DallasEast;2665526 said:
But we're still taking about employers and employees, aren't we? In the real world, the vast majority of working people are hired on an "as is" basis. If an employer can claim that an employee can be terminated for legitimate reasons, the employee is usually let go.
In this case, the only question existing behind the temination of an NFL player is the WHY behind the action. For instance, tens of thousands of regular working class people have been terminated from their jobs due to the economy. Because of salary cap restrictions, some players have been released from their contracts. Certainly, the players were not able to play until the end of their signed contracts, but how does that differentiate players from many working class citizens who aren't even employed via a contract?
*nods* I hear you, I get what you're saying, and I understand the stance. My point is, even in this economy people are getting raises. Heck I'm in a drafting and surveying business and we're slower than normal, quite a bit slower, but that wouldn't prevent me from asking for a raise if I felt it was owed.
That doesn't mean I would actually get one, of course, but there is nothing to prevent me from asking for one.
That's my point when people say a player should just work out his deal. Maybe he should, I guess, but I don't think it's fair to believe that if a player exceeds expectations that he should just keep his mouth shut and not seek more pay that fits his level of play.
Again he isn't necassarily going to get the more pay he's seeking, there is nothing that says the owner has to give him more money, but I see nothing wrong with players seeking the money when they've performed above the level of which their contract is paying them for.
