Buffalo_Stampede Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Sherman signed a 56 million dollar deal with 40 million guaranteed..11 million up front.... POOR RICHY ,,,((((( It's business. Who do you want to have the money, rich football players that risk injury or wealthy owners that could care less about fans and the players. Fans sure aren't getting it, although wouldn't that be awesome if some player said ticket prices and jersey prices should go down. Edited July 13, 2017 by TheTruthHurts
Blokestradamus Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 While true, NBA rosters have what 13 players on a team? and there are 30 teams so 390 total players, nfl has 53 players (not sure about inactives as the NBA number includes the one inactive) with 32 teams = 1696 players. so if you want to do a revenue per player: NBA = 12,307,692.31 NFL = 7,665,094.34 so while NFL has more revenue there is less to go around per player I think it's more about a collective piece of the pie. Using the salary cap numbers for the NBA and NFL from 2016, the NBA salary cap total was around $2.83bn and the NFL total was $4.97bn. I should point out, I'm not a basketball guy, not a clue on the luxury tax line so correct me if my numbers are a bit off. Given that the NFL is bringing in roughly 2.7 times the revenue of the NBA, they might be able to fight a case for getting a larger slice of the revenue. Even despite the disparity with NFL players only playing one way and NBA players going both ways, there's precedents sets with events like Wimbledon that pay men and women equally despite not playing the same number of sets per match. It should be an interesting CBA negotiation upcoming.
thebandit27 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 It's business. Who do you want to have the money, rich football players that risk injury or wealthy owners that could care less about fans and the players. Fans sure aren't getting it, although wouldn't that be awesome if some player said ticket prices and jersey prices should go down. The fact that it's a business means that it doesn't matter who you want to have the money. The business owners take on all of the financial risk, and thus are the ones that make the biggest profits. And again, the players don't really have a leg to stand on; the owners are the ones that need the money less, so they're the ones that can wait out a strike longer. All that said, I don't fault the players for wanting more money. I think that, in a sense, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.
KellyToughII Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Revenue totals for the biggest major sporting leagues worldwide in 2016. Right and what does it cost each team to be ran vs other leagues? The players already get something like 48% of the money, tough crap. I say strike, and then I field players in the draft that want to play for what they are paid. NBA teams pay 5 starters, not 24 starters (inc Kicker and punter) and then field nearly 30 more backups. They don't pay into concussion funds etc like the NFL does. Sherman is a moron. I say let them strike and field guys who will play for what they are paid. Continue to draft and they will play for what they are paid as well. Screw the cry baby multi millionaires. If you have it so bad, then go get a JOB with that FREE Education you got for playing a sport.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 The fact that it's a business means that it doesn't matter who you want to have the money. The business owners take on all of the financial risk, and thus are the ones that make the biggest profits. And again, the players don't really have a leg to stand on; the owners are the ones that need the money less, so they're the ones that can wait out a strike longer. All that said, I don't fault the players for wanting more money. I think that, in a sense, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. Owners worst nightmare is a strike. The problem is more than half the league can't afford to strike. People see Richard Sherman and Sammy Watkins speaking out, but it's the depth players that are hurt the most. The players that don't get huge guarantees and signing bonuses. These players make up most of the league.
thebandit27 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Owners worst nightmare is a strike. The problem is more than half the league can't afford to strike. People see Richard Sherman and Sammy Watkins speaking out, but it's the depth players that are hurt the most. The players that don't get huge guarantees and signing bonuses. These players make up most of the league. I don't see how the owner's worst nightmare is a strike; they have a TV contract in place that will pay them billions. Also, you'll notice that my very first post in this thread discussed that it's the bottom 90% of rosters that will be impacted the most, which is why the owners will win in any work stoppage.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 The players would lose in any work stoppage, just as they have in every other work stoppage. Regardless of who the fans side with, the billionaires are the ones that don't need the money, whereas the bottom 90% of NFL players do, in fact, need their weekly game checks to support their families and lifestyles. Unless the top 10% paid NFL players are prepared to set up a "survival fund" for the bottom 90%, a work stoppage is a bad, bad decision. And thebandit nails it.
Hurricane Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Go ahead and strike... I'll fish all day sunday..
Jauronimo Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 I don't see how the owner's worst nightmare is a strike; they have a TV contract in place that will pay them billions. Also, you'll notice that my very first post in this thread discussed that it's the bottom 90% of rosters that will be impacted the most, which is why the owners will win in any work stoppage. That's what ended the last lockout. The owner's are not at all afraid of a work stoppage.
Wayne Cubed Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 I don't see how the owner's worst nightmare is a strike; they have a TV contract in place that will pay them billions. Also, you'll notice that my very first post in this thread discussed that it's the bottom 90% of rosters that will be impacted the most, which is why the owners will win in any work stoppage. And with union, that 10% will get out voted pretty quickly if the other 90% need the money.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 The NFL, and its lunacy, really are trying their best to stop me from watching pro football. Having written that, I have no problems with shorter, guaranteed contracts, and with higher money. The caveat here is that this dead cap money crapola should be laid to rest.
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 I don't see how the owner's worst nightmare is a strike; they have a TV contract in place that will pay them billions. Also, you'll notice that my very first post in this thread discussed that it's the bottom 90% of rosters that will be impacted the most, which is why the owners will win in any work stoppage. They won't win if Rodgers, Brees, & Brady go on strike. The NFL is pathetically greedy. They let refs strike rather than let them be full time and cost the Packers a game. Richard Sherman is an idiot No, he's not. You may not agree with him but I bet his resume looks a little better than yours. Owners worst nightmare is a strike. The problem is more than half the league can't afford to strike. People see Richard Sherman and Sammy Watkins speaking out, but it's the depth players that are hurt the most. The players that don't get huge guarantees and signing bonuses. These players make up most of the league. Yup. If the big names were on board, the NFL would be in a lot of trouble. It's business. Who do you want to have the money, rich football players that risk injury or wealthy owners that could care less about fans and the players. Fans sure aren't getting it, although wouldn't that be awesome if some player said ticket prices and jersey prices should go down. It blows my mind how many people go against players and side with owners. All entertainers and athletes are overpaid compared to teachers and professions like that. But they also generate billions of dollars. The NFL, the richest and most physically damaging league in the world, has the worst contracts.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Richard Sherman is an idiot Sherman is flinty to be sure, but that guy is smart as heck. I'm glad that he's trying to stick it to the NFL, to be honest. As an organization the NFL is trying to ruin the fun for everyone. Pink shoes and all that jazz mean absolutely nothing if the on-field product is suffering (which I believe it is), if NFL teams bilk taxpayers for money for new stadiums, allow teams to relocate at the drop of a hat, fine/legislate for completely worthless junk like uniforms violations, and that bad people are not jettisoned from this league in due order. Frankly I would rather see guaranteed contracts and surrendering X draft picks if you spend over the cap rather than this complex formula of cap numbers. In as much as I wish that Sherman would practice better restraint both on and off the field with his remarks, I actually think he is correct here.
BaaadThingsMan Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 The reason Richard Sherman is an idiot has nothing to do with intelligence or resume.
Guest NeckBeard Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 The reason Richard Sherman is an idiot has nothing to do with intelligence or resume. Ok, so refresh my memory, since I have missed it in this burgeoning thread. Why?
thebandit27 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 They won't win if Rodgers, Brees, & Brady go on strike. Yes, they will. The owners will still be billionaires. 90% of the players will be income-less. How long do you think a former PS player that is fighting to keep his spot as the 53rd guy on the roster will support Brady and Rodgers when his paycheck stops showing up?
Gugny Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 The players would lose in any work stoppage, just as they have in every other work stoppage. Regardless of who the fans side with, the billionaires are the ones that don't need the money, whereas the bottom 90% of NFL players do, in fact, need their weekly game checks to support their families and lifestyles. Unless the top 10% paid NFL players are prepared to set up a "survival fund" for the bottom 90%, a work stoppage is a bad, bad decision. Exactly. As stated on Mike and Mike this morning, the only way a strike would work, would be if the players were prepared to sit out an entire year. And a year is about 1/3 - maybe 1/4 - of the average NFL career. They'd have to convince all players to sacrifice A LOT for future players ... because it wouldn't be for themselves. Players have no leverage, here. Like you said, the owners are the billionaires.
ocemur Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 I don't see how guaranteed contracts means more money. It helps the guy who gets that contract, but then that money doesn't go to the next guy who actually is on the field. Considering the signing bonuses on the big contracts effectively make the contracts partially guaranteed, the players have a safety net, at least at the top end. The teams being able to cut guys gives them some room to maneuver if a player isn't living up to a contract or needs to go for whatever reason. It's a balance. Anybody that says, "screw the owners, they are just greedy," or "screw the players, they are overpaid," isn't seeing the big picture. If the players want more money, they need to negotiate a higher share of revenue or include more revenue streams into what is shared. They need to make their share of the pie bigger, either by growing the pie all together or giving the owners something else in exchange. Guaranteeing contracts just changes who gets the money, not how much money there is to go around. If the concern is being let go because of an injury, there's insurance for that. If you want to be insulated from coaching changes or your own poor performance, that's just not reality. Does anybody know the relative roster turnover rates from league to league? Football really is different, with so many players teams need flexibility to make roster changes, and locking up money in guaranteed contracts will reduce flexibility and, I think, hurt the on field product. In this particular case, if Sherman wants basketball money he should start working on his three point shot, because it's not coming to the NFL. The team and game dynamics just won't allow it. The cap can go up, but Sherman's share of the cap won't change no matter what the CBA says. Harden signed a 42.5 million dollar/year extension. For Sherman to make that, the cap would need to go from 155 million to about 350 million. If the players are getting 47ish% of the revenue, in order for Sherman to get that Harden money, the players need over 100% of the revenue. You can fight the owners, but you can't fight the math.
KollegeStudnet Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 It's hard to give the kind of money to a player who only plays 16 regular season games. MLB and NBA play way more. It's hard to give a player 5 million per game. That's astronomical.
Recommended Posts