guff from players, because I don't buy the most expensive clothes,” Carriker said Wednesday. “We have nice vehicles, but they're not ridiculous. I don't spend much on anything.”The current collective bargaining agreement between NFL owners and players expires at 11 p.m. Thursday. Around the NFL, it could mean some tense days, or weeks, or months, for players worried about their finances.If a lockout occurs, players would no longer be paid, their health benefits would be suspended and they would not be able to use team facilities.And if the lockout drags into the fall — and game checks are lost — it will then become a test of who has and hasn't been smart with his money.Carriker thinks he will be OK, whether or not he's in his Washington Redskins uniform. So does former Husker linebacker Cody Glenn, now with the Indianapolis Colts.“If it did go into the season — and I hope it doesn't — I feel good about being able to be financially stable and not worry about anything,” Glenn said.Carriker, Glenn and former NU cornerback Zack Bowman hope the right approach to money helps them stay comfortable not just through a lockout but also through years of retirement. Each has invested with Omaha-based Carson Wealth Management Group since being drafted.Carriker's wife, Angie, is the sister of Carson wealth adviser Phil McBride.“Something Phil once told me,” Carriker said, “is you'd rather live like a prince forever than a king for a short amount of time.“Guys forget they're not going to play forever, or going to have a 20- or 30-year career like in a real job. You can make a lot of money in a short period of time, but you'll never make that kind of money again.”Carriker said he wanted to plan for the future with the guaranteed money he had in the five-year deal he signed with St. Louis, which traded him to Washington last April. He decided to treat it as if there would be no incentives and no second contract.“So I really haven't had to do anything different because of this lockout,” Carriker said. “The only thing I've had to do was get insurance. We planned for anything that could possibly go wrong, being ultra-conservative in all of our numbers.”As with Carriker, Bowman said it has helped that he and his wife are “really not big spenders” and that they haven't made a lot of big purchases since the Chicago Bears drafted him in the fifth round in 2008.“Growing up in military life, it's not like we were poor, but we also didn't have a lot of money,” Bowman said. “My parents always told me the difference between a want and a need, and that's helped me my entire life.”According to a 2009 Sports Illustrated report “How (and Why) Athletes Go Broke,” 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress because of joblessness or divorce by the time they have been retired for two years.Ron Carson, founder and CEO of Carson Wealth, said planning up front allows his clients to survive a lot of different scenarios, with something like an NFL lockout just being one of them.“If they just delay that gratification a little bit, they truly are set for life,” Carson said. “If we can get them to buy in, that you get this one chance to buy in right away with your wealth, you won't have to worry about how long you play in the NFL.”How many would be hurt by an extended lockout?Glenn said he believes about 85 to 90 percent of his Colts teammates would be all right “because we've got a veteran team and a bunch of smart guys.” Carson and McBride said another of their clients, Buffalo linebacker Paul Posluszny, made it sound as if the picture could be worse elsewhere.“Paul said it went all the way from a handful of guys well-prepared to a lot of them who just don't save anything, so it could be a real hardship,” Carson said. “I think it really runs the gamut.”Former Husker lineman Matt Slauson, a sixth-round pick of the New York Jets two years ago, said an elongated lockout would hurt most for late-round picks, those making close to the league minimum and practice-squad players.With that in mind and the lockout on the horizon, Slauson started making some hard decisions last year rather than wait for this one.He and his wife, Cami, passed up a chance to purchase their “dream home” and opted instead for a modest two-bedroom New Jersey apartment. They downsized wedding plans last year and chose not to make some offseason travels.Last month, they even broke the lease on their apartment and returned to Lincoln, where they will take turns living with their parents.The NFL Players' Association advised players in December to set aside three game checks to budget for a possible extended lockout. Players also have been able to funnel some money into a “rainy-day fund” that would help if the 2011 season is affected.To Slauson, it's all very real. There may even come a time for some to consider a second job, he said.“This could potentially last long enough to hurt a lot of players, because there's a lot of players like me, guys who aren't making the multimillion-dollar deals,” Slauson said. “There's 1,700 players in the NFL, and as far as percentages go, there's a big chunk of guys in that lower range. This can affect us a lot.”The former Huskers all said it's hard not to have starry eyes when the first NFL money rolls in, but they now better understand the importance of not throwing it around and of telling people no.“You do have that temptation a little bit,” Slauson said.Slauson said it's important to get a budget and stick to it. Glenn said with the lockout looming that he chose to cut back on some things and decide what are really essentials.Glenn said he's glad his preparations actually go back to 2009 when he came out of NU as a fifth-round pick by Washington.“Guys come from not having anything to getting all this money, and think it's going to expand and expand,” he said. “I've been fortunate to understand and, with the help of people, know it's not going to last forever.”With Nebraska possibly having around a half-dozen NFL draftees next month, what advice would McBride and former Huskers offer? Especially for somebody such as cornerback Prince Amukamara, who could be a Top 10 pick?At the top of the list would be to invest wisely, then live within your means with the rest.“I was fortunate to have a big first contract, so I was able to say, ‘Let's plan forever off these first five years,'” Carriker said. “Be ultraconservative. Have fun — you earned that money, so enjoy it — but have a plan and stick to it.”

http://omaha.com/article/20110302/SPORTS/703029687#nfl-lockout-could-throw-ex-huskers-for-a-loss

 

[FavreCo]

Pretty sure after you browse around in this you will see why. http://virtualglobetrotting.com/maps/?so=2

Scottie Pippen took a 1.5 million hit when overpaying and then having to sell one of these ridiculous houses.

 

[doowain]

Love him or hate him....this story is the perfect example of why Chad Johnson is a genius.

 

[CalBear]

Similar to the failures of Lotto winners. People who don't grow up with money just don't know how to handle it.

Yeah, like that Donald Trump guy who had to declare bankruptcy twice. Oh, wait...Note that Trump declared bankruptcy for the same reason that a number of football players and other stars (notably Annie Lebovitz) have had to; he had a lot of cash on hand, used it to make what he thought was a series of good real estate investments, and got stuck with too much debt when the market had a downturn.

 

[VaTerp]

Sounds about right to me.

The average career is 3.5 years. So for every guy who gets to play 5 years is a guy who plays 2.

And for every guy who plays 6, and reaches a 2nd contract, there is a guy who only lasts a year.

Then the minimum (which is closer to what most make) 285,000.

A 5th round pick is going to get 350k a year with 120k guaranteed, on a 3 year contract.

If he buys a decent house at 525k, and a car at 75k, his bank account wont be looking stellar when his career is over.

There is simply not enough of this reasoning going on. People yapping about millionaires vs. billionaires, a lot of these guys are not millionaires. A lot of these guys have families looking to be supported by them, and have a tough time saying no.

I am sure all the financial experts checking here would have been much smarter with their money at the age of 22, and would have the discipline to say no to the family members with their hands out, and would drive a used Honda, and put their money in mutual funds.

I don't feel bad for the players. I do, however, understand that getting drafted doesn't mean you are set for life financially, except for about 15 guys.

Lots of pretty good discussion here save for the couple of guys getting angry and perpetuating one of the main fallacies of the right.The bottom line is that I do not feel sorry for the players, nor most adults, who come under financial distress. I do however understand. Many good points have been brought up about the FACT that most people would, and do, make poor decisions with money, especially when they are young, especially when they get large amounts up front, and especially when they come from environments where most around them don't have or know how to manage money.

As someone sad earlier, saving money is a lost art in America, practiced not nearly enough, and not nearly as well, as it should be by the vast majority of Americans across all walks of life. In fact, our current economy is pretty much built on people living beyond their means and consuming things they can't really afford while truly wealthy people legally gamble with other people's money. But I digress.

Does it seem as if the author is writing more from the perspective of the players? Yes, but there is a lot of material written from the perspective of the owners as well. And reasonable people can read an article, recognize any possible bias by the author, and still discuss the merits of the facts brought up. What I find so interesting, is that so many people want to "take a side" and favor the owners when in reality, their own situations are far more similar to the players then they will ever realize or care to admit.

Anywho, I think it was an interesting article and really enjoyed the story about Jim Brown and DeSean Jackson and a couple of other things. Thanks for sharing, Matt.

 

[Chadstroma]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

First, you have guys that are professional players and if you make the roster, you are making six figures. Most of these kids have never seen money like this at all and way too many have had little to no financial education while growing up. I think most of the money gets spent while they are playing~ just as anyone that young would be likely to do. If the minimum contract guys ended up making more, I think that the same guys who go bankrupt now would just spend more money with the more income.

Second, I doubt many of these guys have planned for life after football. More and more are leaving college early to enter the draft. They likely do not prepare while they are playing football and again, since they are making money, they will end up getting use to a high standard of living that will be hard for many of them to keep up after football. There are only so many television and radio jobs and those tend to go to the big name players who made a lot of money while in football with a long career getting paid with multi-million dollar contracts.

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

 

[VaTerp]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

 

[Jayrok]

“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.

huh? To assume this is the guy's only contract in his working life is part of the problem. NFL players are contractors. They get paid for providing service in the parameters of a contract. I used to be a contractor for Northrop Grumman, but I don't get any revenue shares or extended health insurance from that company now that I no longer work for them. Didn't the 25 year old have a full scholarship at a university? Take advantage of a hefty contract, but don't assume that is your only source of income for the rest of your life. If it is, then you better live accordingly. Otherwise, use your education to make a career outside of the few years you play football. If you want health insurance from an NFL team, then work for them as a scout of something. But when you are a player, you are a contractor. Business is business.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

Not coincidentally, what has not been mentioned is that about 70 percent (or more) of black children are born out of wedlock in modern US society. Think about that. It's also high among white families, at about 25 percent. Being born out of wedlock has consequences, such as a greater likelihood of not developing certain life skills (money management being one, but I would argue that self-control, patience, learning skills, wisdom, etc are more relevant here, broadly speaking). Being born out of wedlock is certainly associated with higher rates of poverty; people growing up in densely poor neighborhoods produces all kinds of social pathologies (crime, drug use, yelling and shouting, mental illness, etc.)

I would argue that kids in these neighborhoods are disproportionately going to seek out athletic excellence than their richer counterparts [because the latter are gaining important study habits and expectations, educational encouragement, etc]. In any case, whether kids born out of wedlock get into college or not, it doesn't change how they grew up. It is not a surprise that colleges throw up their hands, ignore the needs of these kids, and just let them focus on football rather than scholastic achievement -- undoing habits and expectations is a full time job. It can take a lifetime to undo.

Many players (and people, in general) just develop into adult children. These people often need others to help guide them through life; making all this money so soon makes this need even more apparent.

That many of these former NFL players end up in tough financial situations is not surprising at all. In fact, it would be surprising if money actually did make a difference.

 

[massraider]

“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.

huh? To assume this is the guy's only contract in his working life is part of the problem. NFL players are contractors. They get paid for providing service in the parameters of a contract. I used to be a contractor for Northrop Grumman, but I don't get any revenue shares or extended health insurance from that company now that I no longer work for them. Didn't the 25 year old have a full scholarship at a university? Take advantage of a hefty contract, but don't assume that is your only source of income for the rest of your life. If it is, then you better live accordingly. Otherwise, use your education to make a career outside of the few years you play football. If you want health insurance from an NFL team, then work for them as a scout of something. But when you are a player, you are a contractor. Business is business.

You are making a bad comparison. When you were a contractor for Northrop Grumman, did your position that you were contracted for have an average career of less than 4 years? Did your position take years off your life?Did people pay to watch you perform your work for Northrop Grumman?And best of all, could Northrop Grumman end your contract whenever they chose, with no further compensation?Pretty sure I know the answers to almost all these questions.

 

[Matt Waldman]

“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.

huh? To assume this is the guy's only contract in his working life is part of the problem. NFL players are contractors. They get paid for providing service in the parameters of a contract. I used to be a contractor for Northrop Grumman, but I don't get any revenue shares or extended health insurance from that company now that I no longer work for them. Didn't the 25 year old have a full scholarship at a university? Take advantage of a hefty contract, but don't assume that is your only source of income for the rest of your life. If it is, then you better live accordingly. Otherwise, use your education to make a career outside of the few years you play football. If you want health insurance from an NFL team, then work for them as a scout of something. But when you are a player, you are a contractor. Business is business.

You are making a bad comparison. When you were a contractor for Northrop Grumman, did your position that you were contracted for have an average career of less than 4 years? Did your position take years off your life?Did people pay to watch you perform your work for Northrop Grumman?And best of all, could Northrop Grumman end your contract whenever they chose, with no further compensation?Pretty sure I know the answers to almost all these questions.

I also believe it's easy to mistakenly apply our own standards of what we believe how the average white collar or blue collar Joe will get paid in a career based on the average job type in this country. The adviser giving this advice is on point with how he approaches this situation. He's not presuming these guys will never get another job. He's taking a cautious approach with their money so they can learn to think about doing the same.

 

[Chadstroma]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

Just curious, but have you ever worked on a manufacturing line, a warehouse, or a processing plant? Those people sacrifice their bodies, deal with danger, and often work in difficult conditions. In fact, any job with a fair level of physical requirements that require repetitive work requires long-term physical sacrifice of one's body.

 

[RUSF18]

“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.

huh? To assume this is the guy's only contract in his working life is part of the problem. NFL players are contractors. They get paid for providing service in the parameters of a contract. I used to be a contractor for Northrop Grumman, but I don't get any revenue shares or extended health insurance from that company now that I no longer work for them. Didn't the 25 year old have a full scholarship at a university? Take advantage of a hefty contract, but don't assume that is your only source of income for the rest of your life. If it is, then you better live accordingly. Otherwise, use your education to make a career outside of the few years you play football. If you want health insurance from an NFL team, then work for them as a scout of something. But when you are a player, you are a contractor. Business is business.

You are making a bad comparison. When you were a contractor for Northrop Grumman, did your position that you were contracted for have an average career of less than 4 years? Did your position take years off your life?Did people pay to watch you perform your work for Northrop Grumman?And best of all, could Northrop Grumman end your contract whenever they chose, with no further compensation?Pretty sure I know the answers to almost all these questions.

I also believe it's easy to mistakenly apply our own standards of what we believe how the average white collar or blue collar Joe will get paid in a career based on the average job type in this country. The adviser giving this advice is on point with how he approaches this situation. He's not presuming these guys will never get another job. He's taking a cautious approach with their money so they can learn to think about doing the same.

He's also talking about spreading their *wealth* around so it can last a long time, aka signing bonus and other guaranteed money. I doubt his financial planning will lead to the player being disbursed funds biweekly to cover his day to day living expenses for 75 years. But when a guy gets his $2 million check after taxes have been paid, it's a good idea to take it to someone who could put away $500K for college for the player's young kids, or invest it in a way that will give him a real retirement if he ends up taking a $50K a year job after he can't cut it in the league four years later, etc.

 

[massraider]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

AFAIK, the NFLPA is not looking for an increase in revenue sharing, but the same. So they are NOT looking for MORE money, just maintaining the same percentage.

 

[Chadstroma]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

Just curious, but have you ever worked on a manufacturing line, a warehouse, or a processing plant? Those people sacrifice their bodies, deal with danger, and often work in difficult conditions. In fact, any job with a fair level of physical requirements that require repetitive work requires long-term physical sacrifice of one's body.

I have done construction and warehouse work before. I don't think you can compare that to football players. The job of the football player is to crash his body into other bodies and thus injury is not avoidable.

 

[Chadstroma]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

AFAIK, the NFLPA is not looking for an increase in revenue sharing, but the same. So they are NOT looking for MORE money, just maintaining the same percentage.

Just another way of saying more money either way. And technically, they are not seeking the same revenue sharing. They want a bigger piece of it. As revenues go up and costs go up, the owners want a bigger chunk of change to cover the costs. What the players want is status quo because the status quo favors them by way of more money.

Spin it as you wish but both sides want more money. The NFLPA by way of status quo and the NFL owners by way of a new deal. To end this, both sides will have to concede and meet somewhere in the middle.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

Just curious, but have you ever worked on a manufacturing line, a warehouse, or a processing plant? Those people sacrifice their bodies, deal with danger, and often work in difficult conditions. In fact, any job with a fair level of physical requirements that require repetitive work requires long-term physical sacrifice of one's body.

I have done construction and warehouse work before. I don't think you can compare that to football players. The job of the football player is to crash his body into other bodies and thus injury is not avoidable.

Construction and warehouse work - true. Manufacturing/processing plants - meat plants...another story.

That said, I would say football is on the extreme end of the job scale but I don't think it means unions should only be reserved for jobs considered on this end of the spectrum. While I think it's silly for a musicians union to have protested the Harlem Globetrotters games for opting to use a tape recording of "Sweet Georgia Brown" rather than an eight-piece band, they do have a helpful purpose to the worker. There are unions - just like churches, civil rights groups, and Congressmen - that feel the need to create issues to re-justify their importance in the community long after their original work has been accomplished and that heightens the potential for corruption. They're no different in that respect than many of the industries that define their success by making more money every year and finding ways to do it that were never a part of their original mission.

I agree with you that the talks are most heavily weighted around the money.

 

[Chadstroma]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

Just curious, but have you ever worked on a manufacturing line, a warehouse, or a processing plant? Those people sacrifice their bodies, deal with danger, and often work in difficult conditions. In fact, any job with a fair level of physical requirements that require repetitive work requires long-term physical sacrifice of one's body.

I have done construction and warehouse work before. I don't think you can compare that to football players. The job of the football player is to crash his body into other bodies and thus injury is not avoidable.

Construction and warehouse work - true. Manufacturing/processing plants - meat plants...another story.

That said, I would say football is on the extreme end of the job scale but I don't think it means unions should only be reserved for jobs considered on this end of the spectrum. While I think it's silly for a musicians union to have protested the Harlem Globetrotters games for opting to use a tape recording of "Sweet Georgia Brown" rather than an eight-piece band, they do have a helpful purpose to the worker. There are unions - just like churches, civil rights groups, and Congressmen - that feel the need to create issues to re-justify their importance in the community long after their original work has been accomplished and that heightens the potential for corruption. They're no different in that respect than many of the industries that define their success by making more money every year and finding ways to do it that were never a part of their original mission.

I agree with you that the talks are most heavily weighted around the money.

I don't want to make this a FFA discussion about unions. I would just say that if unions stuck to negotiating fair compensation and benefits packages, worked with the organizations they deal with to increase efficiency and effectiveness, and stayed out of the political arena in a one sided way- I likely would not despise them as I do. And let me be very clear, I have nothing but love for the membership of unions but I do despise union leadership. Why? Because they are a business on themselves but even more than that, they are one big political action committee. They use and abuse their membership for only one real goal- increase membership (which increases dues and thus grows their business). In so many ways, they are archaic parasitic organizations that are harmful to everyone but the union leadership and the Democratic party.

 

[massraider]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

AFAIK, the NFLPA is not looking for an increase in revenue sharing, but the same. So they are NOT looking for MORE money, just maintaining the same percentage.

Just another way of saying more money either way. And technically, they are not seeking the same revenue sharing. They want a bigger piece of it. As revenues go up and costs go up, the owners want a bigger chunk of change to cover the costs. What the players want is status quo because the status quo favors them by way of more money.

Spin it as you wish but both sides want more money. The NFLPA by way of status quo and the NFL owners by way of a new deal. To end this, both sides will have to concede and meet somewhere in the middle.

Hey, it's not spin. 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' is spin.The owners want the percentage to go down, thus lowering the money the players would make in salary. The players aren't asking for any increases at all. If the percentage stays the same, and revenue go down, the players make less.

Are the players asking for less games played? Higher rookie salary pool? No, and no.

The owners would love more regular season games, rookie salary cap, less of a piece of the pie for the players, what exactly are they going to be conceding?

Can anyone answer this? What are the owners willing to give the players? What are their concessions? I don't think I ahve heard of a single one.

And if no one can tell me what the owners are willing to give the players, then it's tough to really take the position that both sides are being greedy.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

The owners would love more regular season games, rookie salary cap, less of a piece of the pie for the players, what exactly are they going to be conceding?

Can anyone answer this? What are the owners willing to give the players? What are their concessions? I don't think I ahve heard of a single one.

And if no one can tell me what the owners are willing to give the players, then it's tough to really take the position that both sides are being greedy.

I'm not sure what you're confused about. The owners have to give up nothing. If they felt they agreed to a bad deal before, and incurred "losses" as a result, it seems only logical that they would bargain for something different. No? If they can make the case that "take this deal or otherwise" is in the best interests of the players, then they'd obviously do that.

Likewise, the players feel they shouldn't have to give up anything because they are already been paid a ton of money.

Few people would give up something in a deal unless they have to.. That's why there is debate as to how to resolve it.

 

[Chadstroma]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

AFAIK, the NFLPA is not looking for an increase in revenue sharing, but the same. So they are NOT looking for MORE money, just maintaining the same percentage.

Just another way of saying more money either way. And technically, they are not seeking the same revenue sharing. They want a bigger piece of it. As revenues go up and costs go up, the owners want a bigger chunk of change to cover the costs. What the players want is status quo because the status quo favors them by way of more money.

Spin it as you wish but both sides want more money. The NFLPA by way of status quo and the NFL owners by way of a new deal. To end this, both sides will have to concede and meet somewhere in the middle.

Hey, it's not spin. 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' is spin.The owners want the percentage to go down, thus lowering the money the players would make in salary. The players aren't asking for any increases at all. If the percentage stays the same, and revenue go down, the players make less.

Are the players asking for less games played? Higher rookie salary pool? No, and no.

The owners would love more regular season games, rookie salary cap, less of a piece of the pie for the players, what exactly are they going to be conceding?

Can anyone answer this? What are the owners willing to give the players? What are their concessions? I don't think I ahve heard of a single one.

And if no one can tell me what the owners are willing to give the players, then it's tough to really take the position that both sides are being greedy.

I have never called it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires'. I am not sure that is spin though but rather frustration from the average fan who wants their football and most often sees people making a lot more than they are (on both sides) arguing. Unfortunately, as much as someone who calls it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' is oversimplifying it to the point of fault, so are you. Your bolded part would be correct IF revenues and cost were stable. They are not. Thus, you are wrong.

I am not involved in the discussions so it is a little hard to break down what is being offered as far as concessions.

 

[massraider]

I have never called it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires'. I am not sure that is spin though but rather frustration from the average fan who wants their football and most often sees people making a lot more than they are (on both sides) arguing. Unfortunately, as much as someone who calls it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' is oversimplifying it to the point of fault, so are you. Your bolded part would be correct IF revenues and cost were stable. They are not. Thus, you are wrong.I am not involved in the discussions so it is a little hard to break down what is being offered as far as concessions.

Well, no one posting here is involved in the discussion either, but we have all heard a lot of the issues on both sides. You have descended into snarky ####head territory now, so we are done, I guess. Take care.

 

[massraider]

The owners would love more regular season games, rookie salary cap, less of a piece of the pie for the players, what exactly are they going to be conceding?

Can anyone answer this? What are the owners willing to give the players? What are their concessions? I don't think I ahve heard of a single one.

And if no one can tell me what the owners are willing to give the players, then it's tough to really take the position that both sides are being greedy.

I'm not sure what you're confused about. The owners have to give up nothing. If they felt they agreed to a bad deal before, and incurred "losses" as a result, it seems only logical that they would bargain for something different. No? If they can make the case that "take this deal or otherwise" is in the best interests of the players, then they'd obviously do that.

Likewise, the players feel they shouldn't have to give up anything because they are already been paid a ton of money.

Few people would give up something in a deal unless they have to.. That's why there is debate as to how to resolve it.

The confusion comes from the constant vilification of the players in this entire process. They have the worst labor deal in any pro sport, the players get chewed up and spit out before most of them can sign a big free agent contract, and it seems like most fans either have their nose pressed up against the glass, and resent the money these players make, or they take the hilarious view that the owners are taking all the risks, and any table scraps the players get should be good enough. I have a tough time seeing the owners side in this.

 

[Chadstroma]

I have never called it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires'. I am not sure that is spin though but rather frustration from the average fan who wants their football and most often sees people making a lot more than they are (on both sides) arguing.

Unfortunately, as much as someone who calls it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' is oversimplifying it to the point of fault, so are you. Your bolded part would be correct IF revenues and cost were stable. They are not. Thus, you are wrong.

I am not involved in the discussions so it is a little hard to break down what is being offered as far as concessions.

Well, no one posting here is involved in the discussion either, but we have all heard a lot of the issues on both sides. You have descended into snarky ####head territory now, so we are done, I guess. Take care.

Because I am pointing out that you are wrong? You threw out the 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' thing as that somehow identified me. I replied that that viewpoint is wrong and just as much as it is, so is yours in thinking that this is not about money and each side wanting more. The financial truth is that it is about money. You can argue who has more right to more money if you want. But status quo means more money for players and the owners are fighting for a change for more money for them. If you want to simplify it, that is about the only way you can. For me, I see both parties having good arguments. I think that neither can get or should get all that they want. I hope both sides are willing to move from where they are and make a deal. The only dog I have in this fight is the mediator... or was, not sure if he is still involved in the talks.

 

[massraider]

I have never called it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires'. I am not sure that is spin though but rather frustration from the average fan who wants their football and most often sees people making a lot more than they are (on both sides) arguing.

Unfortunately, as much as someone who calls it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' is oversimplifying it to the point of fault, so are you. Your bolded part would be correct IF revenues and cost were stable. They are not. Thus, you are wrong.

I am not involved in the discussions so it is a little hard to break down what is being offered as far as concessions.

Well, no one posting here is involved in the discussion either, but we have all heard a lot of the issues on both sides. You have descended into snarky ####head territory now, so we are done, I guess. Take care.

Because I am pointing out that you are wrong? You threw out the 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' thing as that somehow identified me. I replied that that viewpoint is wrong and just as much as it is, so is yours in thinking that this is not about money and each side wanting more. The financial truth is that it is about money. You can argue who has more right to more money if you want. But status quo means more money for players and the owners are fighting for a change for more money for them. If you want to simplify it, that is about the only way you can. For me, I see both parties having good arguments. I think that neither can get or should get all that they want. I hope both sides are willing to move from where they are and make a deal. The only dog I have in this fight is the mediator... or was, not sure if he is still involved in the talks.

I am not involved in the discussions so it is a little hard to break down what is being offered as far as concessions.

Gosh, you mean you aren't in the discussions, Chad???Hope that clears up the

 

[Chadstroma]

I have never called it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires'. I am not sure that is spin though but rather frustration from the average fan who wants their football and most often sees people making a lot more than they are (on both sides) arguing.

Unfortunately, as much as someone who calls it 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' is oversimplifying it to the point of fault, so are you. Your bolded part would be correct IF revenues and cost were stable. They are not. Thus, you are wrong.

I am not involved in the discussions so it is a little hard to break down what is being offered as far as concessions.

Well, no one posting here is involved in the discussion either, but we have all heard a lot of the issues on both sides. You have descended into snarky ####head territory now, so we are done, I guess. Take care.

Because I am pointing out that you are wrong? You threw out the 'Millionaires vs. Billionaires' thing as that somehow identified me. I replied that that viewpoint is wrong and just as much as it is, so is yours in thinking that this is not about money and each side wanting more. The financial truth is that it is about money. You can argue who has more right to more money if you want. But status quo means more money for players and the owners are fighting for a change for more money for them. If you want to simplify it, that is about the only way you can. For me, I see both parties having good arguments. I think that neither can get or should get all that they want. I hope both sides are willing to move from where they are and make a deal. The only dog I have in this fight is the mediator... or was, not sure if he is still involved in the talks.

I am not involved in the discussions so it is a little hard to break down what is being offered as far as concessions.

Gosh, you mean you aren't in the discussions, Chad???Hope that clears up the

Yea, I am not. The owners side has been very tight lipped with very little in as much as leaks go. The players side has had much more leaking going on. I am not on the owners side nor am I involved in the discussions so I do not know what they have offered in as much as concessions or what they would be willing to. We are not going to get much leaked out from the players side on that subject. Why is that snarky ####head?

 

[CalBear]

Yea, I am not. The owners side has been very tight lipped with very little in as much as leaks go. The players side has had much more leaking going on. I am not on the owners side nor am I involved in the discussions so I do not know what they have offered in as much as concessions or what they would be willing to. We are not going to get much leaked out from the players side on that subject.

Here's a theory: The owners are being tight-lipped about their concessions because they haven't offered any (relative to the current deal). If they had offered any, they wouldn't be tight-lipped about them.

 

[VaTerp]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

AFAIK, the NFLPA is not looking for an increase in revenue sharing, but the same. So they are NOT looking for MORE money, just maintaining the same percentage.

Just another way of saying more money either way. And technically, they are not seeking the same revenue sharing. They want a bigger piece of it. As revenues go up and costs go up, the owners want a bigger chunk of change to cover the costs. What the players want is status quo because the status quo favors them by way of more money.

Spin it as you wish but both sides want more money. The NFLPA by way of status quo and the NFL owners by way of a new deal. To end this, both sides will have to concede and meet somewhere in the middle.

According to what info are the players not seeking the same revenue sharing? The players were in favor of continuing the current deal. It's the owners who opted out two years early. All indications are that the players would be happy with the SAME percentage of revenue sharing. To say they want more because the revenue is going up is pure spin on your part.And the talk of the $750 to $800 billion difference stems from the fact that the owners wanted to go from taking $1 Billion off the top in the current deal to taking $2 Billion off the top before any sort of revenue sharing. So again, where is it that the players are asking for more money?

Of course it's about money. But to say the player's are asking for more is incorrect. And I'm wondering why your first post in this thread was about "it's hard to argue for the player's getting more money" when main issue here is that the owners want the players to take a lesser percentage of the revenue than they currently get.

 

[Chadstroma]

Yea, I am not. The owners side has been very tight lipped with very little in as much as leaks go. The players side has had much more leaking going on. I am not on the owners side nor am I involved in the discussions so I do not know what they have offered in as much as concessions or what they would be willing to. We are not going to get much leaked out from the players side on that subject.

Here's a theory: The owners are being tight-lipped about their concessions because they haven't offered any (relative to the current deal). If they had offered any, they wouldn't be tight-lipped about them.

It is a theory but they have been tight lipped about everything. There aren't any leaks coming out from their side.

 

[Chadstroma]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

AFAIK, the NFLPA is not looking for an increase in revenue sharing, but the same. So they are NOT looking for MORE money, just maintaining the same percentage.

Just another way of saying more money either way. And technically, they are not seeking the same revenue sharing. They want a bigger piece of it. As revenues go up and costs go up, the owners want a bigger chunk of change to cover the costs. What the players want is status quo because the status quo favors them by way of more money.

Spin it as you wish but both sides want more money. The NFLPA by way of status quo and the NFL owners by way of a new deal. To end this, both sides will have to concede and meet somewhere in the middle.

According to what info are the players not seeking the same revenue sharing? The players were in favor of continuing the current deal. It's the owners who opted out two years early. All indications are that the players would be happy with the SAME percentage of revenue sharing. To say they want more because the revenue is going up is pure spin on your part.And the talk of the $750 to $800 billion difference stems from the fact that the owners wanted to go from taking $1 Billion off the top in the current deal to taking $2 Billion off the top before any sort of revenue sharing. So again, where is it that the players are asking for more money?

Of course it's about money. But to say the player's are asking for more is incorrect. And I'm wondering why your first post in this thread was about "it's hard to argue for the player's getting more money" when main issue here is that the owners want the players to take a lesser percentage of the revenue than they currently get.

Ok, let me explain it to you. Let's say they make $100 dollars in revenue in a year. The previous deal is that they took $20 away for costs and then the $80 gets split 50/50 between the players and owners. The costs actually cost $20. Ok. Now, if that ALL stayed the same then you would be absolutely correct. Each end up with $40 in their pocket.

But, let's say that revenue goes up over time. And, let's say that costs go up over time as well. Let's say that looks like revenue is at $120 a year. Per the old deal, we take $20 out for costs and then split the 50/50 so that players get $50 and owners get $50. What has happened here? Players get more money. Right? But wait, we are not done. The costs have gone up too! The costs are actually $40 now. But, with the old deal, the owners suck that cost in and walk away with $30 in their pocket while the players have walked away with $50.

The status quo means the players get more money. More money, meaning, than they did in previous years. It is the same deal but under that same deal, it favors them and they end up with more money. So, the players get $50 instead of $40. The owners get $30 instead of $40. They are seeking the same deal as before and that same deal means they get more money.

Now obviously the accounting and numbers in real life are a whole lot more complicated and with a whole lot more numbers.

 

[VaTerp]

I don't think if you paid them more that you would see a significant change.

Why?

I do have more sympathy for the football players than I do most unionized employee groups simply because these guys are literally destroying their bodies every sunday. But I do not think you can make an argument that they need to be paid more because X amount go bankrupt after football.

The thing is NOBODY is making the argument that they should be paid more, including the player's union itself. So why is that even brought up? Again, it's very interesting to see how people view and characterize this labor situation.

Really? So.... the NFLPA and NFL are reportedly $800 million apart in reaching a deal so the NFLPA can gain bigger dues? Or do they want to give that money to charity? Like I said, I have sympathy for the NFLPA much more so than I do pretty much any other union because these guys are sacrificing their bodies. That sympathy actually turning into pulling for them. There are countless injuries that have lifetime impact on them. I think that the owners likely can give up more. I would very much like to see the NFL give up much more in terms of lifelong healthcare with less of a standard to qualify for it.

But it is all about money- NFLPA wanting more and the NFL owners wanting more. Of course it is about getting paid more and I do not fault them for it. Unless you are a 1st round pick or a super star, you are not getting paid that much money if your ability to gain income after football is limited.

AFAIK, the NFLPA is not looking for an increase in revenue sharing, but the same. So they are NOT looking for MORE money, just maintaining the same percentage.

Just another way of saying more money either way. And technically, they are not seeking the same revenue sharing. They want a bigger piece of it. As revenues go up and costs go up, the owners want a bigger chunk of change to cover the costs. What the players want is status quo because the status quo favors them by way of more money.

Spin it as you wish but both sides want more money. The NFLPA by way of status quo and the NFL owners by way of a new deal. To end this, both sides will have to concede and meet somewhere in the middle.

According to what info are the players not seeking the same revenue sharing? The players were in favor of continuing the current deal. It's the owners who opted out two years early. All indications are that the players would be happy with the SAME percentage of revenue sharing. To say they want more because the revenue is going up is pure spin on your part.And the talk of the $750 to $800 billion difference stems from the fact that the owners wanted to go from taking $1 Billion off the top in the current deal to taking $2 Billion off the top before any sort of revenue sharing. So again, where is it that the players are asking for more money?

Of course it's about money. But to say the player's are asking for more is incorrect. And I'm wondering why your first post in this thread was about "it's hard to argue for the player's getting more money" when main issue here is that the owners want the players to take a lesser percentage of the revenue than they currently get.

Ok, let me explain it to you. Let's say they make $100 dollars in revenue in a year. The previous deal is that they took $20 away for costs and then the $80 gets split 50/50 between the players and owners. The costs actually cost $20. Ok. Now, if that ALL stayed the same then you would be absolutely correct. Each end up with $40 in their pocket.

But, let's say that revenue goes up over time. And, let's say that costs go up over time as well. Let's say that looks like revenue is at $120 a year. Per the old deal, we take $20 out for costs and then split the 50/50 so that players get $50 and owners get $50. What has happened here? Players get more money. Right? But wait, we are not done. The costs have gone up too! The costs are actually $40 now. But, with the old deal, the owners suck that cost in and walk away with $30 in their pocket while the players have walked away with $50.

The status quo means the players get more money. More money, meaning, than they did in previous years. It is the same deal but under that same deal, it favors them and they end up with more money. So, the players get $50 instead of $40. The owners get $30 instead of $40. They are seeking the same deal as before and that same deal means they get more money.

Now obviously the accounting and numbers in real life are a whole lot more complicated and with a whole lot more numbers.

Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal.

But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.

So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.

 

[Chadstroma]

Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.

First, the theme of my first post was related to the 78% of players in poorhouse theme of the thread. The inference on the title of the thread is that the players do not make enough money or are not rich enough that they end up being set up for the rest of their lives. I simply was replying back that I think for the 80-90% of that 78% making more money would not have made a difference. A recent example of this would be JaMarcus Russell. He got a $61 million dollar deal out of college with $32 of that guaranteed. I am not exactly sure how much of that $29 million that was not guaranteed he ended up with but he got a chunk of that on top of his $32 million. Well, news came out a few weeks ago that his house is in foreclosure. So, my 'theme' was just simply in response to the idea that if 78% are in the poorhouse then they must need more money. As for my characterization that the players want more money being wrong. I don't understand how you can think that when I just showed you that what is at stake is more money. Now, if the player union said 'Hey, we are willing to take less more money if you show us the books of all the franchises' then that is great for them and it surely is a great way to help win the PR battle but it still does not mean that they are not seeking more money. And again, seeking more money does not mean that they have to ask for a new deal but just stick to the old one. I would also like to point out that your assertion that "the owners won't open up their books and show that" is not accurate or just spin. The NFL has released two years of audited financial information. That information apparently does show a cash flow decline. What the NFLPA is asking for and will not get is the books of each individual franchise. You can debate whether the NFLPA absolutely needs each franchises books or if it is just a nifty way to win the PR battle. Just as it gives you the ability to throw out the "the owners won't open up their books and show that".So, I would say that your explanation was not necessary as it did not refute what I have presented in the previous post. Sorry, but you are wrong if you insist that this is not about more money on each side.

 

[VaTerp]

Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.

First, the theme of my first post was related to the 78% of players in poorhouse theme of the thread. The inference on the title of the thread is that the players do not make enough money or are not rich enough that they end up being set up for the rest of their lives. I simply was replying back that I think for the 80-90% of that 78% making more money would not have made a difference. A recent example of this would be JaMarcus Russell. He got a $61 million dollar deal out of college with $32 of that guaranteed. I am not exactly sure how much of that $29 million that was not guaranteed he ended up with but he got a chunk of that on top of his $32 million. Well, news came out a few weeks ago that his house is in foreclosure. So, my 'theme' was just simply in response to the idea that if 78% are in the poorhouse then they must need more money. As for my characterization that the players want more money being wrong. I don't understand how you can think that when I just showed you that what is at stake is more money. Now, if the player union said 'Hey, we are willing to take less more money if you show us the books of all the franchises' then that is great for them and it surely is a great way to help win the PR battle but it still does not mean that they are not seeking more money. And again, seeking more money does not mean that they have to ask for a new deal but just stick to the old one. I would also like to point out that your assertion that "the owners won't open up their books and show that" is not accurate or just spin. The NFL has released two years of audited financial information. That information apparently does show a cash flow decline. What the NFLPA is asking for and will not get is the books of each individual franchise. You can debate whether the NFLPA absolutely needs each franchises books or if it is just a nifty way to win the PR battle. Just as it gives you the ability to throw out the "the owners won't open up their books and show that".So, I would say that your explanation was not necessary as it did not refute what I have presented in the previous post. Sorry, but you are wrong if you insist that this is not about more money on each side.

I'm not saying it's not about money. Every one wants more money and tries to use whatever leverage they have to get more money. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm saying that characterizing the NFL labor situation as the player's wanting more money is incorrect.But I did miss the fact that your point was more of a response to the article and not the labor situation. Probably because I don't agree that the inference of the title in the thread is that players need more money. I think it was just discussing a reality.And revealing selected information is not "opening" your books IMO so that is neither inaccurate or spin just my opinion based on the little I know about the situation. At the end of the day I am a football fan and a FF player and really don't care what deal gets done. I just want the NFL year to go on uninterrupted. Since the owners are the one's who opted out of the deal and are the one's who would lock out the players, I think much more of the onus is on them.

 

[Chadstroma]

Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.

First, the theme of my first post was related to the 78% of players in poorhouse theme of the thread. The inference on the title of the thread is that the players do not make enough money or are not rich enough that they end up being set up for the rest of their lives. I simply was replying back that I think for the 80-90% of that 78% making more money would not have made a difference. A recent example of this would be JaMarcus Russell. He got a $61 million dollar deal out of college with $32 of that guaranteed. I am not exactly sure how much of that $29 million that was not guaranteed he ended up with but he got a chunk of that on top of his $32 million. Well, news came out a few weeks ago that his house is in foreclosure. So, my 'theme' was just simply in response to the idea that if 78% are in the poorhouse then they must need more money. As for my characterization that the players want more money being wrong. I don't understand how you can think that when I just showed you that what is at stake is more money. Now, if the player union said 'Hey, we are willing to take less more money if you show us the books of all the franchises' then that is great for them and it surely is a great way to help win the PR battle but it still does not mean that they are not seeking more money. And again, seeking more money does not mean that they have to ask for a new deal but just stick to the old one. I would also like to point out that your assertion that "the owners won't open up their books and show that" is not accurate or just spin. The NFL has released two years of audited financial information. That information apparently does show a cash flow decline. What the NFLPA is asking for and will not get is the books of each individual franchise. You can debate whether the NFLPA absolutely needs each franchises books or if it is just a nifty way to win the PR battle. Just as it gives you the ability to throw out the "the owners won't open up their books and show that".So, I would say that your explanation was not necessary as it did not refute what I have presented in the previous post. Sorry, but you are wrong if you insist that this is not about more money on each side.

I'm not saying it's not about money. Every one wants more money and tries to use whatever leverage they have to get more money. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm saying that characterizing the NFL labor situation as the player's wanting more money is incorrect.But I did miss the fact that your point was more of a response to the article and not the labor situation. Probably because I don't agree that the inference of the title in the thread is that players need more money. I think it was just discussing a reality.And revealing selected information is not "opening" your books IMO so that is neither inaccurate or spin just my opinion based on the little I know about the situation. At the end of the day I am a football fan and a FF player and really don't care what deal gets done. I just want the NFL year to go on uninterrupted. Since the owners are the one's who opted out of the deal and are the one's who would lock out the players, I think much more of the onus is on them.

I never meant to imply that the current situation is just the player's wanting more money. It is not. It is the player's wanting more money and the owners wanting more money and each positioning themselves to do so. The title along with the story is more about refuting the notion that it is 'millionaires vs. billionaires'. It really does not matter if the 78% made or did not make millions of dollars because again how much they make is not the problem. I was pointing that out and at along the way mentioned that paying them more really would not matter whether they got paid more or not in moving that percentage down. It is not revealing 'selected' information. It is the aggregate of all of the teams books. It is just not broken down by team, which the NFLPA does not need in order to see that the NFL owners have overall a declining cash flow. Individual teams are not going to allow their individual books opened up for all to see. You have to remember that these teams are competing against the other teams and the finances are part of that competition. We can agree that I just hope that a deal is done and we can enjoy our favorite sport. Like I said before, I don't have a dog in the fight other than the mediator because I just want to see the deal done.

 

[Choke]

I never meant to imply that the current situation is just the player's wanting more money. It is not.

A] It is the player's wanting more money and

B] the owners wanting more money

C] and each positioning themselves to do so.

No, the players were going to play under the already negotiated CBA. The owners opted out for... more money.So A] doesnt work under the "current situation" scenario. Though under a new negotiation, when that Agreement expired, it was certainly possible.

 

[Chadstroma]

I never meant to imply that the current situation is just the player's wanting more money. It is not.

A] It is the player's wanting more money and

B] the owners wanting more money

C] and each positioning themselves to do so.

No, the players were going to play under the already negotiated CBA. The owners opted out for... more money.So A] doesnt work under the "current situation" scenario. Though under a new negotiation, when that Agreement expired, it was certainly possible.

Again, status quo means more money for the players year over year. They wanted to keep the previous CBA because that means increasingly more money for the players. While the owners are collectively seeing their cash flow decline.

 

[Choke]

I never meant to imply that the current situation is just the player's wanting more money. It is not.

A] It is the player's wanting more money and

B] the owners wanting more money

C] and each positioning themselves to do so.

No, the players were going to play under the already negotiated CBA. The owners opted out for... more money.So A] doesnt work under the "current situation" scenario. Though under a new negotiation, when that Agreement expired, it was certainly possible.

Again, status quo means more money for the players year over year. They wanted to keep the previous CBA because that means increasingly more money for the players. While the owners are collectively seeing their cash flow decline.

That doesnt change anything though. Let me quote you "It is the player's wanting more money", which was* false in this current situation.

 

[Truman]

Thanks for the explanation but not necessary. Let me explain something to you.The NFLPA has been up front from the beginning that if the owners can prove that costs have gone up so much that they need another $1 billion off the top, they are willing to adjust the deal. But guess what? The owners won't open up their books and show that. Likely because they are greatly overstating how much their costs have gone up since much of their "costs" are subsidized by taxpayers and sweetheart land deals that will allow them to recover those cost and then some in the not so distant future.So the player's have been open to the owners taking more of the top to cover cost, just not the $1 Billion the owners are asking without fully justifying it. So your characterization of the player's wanting more money is still wrong and I still wonder why that was the theme of your original post.

First, the theme of my first post was related to the 78% of players in poorhouse theme of the thread. The inference on the title of the thread is that the players do not make enough money or are not rich enough that they end up being set up for the rest of their lives. I simply was replying back that I think for the 80-90% of that 78% making more money would not have made a difference. A recent example of this would be JaMarcus Russell. He got a $61 million dollar deal out of college with $32 of that guaranteed. I am not exactly sure how much of that $29 million that was not guaranteed he ended up with but he got a chunk of that on top of his $32 million. Well, news came out a few weeks ago that his house is in foreclosure. So, my 'theme' was just simply in response to the idea that if 78% are in the poorhouse then they must need more money.

So if the owners were smart they would be demanding a rookie cap and the guaranteed money redirected to retired players because these tragic idiots have no idea how to spend their money.

 

[Jayrok]

“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.

huh? To assume this is the guy's only contract in his working life is part of the problem. NFL players are contractors. They get paid for providing service in the parameters of a contract. I used to be a contractor for Northrop Grumman, but I don't get any revenue shares or extended health insurance from that company now that I no longer work for them. Didn't the 25 year old have a full scholarship at a university?

Take advantage of a hefty contract, but don't assume that is your only source of income for the rest of your life. If it is, then you better live accordingly. Otherwise, use your education to make a career outside of the few years you play football. If you want health insurance from an NFL team, then work for them as a scout of something. But when you are a player, you are a contractor. Business is business.

You are making a bad comparison. When you were a contractor for Northrop Grumman, did your position that you were contracted for have an average career of less than 4 years?

Did your position take years off your life?

Did people pay to watch you perform your work for Northrop Grumman?

And best of all, could Northrop Grumman end your contract whenever they chose, with no further compensation?

Pretty sure I know the answers to almost all these questions.

1. When you were a contractor for Northrop Grumman, did your position that you were contracted for have an average career of less than 4 years? Answer: Yes. Defense contracts can often go less than 4 years. Some are 2 years and then are competed for again by multiple companies. But what difference does this make? That is why you are a contractor and work within the parameters of the signed contract. You know this up front, so you have to plan accordingly.

2. Did your position take years off your life?

Answer: Every year takes a year off your life. But I know what you mean. But again, what does this have to do with being on contract? The NFL is a violent and dangerous sport, so the players should get good compensation during the life of the contract. But even the league minimum is very good income. Do they sign with a team on contract not knowing the risk of injury? I never said they should not get paid well.

3. Did people pay to watch you perform your work for Northrop Grumman?

Answer: Not that I am aware of. But if they did, I would want to negotiate my contract to pay me much more money. Maybe money close to what a professional athlete makes to perform in front of paying customers. But NFL players do get paid well. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. NFL players generate large amounts of revenue for their employers. That is not in dispute. But they get paid hansomely while they are on contract. Why should they continue to get paid years after they are no longer on contract? It's a business. And the people who share revenue are the share holders of the company.

4. And best of all, could Northrop Grumman end your contract whenever they chose, with no further compensation?

Answer: With no further compensation? Probably not (at least severence pay). But contracts are terminated at times for various reasons. The government may not pick up an option for additional months, etc. It's part of the business. Contractors go from contract to contract. A retirement financial plan is essential for everyone, contractors included, because your employment is not gauranteed beyond your current contract in many cases.

But again, not sure how any of these make any difference when talking about business contracts. Maybe NFL owners can double or triple contributions made to 401k plans for players during their contract years to help supplement retirement. I also believe the league should provide insurance for players who develop health problems due to injuries incurred while employed with the NFL. But why should they share future revenue with former players?

I would like to caveat my previous comments. I didn't know it was the owners who approached the players union about changing the CBA until yesterday. They should certainly open their books if they are the ones who want to cut the amount agreed upon in the previous CBA. I thought it was the players who wanted to negotiate a new CBA.