Why does an athlete need $30m instead of $20m?

[CouchCoach]

Good point! Not much benefit unless if you’re in a business related.

How about those who are forced to move from their homes when a new stadium is built. Sure, they’re awarded a settlement but what if you don’t want to move. Have sentimental value if home has been in the family. Jerry was taken to court by several homeowners in Arlington who won their case.

What’s the advantage if your property tax increases and you’re not a fan. No benefits there. There’s always a price to be paid from these Bond elections.

Arlington hotels is last place I’d stay with all of the additional taxes charged between the Rangers and Cowboys. Yes, it’s good for the cities tax base because of the generated revenue from attendance, etc but there’s always a cost to the community.

Plus, there you are.....in Arlington. Only reason to stay in Arlington is if you got shot and couldn't make it to Dallas or Fort Worth.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Sure there is but that's the choice you make when you decide you want to play ball. I mean, every player knows that this is the price you pay. But that's not the same as a Life Threatening deal to me.

Many make that choice because the reward is worth the risk. Without that financial incentive, many wouldn't choose to put their health and safety at risk. It might be different if you saw what kind of toll the game can take on a player, after their playing days are over. When I lived in Austin, I had the chance to talk with Earl Campbell numerous times. On his good days, he was engaging, charismatic, keep us laughing with his stories. Other times, his family or friends would say Earl is having a hard day. It was a night and day difference, moving slow, barely speaking, you could tell he was in pain, it was sad to see. It's even sadder, when you know he also had worse days that he couldn't even manage that much. That was 15-20 years ago, you know it hasn't gotten better.

The game is different now, not as physical, but it's still a rough sport. Earl didn't have the mega contracts they have now, but he at least had his fame that provides some financial security and not all players have that luxury. The only financial security players have is what is guaranteed and that makes that first opportunity at a big deal important for them. Fans assume players will have long careers and have ample time to make their money, that's not always the case.

 

[OmerV]

People like to say these guys careers are short so they deserve XXX amount. These guys make those choices ..... They have more chances then most people to have even more. These guys are not scooped up off the streets. They went to college ..... So if they chose to leave early or not take advantage of the opportunities offered its on them. Plenty of players did use them correctly .... we just don't hear about them because it does not make headlines. The money should be spread out more to all players. They could easily setup pay brackets by positions or even star status. They could be even based of things like winning superbowls or All-pro " not pro bowl " status x amount of times to give incentives to play harder.

I don't know if people are saying they "deserve" XXX amount as much as they are saying they are justified in trying to get whatever the market will bear for their services.

That's what plumbers and exterminators and lawyers do with their services, and what manufacturers do with their products and what every business that supplies a service or product to the consuming public does. That's how things work in a free market economy.

It's about supply and demand, and if the demand exceeds the supply, as is the case with quality NFL starting QB's, the price goes up.

And no, they don't have more chances than other people. The average NFL career length is only 3.3 years, plus there are a lot fewer NFL jobs than there are teaching jobs and engineering jobs and doctor jobs and most other professions. Most people don't have to try out every year and face the possibility of getting cut or replaced or worry about an injury that destroys their entire career.

 

[glimmerman]

I don't know if people are saying they "deserve" XXX amount as much as they are saying they are justified in trying to get whatever the market will bear for their services.

That's what plumbers and exterminators and lawyers do with their services, and what manufacturers do with their products and what every business that supplies a service or product to the consuming public does. That's how things work in a free market economy.

It's about supply and demand, and if the demand exceeds the supply, as is the case with quality NFL starting QB's, the price goes up.

And no, they don't have more chances than other people. The average NFL career length is only 3.3 years, plus there are a lot fewer NFL jobs than there are teaching jobs and engineering jobs and doctor jobs and most other professions. Most people don't have to try out every year and face the possibility of getting cut or replaced or worry about an injury that destroys their entire career.

I wonder what the average is for a career as a starting QB in the NFL. I bet longer that 3 years. And they make the most. Lol

 

[G2]

I wonder what the average is for a career as a starting QB in the NFL. I bet longer that 3 years. And they make the most. Lol

There are only so many QBs who are long term franchise QBs and a whole lot more that never amount to much. I dunno, maybe the average is around 3....

 

[Roadtrip635]

No player needs 30 M .... I would argue they don't need more than 15 million. You would think by now they could figure out that if they all took less they could win more , with better talent. From there they can hit bonuses and endorsements. But greed and egos will get in the way ..... Someone with brains needs to step in and slap these players. Because they are only stealing from each other ..... its even worse with teams in no income tax areas. All though its not as much as some think but still more then most people will make.

You don't need to watch or spend any money to support their business either. If you think they charge too much, don't consume their product. The owners, league and players make that money because people keep spending money on the product. They wouldn't have the opportunity to make that much money, if there wasn't that much money available. This isn't a commodity, product or service that's essential to life, people can walk away from it any time they choose.

 

[OmerV]

I wonder what the average is for a career as a starting QB in the NFL. I bet longer that 3 years. And they make the most. Lol

Well, there are those that get a starting gig briefly and then are replaced in the same year or in a year or two, and then there are those that have great success - assuming of course, they are able to remain healthy. An injury could end it at any time.

But assuming you are limiting your question to the handful of QBs that become established and entrenched and remain healthy, then yes, they would have a longer career than 3 years.

Of course, the first 3-5 years would be on a rookie salary, and then, if, again, the health holds out and he plays well enough, he will get a chance to get his first big contract. At that point he has no way of knowing if he will ever get a 2nd big contract, so the long term security at that point is in getting what he can with that first big contract.

If he does get that second big contract, that's when the player is more likely to give a price break and take less than market value, because at that point he is sitting on a pile of money that will last him even if an injury or age catches up to him.

 

[OmerV]

No player needs 30 M .... I would argue they don't need more than 15 million. You would think by now they could figure out that if they all took less they could win more , with better talent. From there they can hit bonuses and endorsements. But greed and egos will get in the way ..... Someone with brains needs to step in and slap these players. Because they are only stealing from each other ..... its even worse with teams in no income tax areas. All though its not as much as some think but still more then most people will make.

A guy who makes $20k a year would say a guy that makes $200k a year doesn't "need" that.

A free market economy doesn't work where people's pay is limited to what somebody else would define as what they "need", it works on what the market will bear. A communist economy might work like that, but not a free market one.

By the way, does an owner "need" $3-4 billion?

 

[glimmerman]

Well, there are those that get a starting gig briefly and then are replaced in the same year or in a year or two, and then there are those that have great success - assuming of course, they are able to remain healthy. An injury could end it at any time.

But assuming you are limiting your question to the handful of QBs that become established and entrenched and remain healthy, then yes, they would have a longer career than 3 years.

Of course, the first 3-5 years would be on a rookie salary, and then, if, again, the health holds out and he plays well enough, he will get a chance to get his first big contract. At that point he has no way of knowing if he will ever get a 2nd big contract, so the long term security at that point is in getting what he can with that first big contract.

If he does get that second big contract, that's when the player is more likely to give a price break and take less than market value, because at that point he is sitting on a pile of money that will last him even if an injury or age catches up to him.

Of course if he is a top 10 pick then he is in the money immediately.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Dak isn't a free agent this season. Plus, the goal isn't just to sign him 1 year, it's to sign him and keep him rather than have him exposed next year or the next, and that takes paying in the range of what is seen as a competitive market value price.

In any case, the Bucs clearly aren't happy with Winston as evidenced by the fact he got benched a few times last year, and I don't know when contracts are due, but the Bengals might want to move on from Dalton, and the Titans might want to move on from Mariota, and then who knows what injuries may occur or at what point any time might give up on their current player.

No he's not and of course the goal is to sign him for more then a year but how does any of that play with the idea of why do you need to sign him to a 30 million deal or who would pay him that?

The Bucs just picked up Winston's option so he's there this year, at the very least. The Bengals have the very best contract situation at QB in the NFL right now. Dalton was enjoying a pretty good year before his injury so why would the Bengals want to go out and spend 30 million on Dak when they have Dalton who is really a bargain? I think they have like 19 mil in cap available for 2019 before signing all of their people but that's still a far cry from 30 plus mil and even if they decided to walk away from Dalton, signing Dak would leave them with very, very little cap to sign their rookies and anybody else they might need to bring in. I mean, it basically means that he is their only sign. How does that make them better?

Titans could move away from Mariota but not this year. If they did that, they would not only have to shell out 30 plus mil for Dak but also eat 20 mil plus for Mariota and, they just traded for Tannehill. I don't see Tennessee doing anything until 2020 at the earliest. I mean, you look around the league and don't see the team that is going to shell out 30 plus for Dak this year. Now, you can say, a lot of teams will have cap in 2020 but how does that work out well for Dak? He may want 30 plus mil but the reality is that if he doesn't do a contract this year, he's making 2 mil and there is no guarantee that he will hit the open market next year either. If he doesn't do a deal this year, he's costing himself 23 to 25 million dollars that he will never, ever get back. It does Dak no good to not do a deal this year and get himself paid. He could do a shorter term deal and set himself up for a much bigger payday in a couple of seasons. Again, I don't see the team out there that's going to shell out the 30 plus mil and give up the picks it would take to get him in trade. I do not see it.

 

[glimmerman]

A guy who makes $20k a year would say a guy that makes $200k a year doesn't "need" that.

A free market economy doesn't work where people's pay is limited to what somebody else would define as what they "need", it works on what the market will bear. A communist economy might work like that, but not a free market one.

By the way, does an owner "need" $3-4 billion?

If I was a owner I would need that 3-4 billion. How else would I be able to grossly over pay you for your consulting.

 

[Roadtrip635]

It isn't just because they are the next guy in line. Bortles was the next guy in line a few months ago and he didn't get that. He didn't even get to remain a starting QB. Same for Tannehill.

It's because teams are willing to pay that for guys they believe are quality NFL starters, and if the team the player has been on isn't willing to pay it, another team will be, and then the team he was on will be stuck scrambling for some semblance of an NFL starter.

It boils down to supply and demand. There just aren't enough quality NFL QBs to go around (at least 10 teams don't have one), so teams are willing to pay to ensure they get one.

Exactly, at any time a team can say no and choose to not make a deal. We chose not to pay Earl the kind of money he wanted. We chose not to pay Hitchens, TWill, Church, etc. Just like we chose to not to keep Romo. The team can choose to walk away from Dak if they can't make a deal they want and find another option.

 

[Birdgang]

I don't know if people are saying they "deserve" XXX amount as much as they are saying they are justified in trying to get whatever the market will bear for their services.

That's what plumbers and exterminators and lawyers do with their services, and what manufacturers do with their products and what every business that supplies a service or product to the consuming public does. That's how things work in a free market economy.

It's about supply and demand, and if the demand exceeds the supply, as is the case with quality NFL starting QB's, the price goes up.

And no, they don't have more chances than other people. The average NFL career length is only 3.3 years, plus there are a lot fewer NFL jobs than there are teaching jobs and engineering jobs and doctor jobs and most other professions. Most people don't have to try out every year and face the possibility of getting cut or replaced or worry about an injury that destroys their entire career.

So their college education or the chance they had for one is worthless ? Hell I did a lot more with a whole lot less through GI bill.

 

[Roadtrip635]

I wonder what the average is for a career as a starting QB in the NFL. I bet longer that 3 years. And they make the most. Lol

And there's only 32 of those jobs available. Every year there are 10-12 QBs drafted trying to take one of those positions, there's a lot of out of work QBs.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Many make that choice because the reward is worth the risk. Without that financial incentive, many wouldn't choose to put their health and safety at risk. It might be different if you saw what kind of toll the game can take on a player, after their playing days are over. When I lived in Austin, I had the chance to talk with Earl Campbell numerous times. On his good days, he was engaging, charismatic, keep us laughing with his stories. Other times, his family or friends would say Earl is having a hard day. It was a night and day difference, moving slow, barely speaking, you could tell he was in pain, it was sad to see. It's even sadder, when you know he also had worse days that he couldn't even manage that much. That was 15-20 years ago, you know it hasn't gotten better.

The game is different now, not as physical, but it's still a rough sport. Earl didn't have the mega contracts they have now, but he at least had his fame that provides some financial security and not all players have that luxury. The only financial security players have is what is guaranteed and that makes that first opportunity at a big deal important for them. Fans assume players will have long careers and have ample time to make their money, that's not always the case.

Yeah, this kinda falls on def ears for me. I mean, I haven' spent 10 years in the NFL but I can tell you that I have lower back issues, shoulder issues, both knees and a broken ankle, to say nothing of fingers or neck or whatever else, that I live with every day and I am not getting paid anything for it. I wasn't good enough and I get that but so what? I played because I loved the game. I would play today if I could and you know what, I'm paying my own way so again, I don't see it.

BTW, Earl Campbell is my all time favorite player in any sport. I know pretty much all there is about that guy. Earl was smart to invest wisely. All of these other players have the same chance to invest and lost more capitol to work with them most of us. I don't feel sorry for those guys because they have much more to work with then most of us do and yet, nobody is going to step in and pay our way. They can't because why should they? I am not anybodies responsibility but my own. Why would I expect anybody to have to pay my way? That's not cool.

 

[Reid1boys]

the next CBA needs to have a decent healthcare package as part of the final agreement. Otherwise, If I am the players, I don't agree to the deal. I would make THAT a priority.

why should owners agree to that? Players are paid an ENORMOUS amount compared to the avg joe. They cant cover their own health care?

 

[Birdgang]

A guy who makes $20k a year would say a guy that makes $200k a year doesn't "need" that.

A free market economy doesn't work where people's pay is limited to what somebody else would define as what they "need", it works on what the market will bear. A communist economy might work like that, but not a free market one.

By the way, does an owner "need" $3-4 billion?

No see Im happy with what I make , I am able to provide for my 4 kids and wife. She gets to stay home to care for the kids and the houses. I have 5 cars Not all brand new or Lambos.... but ones I like. Nice house in the city , a shore house and soon to have a place in the mountains. Yes I make 6 figures but under your 200k example. If getting a raise meant losing an important part of my team then Id say F no..... Id much rather have another guy watching my back then end up on the news for another 50K a year.

 

[OmerV]

Of course if he is a top 10 pick then he is in the money immediately.

He is in some fairly sizable money immediately, but it isn't $20-30MM money. And the reality is there are as many or more guys like Mariota and RGIII and Blaine Gabbert and Jake Locker and Christian Ponder and Mark Sanchez than there are guys like Patrick Mahomes and Jarod Goff and Andrew Luck. And that is part of why the supply is so low and the demand so high, and therefore prices are high.

A person might believe a house should only be worth $100k, but as long as there is enough of a demand for a house of that general quality in the same kind of neighborhood at $200k, that is the price it will take to buy that house. The same applies to the services of a football player.

 

[Reid1boys]

The CBA is an agreement that the players have with the League but the money that drives the league comes from the fan base. I mean, the CBA has nothing to do with who actually pays for things. That's all us.

and I gladly pay what I pay. Some people dont pay jack as they watch their team for free on local TV every week. I myself, I travel to games and I buy the Sunday Ticket.... and I gladly do so. For those that say it is too much to go to a game.... thats your choice to allocate your money how you see fit. For me personally, there is NOTHING in my life that I spend my money on that brings me more enjoyment thah going to Cowboys games with my wife and daughters. I will never ***** about the costs. When it gets too high, I will adjust accordingly.

 

[OmerV]

No see Im happy with what I make , I am able to provide for my 4 kids and wife. She gets to stay home to care for the kids and the houses. I have 5 cars Not all brand new or Lambos.... but ones I like. Nice house in the city , a shore house and soon to have a place in the mountains. Yes I make 6 figures but under your 200k example. If getting a raise meant losing an important part of my team then Id say F no..... Id much rather have another guy watching my back then end up on the news for another 50K a year.

Yeah, and I think most people are happy with what they make as long as it is their chosen profession and they are getting paid in the range of what the market value is for a person in that profession and with their general skill level. I'm guessing you would be less happy if you found out you were only making 60% of what others in a similar situation were making.

I'm happy with what I make too, but if the price others with my general skills and education are getting is dramatically higher, I'm not getting treated as well by my employer as others are getting treated by theirs, and I'm going to be willing to look for another job. I think far and away the overwhelming majority of people would be the same.