[JerryM]

At this time of year, some of my thoughts turn to getting my hour of sleep back, earlier sunsets, and the upcoming NFL season.

I'm pretty sure the first two will happen. The NFL; I'm not so sure. 

Whaddya' think?

Any cool "Interim League" predictions? 

Have fun,
Jerry

[Bill O'Connell]

I can't believe that they can't find a way to divide 9 Billion dollars.
The idea that the owners should open up their books for the last 10 years to their employees has me 
 Go to whoever you work for and demand to see their books.

With that being said, Go find another employer who will do.Oh, by the way Your fired!

[maxwalrath]

With the way players actually die younger after football careers, I'm more on the players side of things.  Two extra games sounds like a huge tax on bodies already stretched to the limits.  The whole idea of opening books might sound stupid on it's face, but the players and owners share the pie...to hide part of the income from the other side is inherently dishonest. 

[soundbitten1]

Get ready ...

[kingdeezie]

I can't side with the players here at all.

These guys are making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. I saw a statistic where something like 60-70 percent (estimated) of these players end up bankrupt; not because they are underpaid, but because they are irresponsible with their finances. Giving them more money is slapping a band aid on a severed artery. 

They also willing play a sport that demands physicality; they know this when they sign up to play; its a risk of the job. I work in the medical field, where there are inherent risks; I do not get paid extra for this, its what I signed up for.

Players dying younger after their careers in the NFL is based on speculation, and as far as I can discern, largely due to cardio-vascular issues from the players who maintain unhealthy weights after their stints in the NFL. I don't know if you can hold the NFL accountable for a players actions after they retire; how much they eat, and how sedentary they make their new lifestyles is beyond the NFLs control.

Instead of cars and houses, a wiser investment might be into taking care of themselves; again, not the responsibility of the NFL. My employer doesn't tell me how to spend my money, why should the NFL?

Are the owners making a lot of money off of these players? Hells yes; but the relationship is NOT one sided.

We all understand there are risks to this game, but no one is making these people play football for a living. They are doing it for the money; end of story.

If they want a different lifestyle; get a normal job like 99.9999 percent of the other people on the planet and make the crappy mediocre wages that go with it.

They want to exist in a bubble where they get maximum pay and have zero accountability for their actions with minimum responsibility outside of winning a game.

The sport if difficult, the sport is hard, and these men have talent. But lets get real; in a world where people are struggling to eat, complaining about how to divide 9 billion dollars amongst a select few is a slap in the face.

The players however in this situation have to realize that like every employee in America right now, you are disposable, and you should be happy you can provide for yourself and your family at all.

[jimdgoulding]

Here's my wife's take.  The owners got themselves in a pickle from paying exhorbitant salaries and bonuses in the first place.  Players don't deserve what they make, already.  If they have less off time, maybe they'll have less time for bar hopping, feeling up waitresses, snorting coke, and other displays of lack of respect.

[cujobob]

Owners make too much, players make too much, they're both wrong.  It's like with the Big 3 auto companies.. the owners (back in the day) wanted to play the employees horrid wages and keep the profit for themselves...the union wanted the employees to make more than they likely deserved... in the end...the customers take the biggest hit.

We treat the players like they're special and they buy into it.  Celebrities doing stupid things comes from living a lifestyle where they're treated as though they're above others.  It's not rocket science.  It's easy to say...oh, it's just a stupid person being stupid... but we're stupid people for allowing it to go on.

[MaxCast]

Here's my wife's take.  The owners got themselves in a pickle from paying exhorbitant salaries and bonuses in the first place.  Players don't deserve what they make, already.  If they have less off time, maybe they'll have less time for bar hopping, feeling up waitresses, snorting coke, and other displays of lack of respect.

what say you?

[MaxCast]

... but we're stupid people for allowing it to go on.

some where between stupid and allowing lies the answer.

[jimdgoulding]

what say you?

Whatever it takes for us to have a next season.  Sixteen games is fine with me.  Owners can borrow some money and build a bigger stadium or salary cap or something.  Two more games isn't gonna change a players off field behavior and my wife knows it.     

[drab]

I saw a statistic where something like 60-70 percent (estimated) of these players end up bankrupt; not because they are underpaid, but because they are irresponsible with their finances. Giving them more money is slapping a band aid on a severed artery. 

Since you can make up stats, I'll make one up. I'd say that 90% of the 60-70 percent that you are referencing play one to two years tops and make the league minimum. They are not the ones getting rich.

[MaxCast]

Whatever it takes for us to have a next season.  Sixteen games is fine with me.  Owners can borrow some money and build a bigger stadium or salary cap or something.  Two more games isn't gonna change a players off field behavior and my wife knows it.     

[MaxCast]

...that you are referencing play one to two years tops and make the league minimum. They are not the ones getting rich.

nor should they for playing 1-2 years.

[JLM]

We have a guy from my small church that played two seasons for the Bears.  He made the league minimum ($345,000/year).  Pretty damn good for a 21 year old for 7 months of work, especially considering most of them have some lame sports related degree.

Yes, players and owners both make too much.  Owners should pay for their own stadiums, or better yet like the Packers be publically owned.  And we pay them too much via tickets, merchandise, etc.  If we paid them less, they'd all make less and maybe football (and college ball too) would return to sportsmanship, love for the game, and a small dose of reality.

[Bigfish]

I love NFL Football and this really sucks!  The game I love may be changed forever purely because of greed.  What has made the NFL the number 1 sport in the U.S. has been competitive balance. Take away the salary cap and the NFL could become just like pro baseball. No thanks!

There is no way either side will win by allowing lawyers and the courts deciding the future.  I am certainly confident we fans have been totally screwed.

[kingdeezie]

Since you can make up stats, I'll make one up. I'd say that 90% of the 60-70 percent that you are referencing play one to two years tops and make the league minimum. They are not the ones getting rich.

First off, if you read what I wrote, I didn't make up the statistic; I was quoting it from a source. Real sports did a peice on it.

Secondly, your point is still garbage. The league minimum is over 300k a year, times two that's 600,000 dollars.

The average American makes something like 35-40k a year.

So what you are advocating is that two years at the league minimum, which is equivalent to 15-20 years of the average American salary is not enough?

 

Your right, I'm completely off base.

[Stu Pitt]

A very common misconception is that professional athletes get paid to play sports.  They don't.  They get paid to sell tickets, TV contracts, jerseys, etc.

The NFL has the weakest union of the major professional sports.  By far.  They are no guaranteed contracts in the NFL.  The only guarante is a signing bonus.  Players are used/abused by the franchise tag, which was originally intended as a good thing.

Then there's the issue that the NFL refuses to help out the guys who played a long time ago who are severely impaired due to playing.  Yeah, everyone knows the risks, but c'mon.

If they're contractually entitled to a percentage of profits, how can anyone argue that the league shouldn't have to open up the books?  Its basically like being a partner - it you own a percentage of a company, how are you not entitled to see the books to make sure you're being paid what you're supposed to be paid/contractually owed?  The players should just take the owners' word for it?

That sounds like I'm on the players' side.  Not really.  No one wants to hear about millionaires complaining about not being paid enough, me included.  Like everyone else, I don't have the whole story.

All the pro sports unions could really use some better PR people.  Tell people they're going on strike for a percentage of profits increase, not that they're not being paid enough.  Remember about 10 years or so ago when the NBA went on strike?  Patrick Ewing was the union president at the time.  He publicly said 'The league minimum is $375k per year.  How do you expect those guys to live on that salary?'  The only conceivable way someone can't survive on $375k per year is if they have a very bad coke hooker habit.

Then again, I'm pretty sure the owners of pro teams have a lot more power over the media.  Do you think the NY Knicks owner who also happens to own the major cable company in the area doesn't have a bit of an advantage?  Do you think Fox or NBC are going to side with the people they negotiate contracts with, or the other guys?