Former player Jack Brewer offers his perspective

[Beerball]

Here are some of his thoughts:

 

over 80 percent of the players are bankrupt shortly after taking their last snap...I am left to question the players' union strategy. Shouldn’t they be negotiating to put measures in place to actually allow the players to keep the money they are fighting for in this labor dispute?

 

NFL players are paid over a four-month period, which causes obvious budgeting issues and never really affords these young professionals the opportunity to learn fiscal responsibility...Players should have no choice but to take their paychecks and bonuses over a 12-month period. They should also have the option to defer a portion of their compensation, given their short career spans and young retirement ages.

 

As I enter my fifth year as a retired NFL player, I am faced with the unfortunate reality that my NFL healthcare coverage will be terminated in less than a year...This is certainly an issue that I would fight for as a players association, rather than an extra percentage point in revenue.

 

As an owner paying my players the majority of the revenue, I definitely would not want to guarantee any portion of a contract, nor would I want to give a player his salary if he could not perform. If the players union focused its efforts on getting a minimum portion of players contract guaranteed (1 or 2 years), and took less money on the revenue side, the outcome would be much more beneficial for the league.

 

link

[Sisyphean Bills]

Would the NFLPA and players support increased roster sizes, which means necessarily splitting the pie into more slices? Good article, Alcorb.

[jumbalaya]

Unfortunately the NFL PA and MLB PA are much more focused on the few at the top than those at the bottom. That is because as most people understand that the Agents really call the shots. Just like in politics where the special interests run the day, the agents run the negotiations. Moving the revenue / benefits so all equally benefit does not help the agents who make their living off the top players. If an idea does not help the agents, like Brewer's of giving up revenue for long term healthcare, it will not survive. This is not unlike our own healthcare discussions today, if an idea does not help the high priced doctors, big pharma, the insurance companies or the hospital lobbyists, it is branded as socialism and gets attacked. People and many football players need to wake up.

[maryland-bills-fan]

Here is something that I don't understand. Most players have a short career and I wonder why most of the players would want to risk knocking a year plus off of their career if they really do kill NFL football for 2011. The "average" career is under some debate (2.6 years or 6 years for players making the opening day roster?), but it is pretty short. Actually, Iwould be interested in the median career length (e.g. sort all the career lengths by time of career and then take the middle length) because that would show where half the union members were in career length. I would like to include the practice squad players (they are represented by the union as well and often have shorter careers)as well- this would bring down the number as well.

 

If the real career length for over half the union members is 3 years or so, and the union represents the members..... does it make sense that the majority of the players would give up a third of their big career paychecks for the benefit of a handful of superstars who want a couple more tens of million of dollars???? Also, does it make sense that the lower tier players are going to want to be competing with the next year's draft picks for their jobs?

 

It looks to me that the union lawyers are representing themselves and their fat paychecks.

Edited June 14, 2011 by maryland-bills-fan

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Thanks for posting, Beerball.

 

While I appreciate his perspective as a former player, I really don't agree with Brewer and the many points he makes.

 

IMO, it all boils down to the portion of the pie.

 

All the rest IMO is smoke and mirrors… or less harshly, window dressing.

 

It's kind of like society saying you have to wear seat belts and wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle and that you're not allowed to smoke and drink… that you have to set aside a certain amount of your paycheck...

 

These might be bad examples but the point I'm trying to make is that Brewer's ideas are basically an attempt to make the world idiot-proof for these players.

 

He makes several points and I don't really want to address each and every one but for instance, his idea about the pay being distributed over 52 weeks. Most financial experts tell you that you should get all your money as soon as possible in order to invest it and immediately start earning interest on it. Furthermore, as far as the cash flow issue, there are many sales professionals who work on commission only who manage to parlay 3-4 mega-deals each year into a comfortable and secure lifestyle. There are also many seasonal workers who have an uneven cash flow over the course of the year but manage to make it work.

 

These players (and I'm typically pro-labor) make huge enough amounts of money that they should be able to manage it well enough to have a good life with health insurance and long-term financial security, IMO.

 

Telling the players to accept a smaller piece of the pie and trade the difference for a few mechanisms… what I would call artificial constructs is not the way to go. Will it stop them from buying ridiculous amounts of jewelry or cars? Will it change their "value system?" Maybe it would restrict these purchases somewhat, maybe it wouldn't.

 

The players should try to get all the money that they can leverage out of a CBA.

 

If they can manage it, more power to them.

 

If they can't, well there's no cure for stupid.

 

Put differently, the players inability to control their own spending shouldn't result in them trading money away so they have less to spend… in the name of structuring their lives.

[Beerball]

Thanks for posting, Beerball.

 

While I appreciate his perspective as a former player, I really don't agree with Brewer and the many points he makes.

 

IMO, it all boils down to the portion of the pie.

That is exactly what he's saying shouldn't be the case, so yes, you do disagree with him.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Unfortunately the NFL PA and MLB PA are much more focused on the few at the top than those at the bottom. That is because as most people understand that the Agents really call the shots. Just like in politics where the special interests run the day, the agents run the negotiations. Moving the revenue / benefits so all equally benefit does not help the agents who make their living off the top players. If an idea does not help the agents, like Brewer's of giving up revenue for long term healthcare, it will not survive. This is not unlike our own healthcare discussions today, if an idea does not help the high priced doctors, big pharma, the insurance companies or the hospital lobbyists, it is branded as socialism and gets attacked. People and many football players need to wake up.

 

Here is something that I don't understand. Most players have a short career and I wonder why most of the players would want to risk knocking a year plus off of their career if they really do kill NFL football for 2011. The "average" career is under some debate (2.6 years or 6 years for players making the opening day roster?), but it is pretty short. Actually, Iwould be interested in the median career length (e.g. sort all the career lengths by time of career and then take the middle length) because that would show where half the union members were in career length. I would like to include the practice squad players (they are represented by the union as well and often have shorter careers)as well- this would bring down the number as well.

 

If the real career length for over half the union members is 3 years or so, and the union represents the members..... does it make sense that the majority of the players would give up a third of their big career paychecks for the benefit of a handful of superstars who want a couple more tens of million of dollars???? Also, does it make sense that the lower tier players are going to want to be competing with the next year's draft picks for their jobs?

 

It looks to me that the union lawyers are representing themselves and their fat paychecks.

Both of you make some good points but I think you're both addressing a related but slightly different issue… the one of pay equity.

 

I agree that pay should be more equitable across the board.

 

But I think Brewer is saying that the players shouldn't care so much about how big a piece of the pie they are getting… almost as if he's advocating the players taking less for certain securities in life. This is what I disagree with.