- Jun 15, 2009
- 8,529
- 1
- 0
OK, i am going with... no side.
Players are overpaid as long taxpayers have to pay for stadiums (even those who are not interested in pro sports) and congress gives monopoly to the NFL.
It doesn´t matter how much money you throw after players. Those who can´t count, go bankrupt anyway. Look at Michael Jackson or Mike Tyson and their decadent lifestyles. They really killed wealth. But that´s not the problem of the taxpayers.
I give you the insurance point. But this only is true for the older players. Even back in the 80´s Pro-Bowl OL-Men earned as little as 50.000 $ a year (source: McMahon´s autobiography). Those players were really underpaid. Those are the ones who suffer today. Those were the players who were treated with WW II medicine. But in the end, it was still sport and not $uck the fans at all costs only. I don´t feel an inch sorry for the players of today. It got out of hand when millionares got on strike in 1994 in MLB. Around that time salaries started to skyrocket over all major leagues. The 82 & 87 NFL-Strikes made sense, while last years fight was a farce.
Entertainment! That´s what makes me angry. I guess we all love sports. The players started as sportsmen. Jesus, even the game was meant to be a sports event. I don´t like this WWE stuff. Fantasy points on the official NFL-Site!? What´s next? Bookies making commercials there (it´s not far out of reach; Easterbrook discussed it last year that such plans exist
)? Formerly stadiums were called soldier field, nowadays you have Fedex Field. All in the name of dollars. It´s disgusting.
Let the market dictate! Yes, let´s do it. Stop stadium buildings by taxpayers for the profit for owners/players only. Stop the monopoly. So next time the millionares dare to strike; let them do it. Soon other leagues will be founded. Market will get in. I have no problem with that.
Without the players we would have no teams? Sorry, disagree here.
Without the owners, who fought and corrupted their way to the top, there would be no teams. Make an experiment: Let those greedy players try to built a league and organize it. They´ll fail. Guaranteed. The players are nothing, if the NFL wasn´t made a success by the owners over a very, very long period.
Players are overpaid as long taxpayers have to pay for stadiums (even those who are not interested in pro sports) and congress gives monopoly to the NFL.
It doesn´t matter how much money you throw after players. Those who can´t count, go bankrupt anyway. Look at Michael Jackson or Mike Tyson and their decadent lifestyles. They really killed wealth. But that´s not the problem of the taxpayers.
I give you the insurance point. But this only is true for the older players. Even back in the 80´s Pro-Bowl OL-Men earned as little as 50.000 $ a year (source: McMahon´s autobiography). Those players were really underpaid. Those are the ones who suffer today. Those were the players who were treated with WW II medicine. But in the end, it was still sport and not $uck the fans at all costs only. I don´t feel an inch sorry for the players of today. It got out of hand when millionares got on strike in 1994 in MLB. Around that time salaries started to skyrocket over all major leagues. The 82 & 87 NFL-Strikes made sense, while last years fight was a farce.
Alpe d'Huez said:But are they really overpaid? I mean, it depends on your perspective. If the players didn't get the money, the owners would just keep it all. And most of the players only last 3 seasons or so. Thus, the money they make often has to last them a long time, and as we know, many of them don't have much in the way of insurance when they get old, but have many health problems.
I guess in an ideal world the owners would have less money, the games would be inexpensive, and the players would make good money, but instead of making them super rich, the league would have a very comfortable health insurance and retirement plan for players. But that's not going to happen. So if it's an issue of the players (who do the work) getting the money, or the owners keeping it, I'll side with the players.
Entertainment! That´s what makes me angry. I guess we all love sports. The players started as sportsmen. Jesus, even the game was meant to be a sports event. I don´t like this WWE stuff. Fantasy points on the official NFL-Site!? What´s next? Bookies making commercials there (it´s not far out of reach; Easterbrook discussed it last year that such plans exist
Let the market dictate! Yes, let´s do it. Stop stadium buildings by taxpayers for the profit for owners/players only. Stop the monopoly. So next time the millionares dare to strike; let them do it. Soon other leagues will be founded. Market will get in. I have no problem with that.
Without the players we would have no teams? Sorry, disagree here.
on3m@n@rmy said:I'll expand Alpe's rationale. What kind of money do you think big screen movie stars should make for the entertainment value they provide? I'm talking moderate to big names, like Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, Gene Hackman, Michael Caine, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, Tom Hanks, Liv Ullmann, Morgan Freeman, Daniel Day-Lewis, Emma Thompson? Okay, I guess those are mostly big names. Point is, athletes are as much screen entertainment as movie stars. PLUS their careers are much shorter. Even the lower paid, lower value players contribute substantially to the entertainment value because without them we would not have teams. So the players should get paid according to the entertainment value they provide, without breaking the owners back or wallet. So I too side with the players, even though some do get a bit extra greedy and there seems to be a one upsmanship when it comes to player contracts that is a bit over the top. But I say let the market dictate what owners can afford to pay. Eventually there is a practical limit to how much owners can pay and still survive.