Greed knows no bounds.

[The Dean]

So why do you have to put the color into it Tgreg? Why does it matter what color the owner is?

 

 

When 100% of them are white I guess it doesn't even need to be stated, Right?

[The Dean]

So why do you have to put the color into it Tgreg? Why does it matter what color the owner is? You are forgetting that Revis is one of 53 players on a team. Football is a team game. It is about winning for your TEAM and your FANS. It is a game. The owners make the rules.

 

I own a business. Do you think I am going to let my employees make the rules when I take all the risk? Not on your life. Revis is blessed with a lot of ability, but he is replaceable like every other player save 3 QB's by the name of P. Manning, Brady and Brees. Go back and watch the AFC Championship game again. Revis was LIT UP in the second half. And the owners are exploiting these young men by offering them a 10 year $120 million contract? Please. Because Revis could get seriously injured at any moment? So what. He knows the risks of the game. If he doesn't like it, he can go drive a UPS truck for a living. Noone is making him play. The owners have developed the greatest game ever invented. These players should feel fortunate that they get to play it. And get paid quite well. I hope Revis never gets his money, because the guy is acting like a tool. If Woody Johnson has any balls, he will give Revis a deadline and start taking money off of the table for every day that he does not sign. The NFL has been great for a lot longer than Darel Revis has been around.

[The Dean]

I own a business. Do you think I am going to let my employees make the rules when I take all the risk?

 

 

No.

 

But in football the players take ALL THE RISK, the owners take virtually none. Every NFL makes a profit. There is little to no risk involved. Players risk everything on the field.

[Wayne Cubed]

So why do you have to put the color into it Tgreg? Why does it matter what color the owner is? You are forgetting that Revis is one of 53 players on a team. Football is a team game. It is about winning for your TEAM and your FANS. It is a game. The owners make the rules.

 

I own a business. Do you think I am going to let my employees make the rules when I take all the risk? Not on your life. Revis is blessed with a lot of ability, but he is replaceable like every other player save 3 QB's by the name of P. Manning, Brady and Brees. Go back and watch the AFC Championship game again. Revis was LIT UP in the second half. And the owners are exploiting these young men by offering them a 10 year $120 million contract? Please. Because Revis could get seriously injured at any moment? So what. He knows the risks of the game. If he doesn't like it, he can go drive a UPS truck for a living. Noone is making him play. The owners have developed the greatest game ever invented. These players should feel fortunate that they get to play it. And get paid quite well. I hope Revis never gets his money, because the guy is acting like a tool. If Woody Johnson has any balls, he will give Revis a deadline and start taking money off of the table for every day that he does not sign. The NFL has been great for a lot longer than Darel Revis has been around.

 

+1

 

The argument that they are exploited is ridiculous. I'm sorry if making millions of dollars is part of being exploited sign me up. Not to mention they get to do something they love. Omg they might risk injury, so don't play! Its simple you know the risk and the millions of dollars are the reward. They work for maybe 6 months out of the year to make millions, so no i don't feel bad for Derrelle and how much he's being "exploited."

[Rob's House]

When 100% of them are white I guess it doesn't even need to be stated, Right?

 

And if a portion of owners were not white that would change the equation how exactly?

[The Dean]

And if a portion of owners were not white that would change the equation how exactly?

 

 

It might make sense to mention what % were white.

[Wayne Cubed]

No.

 

But in football the players take ALL THE RISK, the owners take virtually none. Every NFL makes a profit. There is little to no risk involved. Players risk everything on the field.

 

Im sorry but what risk did Jamarcus Russell take? Not a whole lot to earn $40 million guaranteed. Seems to me Al Davis took a big RISK in giving him all that money. Idk about you but $40 million is a good amount of money to wager whether a player will pan out or not. Not to mention Sam Bradford is getting a guaranteed $50 million and he may not even pan out.

[Rob's House]

It might make sense to mention what % were white.

 

I got it. I misunderstood where you were going with that one.

[The Dean]

Im sorry but what risk did Jamarcus Russell take? Not a whole lot to earn $40 million guaranteed. Seems to me Al Davis took a big RISK in giving him all that money. Idk about you but $40 million is a good amount of money to wager whether a player will pan out or not. Not to mention Sam Bradford is getting a guaranteed $50 million and he may not even pan out.

 

 

Every NFL owner is a multi-millionaire (at least) and the football team is hardly his sole, or even primary, source of income. The NFL contract with the networks assures they will make some $$ every year. I can't imagine how poor of a business person you must have to be to lose $$ in the NFL.

 

OTOH, players have for the most part, put everything they have/committed ALL of their time and resources to become good enough to play in the NFL. If they get injured early in their career, they are done. They have to start over.

 

Now, I'm not losing sleep over the plight of NFL players as they get compensated quite well, and that should provide them with the means to change careers. But you bet your sweet ass I'm not crying for owners either. They risk virtually nothing by owning a team. And the contracts are as big as they are because they made them that way.

 

Now you say if a player doesn't like the way contracts are done (one-way in favor of the owners) or don't like the risk of injury they should do something else. The same can be said of the owners. If they don't want to dole out huge salaries and have players hold out, don't get into professional sports. Guess which of these groups has the best options?

 

The truth is, both sides are getting rich off the deal (the owners FAR RICHER than the players, for the record) and we pay the bill. That's how pro sports works. I can understand not wanting to support that system. My advice is to watch high school sports, because college football and basketball aren't all that much different than the pros, when it comes to the fan getting screwed.

[Wayne Cubed]

Every NFL owner is a multi-millionaire (at least) and the football team is hardly his sole, or even primary, source of income. The NFL contract with the networks assures they will make some $$ every year. I can't imagine how poor of a business person you must have to be to lose $$ in the NFL.

 

OTOH, players have for the most part, put everything they have/committed ALL of their time and resources to become good enough to play in the NFL. If they get injured early in their career, they are done. They have to start over.

 

Now, I'm not losing sleep over the plight of NFL players as they get compensated quite well, and that should provide them with the means to change careers. But you bet your sweet ass I'm not crying for owners either. They risk virtually nothing by owning a team. And the contracts are as big as they are because they made them that way.

 

Now you say if a player doesn't like the way contracts are done (one-way in favor of the owners) or don't like the risk of injury they should do something else. The same can be said of the owners. If they don't want to dole out huge salaries and have players hold out, don't get into professional sports. Guess which of these groups has the best options?

 

The truth is, both sides are getting rich off the deal (the owners FAR RICHER than the players, for the record) and we pay the bill. That's how pro sports works. I can understand not wanting to support that system. My advice is to watch high school sports, because college football and basketball aren't all that much different than the pros, when it comes to the fan getting screwed.

 

and i would def agree with you on that. i'm not saying the owners don't make money... but to say that i should feel bad for the players not making enough money... and were talking in terms of millions of $ enough... is ridiculous. i only dream of doing something i love for millions. the owners happen to provide that for the players. i wouldn't side with the owners either if they were upset about money for that matter.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm not comparing it to slavery. But it's a fact that every owner is white and the vast majority of players are not.

 

You never hear the argument going the other way -- unless it's about Ralph being cheap -- you never hear "what's the difference between 3 million dollars and 5 million when you make 300 million plus a year", but you always hear, "he should be happy to be making 3 million dollars! just shut up and sign the contract".

 

Why is that?

 

The owners get off light. I will never understand why fans take the side of the owner over the player when they have far more in common with the player than the owner.

I'll address your bolded statement. Take a sport like professional hockey, where almost all the players are white. Please describe how--other than the race of the players--the NHL's business arrangements are significantly different than those of the NFL. In both cases, you have players getting paid millions to play a sport they love. Both sports are violent, and involve a significant risk of injury.

 

Do you feel that that arrangement exploits the predominately black NFL players, but does not exploit the predominately white NHL players? If so, please explain why.

 

Do you feel both groups are being exploited equally? If so, why bring up race at all? Or do you feel neither group is being exploited?

 

The bottom line is that every time costs go up, the owners have to figure out a way to squeeze more money out of the fans. Take a guy like Jerry Jones. His cost structure is far too high, which has created some financial uncertainty for the Cowboys. To make up for that, he's been messing around with concepts like the idea of selling tickets which will let you into the stadium, but which don't actually give you a seat. (There are places you can stand, and watch the game either directly or on a video screen.) Maybe there's some merit to that idea, but the end goal is to milk NFL fans--that means people like you--for more money. Those tickets seemed pretty overpriced to me, considering you're not getting a seat.

 

Or take the television situation. The NFL overcharged the TV networks for broadcasting rights. To help make up for some of that, the networks seem to be bombarding us with an awful lot of advertising.

 

The bottom line is that greed--whether from the owners or from the players--hurts the sport. Revis wanting to get paid eight digits a year is his greed, and the fans should be disgusted with that. The owners wanting to overcharge for tickets or concessions, or television broadcasters wanting to subject us to too many ads, is their greed. That should be resisted as well. But any time someone tries to make the cost structure more reasonable--in this case, by resisting unreasonable salary demands--that effort should be welcomed. Only with a reasonable cost structure will the NFL not be forced to gouge the fans.

 

Don't forget who ultimately pays for the $12 million+ a year salary Revis is demanding. That someone is you. You pay for it either directly, by buying tickets, or indirectly, by being subjected to an unending stream of commercials for beer, pickup trucks, and SUVs. The fans don't owe Revis that kind of money.

[Captain Caveman]

Last time I checked, he is under contract for 3 more years. I don't care what the money is. He's signed. Show up and play. If he doesn't like the money, he never should have signed the contract in the first place.

 

I usually agree with you, but think about it this way. If he has a career ending injury this year, he doesn't get paid for the next two years of his contract. He's looking for some security. I think the issue is that the amount he is looking for is ridiculous.

[Mr. WEO]

The way it works now there really is very little point to even having a contract.

Player and team have a 10 year "contract" (no guarantee money) for example:

1) Team can cut player at any time with no repercussions.

2) Player can hold out for more money with no repercussions.

 

The only thing I see a contract doing is stopping other teams from making the player an outright offer at any time.

At the end of the day, why have a contract if either side can opt out at any time?

 

 

 

It is completely different. If I have a employment contract with my employer (which I do actually), if partway into the contract I say that I want more money or I will stop working. Do they negotiate with me? Hell no. They slap me with a breach of contract suit and take me to the cleaners. Just not get paid? Only in the NFL which also shows how the NFL system is a mess.

Nope--it's not.

 

No repercussions??? If the player holds out, he loses his salary! If the team cuts a guy before his contract is up, they lose the guaranteed money that would have stretched over most if not all of the players contract had he stayed. Dead money.

 

If you "hold out" (which you are free to do if you chose to accept the risks), you may get sued. More likely your employer will weigh the risk/value of legal action and decide to replace you instead. If they do sue you, you would weigh the risk/benefit of fighting a lawsuit and will decide to work or continue to hold out.

 

It's all pretty much the same---except that the market for "best CB in the NFL" is a very tight market and gives Revis a lot more leverage than you and I would have in a similar situation. Your holdout will never result in a higher pay.

 

Also, can you name any player who has received a 10 year contract with no guranteed money?

[marsadale]

Not to turn this into a discussion on the free market (key word: FREE), but why shouldn't someone make as much money as they can so long as they are not breaking laws to do it?

 

Granted, I understand that the divide between the "have's" and the "have not's" is growing, but do we really want a communist system, whereby everyone gets a set amount of money- no matter their ability?

 

I don't know what you do for work Joe. But if you were the best darn electrician at a company- head and shoulders above everyone else- shouldn't you be compensated better than some Schmoe who is always late, is terrible w/customers, barely knows his job, comes to work drunk, etc?

 

And I am not speaking of somebody who is rich here (I don't know what I'd do if I was a millionaire- let alone a MULTI millionaire). But your hinting that executives are "fat cats" (Obamaspeak), and therefore worthy of scorn is a little on the socialist side.

 

Doesn't a CEO deal with more than, say a janitor at an auto plant? Shouldn't you be compensated for your skill and ability, rather than just imprisoned by a restrictive system?

"the problem isn't with the system of capitolism, the problem is the Capitolists"- Karl Marx

[Mr. WEO]

Every NFL owner is a multi-millionaire (at least) and the football team is hardly his sole, or even primary, source of income. The NFL contract with the networks assures they will make some $$ every year. I can't imagine how poor of a business person you must have to be to lose $$ in the NFL.

 

OTOH, players have for the most part, put everything they have/committed ALL of their time and resources to become good enough to play in the NFL. If they get injured early in their career, they are done. They have to start over.

 

Now, I'm not losing sleep over the plight of NFL players as they get compensated quite well, and that should provide them with the means to change careers. But you bet your sweet ass I'm not crying for owners either. They risk virtually nothing by owning a team. And the contracts are as big as they are because they made them that way.

 

Now you say if a player doesn't like the way contracts are done (one-way in favor of the owners) or don't like the risk of injury they should do something else. The same can be said of the owners. If they don't want to dole out huge salaries and have players hold out, don't get into professional sports. Guess which of these groups has the best options?

 

The truth is, both sides are getting rich off the deal (the owners FAR RICHER than the players, for the record) and we pay the bill. That's how pro sports works. I can understand not wanting to support that system. My advice is to watch high school sports, because college football and basketball aren't all that much different than the pros, when it comes to the fan getting screwed.

The fan is "getting screwed" by watching at least 8 free games a year on TV?? And the rest on the internet?

 

It would surprise you to learn that even profitable companies do take risks. Some would actually argue it is the reason they are profitable.

[The Dean]

The fan is "getting screwed" by watching at least 8 free games a year on TV?? And the rest on the internet?

 

It would surprise you to learn that even profitable companies do take risks. Some would actually argue it is the reason they are profitable.

 

 

Most profitable companies take risks. Owning an NFL team is one that takes few and has a virtual guarantee of profit.

 

The fan that pays the most are those who buy tickets. But few, if any, watch for free. Those who buy products advertised in the game pay fairly directly.

 

And you might be surprised that most fans do not know how to watch their team's games on the Internet.

[Mr. WEO]

Most profitable companies take risks. Owning an NFL team is one that takes few and has a virtual guarantee of profit.

 

The fan that pays the most are those who buy tickets. But few, if any, watch for free. Those who buy products advertised in the game pay fairly directly.

 

And you might be surprised that most fans do not know how to watch their team's games on the Internet.

Oh come on! Is the network channel "screwing me" by advertising products I might buy when I am watching their programs other than NFL games?? What a reach! What about those who don't pay for the products? Fans not knowing how to watch the games on the internet does not alter the fact that they can be watched for free---on the internet.

 

Some owners are wildly profitable in the NFL--they are the ones taking the most financial risk. One makes good money and takes no risk.

[CodeMonkey]

Nope--it's not.

 

No repercussions??? If the player holds out, he loses his salary! If the team cuts a guy before his contract is up, they lose the guaranteed money that would have stretched over most if not all of the players contract had he stayed. Dead money.

 

If you "hold out" (which you are free to do if you chose to accept the risks), you may get sued. More likely your employer will weigh the risk/value of legal action and decide to replace you instead. If they do sue you, you would weigh the risk/benefit of fighting a lawsuit and will decide to work or continue to hold out.

 

It's all pretty much the same---except that the market for "best CB in the NFL" is a very tight market and gives Revis a lot more leverage than you and I would have in a similar situation. Your holdout will never result in a higher pay.

 

Also, can you name any player who has received a 10 year contract with no guranteed money?

Bolded above: Step out of football and into the real world for just a minute. If I signed a contract with you to perform some service for 5 years and after 2 years I said that I needed more money or I would not continue to provide the service. What would you do?

 

A) Give me the additional money.

B) Forget about the contract and find someone else to provide the service.

C) Hold me to the contract and sue my ass off if I do not comply.

 

I believe any rational businessperson picks C. That is the whole point of having a contract.

 

As to the rest of your post, I do not think the entire situation is all the players fault. As you point out, the owners can cut a player without paying out the contract as well. This is equally as wrong as the players holding out while under contract. If neither side wants to live up to the terms of a proposed contract, then do not sign it. It really should be as simple as that and is how the rest of the business world operates. Why does the NFL feel that they are special?

[T master]

Let him sit far as I'm concerned.

 

 

AMEN !!!

[Doc]

Oh come on! Is the network channel "screwing me" by advertising products I might buy when I am watching their programs other than NFL games?? What a reach! What about those who don't pay for the products? Fans not knowing how to watch the games on the internet does not alter the fact that they can be watched for free---on the internet.

 

Some owners are wildly profitable in the NFL--they are the ones taking the most financial risk. One makes good money and takes no risk.