Jump to content
SkippyX

Superstars are far more greedy than the owners

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, BroncoSojia said:

The mentality and attitude from people like the OP is why unions have taken such a hit in this country. Arguing for billionaires over millionaires. 9_9

Sometimes unions are good, sometimes they are bad. Buuuuuuuuut well that's getting too close to a particular line of discussion that we aren't supposed to cross so lets leave it at this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BaltimoreTerp said:

Yep. The team presidents and GM's and everyone in the front office are putting in a lot of work, and Jerry is hands-on and does put in work on that end. But for most owners this is just passive income, not something they're putting real work into. Hell a solid quarter to third of NFL owners are trust fund kids who had these teams passed on to them from their parents without ever really having to work a day in their lives. 

I'd need to take a deeper dive into each owner before I'd quantify it as "most". Sure, for every Brown you have a Jones - but in the same vein, for every Jim Isray or Cal McNair (got the business from Daddy) you have a Shad Khan and Terry Pegula, guys who leveraged other business ventures into their NFL ownership. 

Not saying it's not most... but willing to say it might be 55/45 split one way or another. Can't name owners off the top of my head anymore, so can't really confirm or deny this. 

Even if we could split the owners up into these buckets, we don't know the extent of work the trust funders put into the product. Stephen Jones is in that "trust fund baby" discussion, but he's in depth in terms of the day to day operations of the Cowboys. Cal McNair has been on the Texans board since the beginning of the franchise, and is operating as a defacto GM along with BoB and Jack Easterby - I wouldn't consider him as being there to cash checks (as much as I lament his decision making - he's stupid, not lazy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ET80 said:

(as much as I lament his decision making - he's stupid, not lazy).

I believe the word your are looking for is "incompetent"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Danger said:

I believe the word your are looking for is "incompetent"

Nope... nope. Stupid is sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Malfatron said:

The NFL is the biggest sport, but you can make a lot more money playing NBA or MLB

The NFL and MLB have smaller teams. The NBA carries a maximum of 15 players and the MLB has 26. The NFL has 53 players to pay and the injury rate is a lot higher so you have to pay for those guys as well, plus the practice squad. The NFL makes double the revenue the NBA does, but when you only have to pay 15 players a year and the NFL has to pay as many as 60 to 70 after injury payouts, it makes a lot more sense why the NFL can't pay players the way other leagues do. 

Edited by seriously27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KingOfTheDot said:

Them going bankrupt is ridiculous. Most of us make under 100K a year, hell probably under 50K if we're being honest and none seem to have issues supporting their families.

Even after taxes a 3 year life span of the average player thats still around 500-600K during your tenure, money some will never see. Not to mention most are either college graduates or close to finishing or at least have the means to earn a degree.

Point is if you cant manage the money you do make then you dont deserve more of it.

 

Okay, so even in at-will employment states, most people have some solid job security. I can use my wife as an example - she works for the State of Ohio, and her salary is public information. She's around 60K a year right now, and her increases are mapped out until she'd top out at her current position, at which point she would have to (and probably will) get a promotion to make more money.

Now, I realize it's a small percentage of people who work for their State, City or Fed - but there are some people who end up better off than these folks too.

Now, back to my wife - odds are, she'll end up making around 100K by the time she's 45, and the State contributes 14% of her pay (and she contributes 10%) into the retirement plan.

So over the course of my wife's career, here are what her numbers will look like:

30 year contract

$2.5 million

Relatively stress free, compared to people without job security

$100,000/year every year in retirement (depending on what her three highest paid years end up being and how long she works - but assuming she ends up making well over $100,000 and works 30 years total)

She'll also have her own separate retirement account

In this example, she's retiring at age 62

 

If we compare this to your example above - yes, an NFL player who makes $600k in just four years or so is a lot of money - but you almost need to be a financial guru to come out of that in good shape - most people are going to buy a house and a car, and then have living expenses such that they're coming out of it without any actual money left over. Additionally, they've put their bodies through what amounts to torture for half the year that they were in the NFL, which could limit what they can do after those four years.

 

It obviously depends on your career, but you could argue that a middle class income with job security is better than being at the bottom of an NFL roster for only four years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KingOfTheDot said:

Them going bankrupt is ridiculous. Most of us make under 100K a year, hell probably under 50K if we're being honest and none seem to have issues supporting their families.

Even after taxes a 3 year life span of the average player thats still around 500-600K during your tenure, money some will never see. Not to mention most are either college graduates or close to finishing or at least have the means to earn a degree.

Point is if you cant manage the money you do make then you dont deserve more of it.

I agree with this. Any pro who goes bankrupt after retiring should have kept a better eye on their money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

The superstars make more because they’re better. Insinuating that roster fodder or depth guys deserve a bigger slice of the pie, simply for showing up, is a little too socialist for me. Increase the salary cap if you want them to make more.

I like to think of myself as free market as they come. But for an extra game I would have been asking more money for them too, the wear and tear they take is just as great as the superstars so them getting a fair share should be top priority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

The superstars make more because they’re better. Insinuating that roster fodder or depth guys deserve a bigger slice of the pie, simply for showing up, is a little too socialist for me. Increase the salary cap if you want them to make more.

Well... guess we know how you feel about Bernie Sander...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Calvert28 said:

I agree with this. Any pro who goes bankrupt after retiring should have kept a better eye on their money. 

Let me just lay out a scenario for you though.

Lets' say you grew up poor, like really poor. And your family all grew up poor as well. And most of your friends are also poor. Now then let's say you win the genetic lottery and work your way into a pro career that ends up giving you millions of dollars. But your close family is poor right? So you feel bad and you have to take care of your mom right? so you buy her a house and a car and make sure she is taken care of....but then you see your extended family is still poor too. How can you go to family reunions or any of that stuff without feeling horrible right? And maybe you know they can't pay their bills and maybe you know they can't pay for their house? You are a millionaire now right? So you can take care of them too....but wait! You told all your friends you were going to take care of them too. They are your friends and you can't leave them behind right? Then maybe you get someone in your ear telling you they have a great business opportunity and this guy wearing a nice suit and has a nice car is telling you how he can turn you millions into tens of millions....how can your turn that down? Did the college prepare you for this? No....they only cared that you got C's so you could play on Sat. Did your manager prepare you for this? Probably not since he is most likely your uncle or a friend you hired because you are not very trusting from growing up in a bad environment. So you say yes and watch as people steal/borrow and burn through your money because you just wanted to help the people you were told you were leaving behind.

It's not as easy as just saying you wouldn't do it. A lot of people who say that didn't grow up where they grew up and don't have to deal with what they have to deal with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I am not saying that Rodgers is evil. I am saying that he is a hypocrite if he is complaining about the owners share of the pie while he takes 25 pieces from the Green Bay Packers share of the pie.

Throwing a football well is difficult. Playing NFL QB while getting hit is incredibly difficult.

Getting a major sports league off the ground and turning it into a billion dollar organization is about 10,000 times harder than throwing a football well.

The NFL never was and never will be about Marxism. Stop blaming the average owner for making about the same or maybe double the profits per year as a star QB.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are all overpaid playing a kids game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wwhickok said:

Theres 0 reason the owners cant do a 50/50 Revenue split. They just won't.

The post-career benefits should be out of this world, instead, this CBA is apparently making them worse.

The entire CBA is designed to get the 60% week week pay guys to vote yes and make the votes of the high paid vets irrelevant. 

The greedy people here are the owners.

there is a reason. players are employees, not paetners. it may hurt some peoples feelings but its just facts. they dont deserve 50%.

 

additionally youre complaining that this deal takes care of the majority while somethjng like 10% of guys arent getting enough back. hows that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

Getting a major sports league off the ground and turning it into a billion dollar organization is about 10,000 times harder than throwing a football well.

Oh, no... This wheel was already rolling back in the 80s (hell, the 20s of you want to talk about "off the ground"). None of these modern day owners had anything to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

I like to think of myself as free market as they come. But for an extra game I would have been asking more money for them too, the wear and tear they take is just as great as the superstars so them getting a fair share should be top priority. 

I agree. 

I was responding more to the idea that superstars should have have a cap in order for the rest of the players to have bigger contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×