Originally Posted by NIBGoldenchild
Your compensation is based upn the value of your skills in a given market. The comparison to soliders, firemen, and police officers isn't valid when it is not remotely in the same job category. Sports is entertainment; those other careers aren't. I hope that didnt offend anyone, I actually feel people who have those careers are under compensated. But that is me placing my personal values onto the average compensation and benefits for those separate industries.
I don't agree that simply because these former athletes would've LIKELY continued to play despite the risk, that they lose the ability to have intimate knowledge of what they're risking. I'm sure some may have had some idea of what would happen to them physically upon retirement, but if even one was unaware, than the league has done them ALL a disservice. A doctor wouldn't forgo informing you of a potential health risk simply because he assumes you wouldn't care.
[View Full Quote]Now, if the statements I've read that the league settled a prior case to a former player years ago in regards to this very issue is true, the NFL really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Granted, as in any class action lawsuit, you're going to have scumbags trying to cash in. But the lack of integrity of those individuals doesn't let the league off the hook if they had intimidate knowledge of the long-term effects of this type of career. Meanwhile neglecting to inform the players , or pursue advancements to lower potential risks.
So wait, you can have under compensation, but you can't have over compensation?
Just because a market compensates you at a level doesn't mean you aren't over compensated.
The NFL is an artificially elevated market.
- Tax exemptions and subsidies
- Price fixed cable
- An academic structural deficit