leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 This is the only way, because as long as fans are willing to spend the money then the players deserve it. Its only when the fans decide enough is enough can or wil this change. This is capitalism folks. Nobody should be upset with players because our corporations, banks, wallstreet, and plutocrats/oligarchs do this all the time themselves... Whats good for the goose is good for the gander Fact is players are the product, and fans are paying for the product. Don't like it stop paying for it. If you can not stop and walk away then you really can't complain I understand the sentiment expressed by Seymour, and the desire to maximize earning potential. I don't sweat what they say, how they say it much one way or the other. Sherman making more or less money one way or the other doesn't impact me. Still, I am always amazed that someone complains how great someone else (owner) has it over them (elite player) when all the while they have a much much better deal than someone else (average player) who often has it better still that. someone else (retired player with health issues etc). strike. don't strike. whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Yeah, because there are so few unmotivated players now in the NFL with partially guaranteed contracts. And the NBA hasn't exactly been destroyed even though they have plenty of unmotivated guys and guaranteed contracts. Most players are motivated beyond belief. Some aren't. I don't think it's a money issue in most cases, just a personality issue. I doubt we'd see much more laziness with guaranteed contracts. Some, of course, but I doubt it would take a huge leap up. Not that I think we'll see fully guaranteed contracts in football in the near future. But eventually? Maybe. So you agree? Weird take, I guess. They won't win if Rodgers, Brees, & Brady go on strike. The NFL is pathetically greedy. They let refs strike rather than let them be full time and cost the Packers a game. No, he's not. You may not agree with him but I bet his resume looks a little better than yours. Yup. If the big names were on board, the NFL would be in a lot of trouble. It blows my mind how many people go against players and side with owners. All entertainers and athletes are overpaid compared to teachers and professions like that. But they also generate billions of dollars. The NFL, the richest and most physically damaging league in the world, has the worst contracts. No, they wouldn't. bandit is 100% correct in that the "names," don't matter, just the numbers. Brady can't go on strike when the 50 depth players tell him no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 i would personally enjoy watching replacement players. the Bills might actually be able to field a competitive team. if we win the Super Bowl with scabs does it still count? Why not? The Patriots* have won their championships by cheating and they count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 There are many factors at work here. First, There are 32 NFL teams with 53 roster spots each, making for 1,696 NFL players at any given moment. There are 30 NBA teams with 15 roster spots each, making for 450 NBA players. So naturally, the average salary of an NBA player would be more than an NFL player. Also the percentages are not that far apart. For the NBA I the players receiver 50-51% of revenues generated and from what I can tell from the 2011 CBA restructure, the NFL's is around 46-47%. So the percentages are not that far apart. Maybe the NFL could bump it up by about 4% and it would be exactly the same percentage of revenues. Thirdly, NFL players play 16 regular season games, vs. 82 in the NBA. Both leagues have pre-season and post season games, but again NBA players play significantly more games. All in all, I believe all pro athletes are overpaid for what they do and looking at these numbers, I'd say that while maybe there could be a slight adjustment in percentage of revenues going to NFL players, the current system seems more than fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) NFL players' biggest failing over the years has been their inability to follow through on a strike. This Business Insider piece and graph tells you all you need to know, pretty much. Forget the NBA; look at Indian cricket, MLB, and the NHL: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/nfl-mlb-nba-nhl-average-sports-salaries-2016-11 The fact that the NFL spends more is mostly irrelevant given that they make a lot more than every other league (nearly 40 percent more than MLB, which is in second). How many games players play is irrelevant w/regard to the money situation, btw. Edited July 13, 2017 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Actually players win the majority of the time. I mean they are getting a significant chunk of the revenue already and rightfully so... I will always support players and organized labor... I will support the fans if they want to boycott the sport to reduce overall pricing, but if the fans are willing to pay the prices then I side with the players. If the fans decide they had enough and walk away and refuse to financially support the sport until prices come down across the board, then I will supprt there cause, but as long as they are willing to spend then the players deserve as much of the moeny they can negotiate for themselves I buy NFL Sunday ticket and that is it. I don't own any jerseys or t-shirts or any other NFL swag and rarely attend games. What if you don't have NFL Sunday ticket, and just watch whatever is broadcast on your local station? Would you still consider that to be supporting the NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Yeah, friggin' greedy workers. The very idea of a union for millionaires rankles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 NFL players' biggest failing over the years has been their inability to follow through on a strike. This Business Insider piece and graph tells you all you need to know, pretty much. Forget the NBA; look at Indian cricket, MLB, and the NHL: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/nfl-mlb-nba-nhl-average-sports-salaries-2016-11 The fact that the NFL spends more is mostly irrelevant given that they make a lot more than every other league (nearly 40 percent more than MLB, which is in second). How many games players play is irrelevant w/regard to the money situation, btw. Good post. If NFL teams were starting guys like Jamarcus Russell and Vince Young, the owners would cave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Love it how people are mad that players get paid so much when it is 100% their own fault. You pay insane prices for tickets, merchandise, parking, concessions. You click all the articles on various sites. You purchase cable packages to watch games. You watch the games driving up ratings and advertising dollars. Then, when the players who possess a truly elite skill, who sacrifice their bodies, work tirelessly every day to be in phenomenal shape, deal with crazy fans and media types on a daily basis as a celebrity, want to receive the lions share of the revenues you call them greedy. It is the billionaire owners who are the greedy ones in my mind. Sitting back in their lush offices and stadium suites, not doing crap besides watching their enormous fortunes grow on a minute by minute basis. Blame yourself, blame the owners, but the players should be the last ones to blame in my mind. Revenue totals for the biggest major sporting leagues worldwide in 2016. Weird. According to ESPN the only sports that exist are the football and basketball. Baseball is twice the revenues of the NBA and they hardly get a whiff of coverage anymore. The NHL coverage is non-existent until the playoffs. I swear, you will see more WNBA highlights in season than MLB highlights on any given SC. It is absurd. Shocking they are failing. Edited July 13, 2017 by Mark80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Allan in MD Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 It's rotten how these overpaid, self important, pampered souls are treated. And they don't even get paid to take underwater basket weaving at The U for a year. I'd love some of that pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Fully guaranteed deals would make the NFL worse. No thanks. Evidence? The NBA certainly isn't suffering, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Can't believe these greedy people making millions tell others what to do. The owners will stick togeather and keep the players out as long as they want and so be it. Money is the root of all evil and the greed of the players will kill their golden goose. Unions are like politicians. They only want to keep their job. Shame it has to come to this. Go owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Evidence? The NBA certainly isn't suffering, is it? The NBA has 1/4th the number of players that the NFL does. Edited July 13, 2017 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Evidence? The NBA certainly isn't suffering, is it? Don't hold your breath. There is no evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) The players would lose in any work stoppage, just as they have in every other work stoppage. Regardless of who the fans side with, the billionaires are the ones that don't need the money, whereas the bottom 90% of NFL players do, in fact, need their weekly game checks to support their families and lifestyles. Unless the top 10% paid NFL players are prepared to set up a "survival fund" for the bottom 90%, a work stoppage is a bad, bad decision. The NFL players certainly have fared poorly in past labor disputes, but that need not always be the case. In the past, the players have been incompetently represented by their union. I suspect things have changed. Nevertheless, NFL players have a lot of legitimate concerns, especially in comparison to their comrades in MLB and the NBA, that can and should be addressed in future negotiations with the owners. And I think you might be overestimating the owners' invulnerability. Yes, they have a lot of money, but they also have a golden goose that they don't want to kill, and that could happen in a prolonged and ugly work stoppage. There is plenty of money to go around... The NBA has 1/4th the number of players that the NFL does. And how does that prove that guaranteed contracts would be bad for the NFL? Edited July 13, 2017 by mannc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Evidence? The NBA certainly isn't suffering, is it? How does a league with 1/8 the players but only 1/3 the money apply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 The NFL players certainly have fared poorly in past labor disputes, but that need not always be the case. In the past, the players have been incompetently represented by their union. I suspect things have changed. Nevertheless, NFL players have a lot of legitimate concerns, especially in comparison to their comrades in MLB and the NBA, that can and should be addressed in future negotiations with the owners. And I think you might be overestimating the owners' invulnerability. Yes, they have a lot of money, but they also have a golden goose that they don't want to kill, and that could happen in a prolonged and ugly work stoppage. There is plenty of money to go around... And how does that prove that guaranteed contracts would be bad for the NFL? 53 players per squad with guaranteed money WITH a hard cap would be undoubtedly a problem. Say your top $ guy gets hurt. You're !@#$ed. And possibly for multiple years. Yeah, it's a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 How does a league with 1/8 the players but only 1/3 the money apply? Sorry, I don't understand your point. 53 players per squad with guaranteed money WITH a hard cap would be undoubtedly a problem. Say your top $ guy gets hurt. You're !@#$ed. And possibly for multiple years. Yeah, it's a bad idea. Then how does the NBA survive? At any rate, there is already plenty of guaranteed $$ out there in the NFL...all we are talking about is increasing something that's already there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Call me selfish but the NFL contract structure keeps even the best players on their toes. This makes the entertainment better for all fans of the game. I'm glad they are different than the NBA and MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackerjack man Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 It's rotten how these overpaid, self important, pampered souls are treated. And they don't even get paid to take underwater basket weaving at The U for a year. I'd love some of that pain. It's interesting that people have this mindset of animosity towards the players. I don't really understand it. It seems to me that are to some extent being exploited for profit by the owners, like most laborers. Compared to most industries you could argue the level of exploitation is about the same. 50% for payroll? Not to mention, as others have pointed out, the average career is only 3-4 years and much of the earnings are taxed away, pay managers, are poorly invested, etc. (There's a Netflix documentary). I guess I understand it's difficult to sympathize with someone making hundreds of thousands of dollars to play a game. But the straight up animosity is bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts