maroneysgrill

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but regarding the Branch situation, I was thinking:

Why is it that a player thinks he deserves more compensation for exceeding expectations, yet you never see players giving money back when they fall very short of expectations.

For example, if Branch was complete trash for the Patriots and dropped a lot of passes, didn't contribute at all to the franchise, I can pretty much GUARENTEE he wouldn't hand back some of his salary.

A contract was signed and exceeding expectations should mean his value will increase when he becomes a free agent, not now, not when he still has to play out his current contract.

We can all have our own opinion and you don't have to agree with me, but Branch is just like every other greedy athlete. I think he is trash and wouldn;t mind if he never played another down for the Patriots.

spacecrime

So what's the question? I didn't see one.

My own question is, Why not put this in one of the zillion Branch threads we alrady have?

Patjew

How many employees leave their company for better pay elsewhere? How many of those employees give the company money back from their paycheck when they have a bad week at work? I've done the former and not the latter. I'm probably not alone.

__________________
Drink like a beast.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

spacecrime

Yeah, you're probably alone if you had a contract with that company to work for the rest of the year, and the compnay gave you a bunch of money to sign the contract to agree to work for them, and you left them for a better job (make that tried to leave them for a better job) before the end of the contract.

I suspect you were the equivalent of a free agent, ie, you didn't have a contract and didn't receive money as a bonus for signing the contract.

Can you picture yourself saying this: "Yeah, so I paid this contractor $20,000 for an addition to my house, $10,000 up front, but before the job was finished he decided he could make more money elsewhere so he left me high and dry. No problem, he has a right to find a better job."

No, this isn't the same thing as the NFL, but it is closer than the example of a wage-earning employee giving two weeks notice and bolting.

Patjew

I'm not defending Branch, though none of your examples are analagous to NFL contracts that allow for players to be cut before the contract is complete. My point was, when has any employee in any industry ever given back a portion of their salary for underperforming?

That was in reply to the question, "Why is it that a player thinks he deserves more compensation for exceeding expectations, yet you never see players giving money back when they fall very short of expectations." A silly question, IMO.

__________________
Drink like a beast.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

jimmyjames

I think it is ridiculous to try to compare an NFL player with the average working American. The analogy does not fit. These guys are specialists that perform at the highest level of their chosen profession. Nobody would think twice upon hearing that the top Opera Singer/Heart Surgeon/Astronaut/Mercenary/Artist/Writer/Archeologist/Architect/Deep Sea Diver or whatever would ask for compensation above and beyond what they were contracted to do 5 years prior when their peers are being paid more. Particularly when they know that the contractee can release them at any time with limited finacial responsibility

Doesn't mean I think Branch holding out is the right way to go. Just saying that these guys play by a different set of rules and to try to compare them to 99% of our employment situations is inaccurate.

Richter

Thank you for saying this. This is a favorite argument of self-righteous talking heads on ESPN and the like concerning holdouts, and I hate it. There is no possible way to compare a professional athlete and his employment situation with the average working man. It's apple and oranges. The same is true about the amount of compensation they receive, and that also grates at me - you should be paid what you're worth. Athletes may receive huge sums of money for performing, but they generate many times that amount in revenue, so it is worth it to their employers to pay them such amounts.

All that said, I do agree that Branch (and especially his agent) has gone about handling this situation completely wrong. Had they done things more like Seymour's camp did, Branch might be spending his signing bonus right now from a new contract.

Patjew

Originally Posted by jimmyjames
I think it is ridiculous to try to compare an NFL player with the average working American. The analogy does not fit. These guys are specialists that perform at the highest level of their chosen profession. Nobody would think twice upon hearing that the top Opera Singer/Heart Surgeon/Astronaut/Mercenary/Artist/Writer/Archeologist/Architect/Deep Sea Diver or whatever would ask for compensation above and beyond what they were contracted to do 5 years prior when their peers are being paid more. Particularly when they know that the contractee can release them at any time with limited finacial responsibility

Doesn't mean I think Branch holding out is the right way to go. Just saying that these guys play by a different set of rules and to try to compare them to 99% of our employment situations is inaccurate.
The only thing I am saying in these posts is that it is not even close to realistic to question why an athlete doesn't pay back part of their salary when they underperform.

__________________
Drink like a beast.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Gopats!!!

The idea that athletes should be "paid what they're worth" is a good one, put none of the athletes want it actually put into effect.

If every player was paid a base amount (or maybe base amount depending on position) and then given bonuses based on production we would have athletes "paid what they are worth." Try bringing THAT up at the next meeting or the next time a player complains he's not getting paid what he is worth!

Instead, we have many players massively overpaid, and some underpaid.

Of course players want to be paid more when they do well, and want to keep the money given them even though they don't play well enough to deserve it. It's human nature, and it doesn't mean the players are jerks or anything like that.

I understand the system in place now works for the benefit of the players. They can be rich and secure. Sometimes players get too greedy and you have ridiculous holdouts, but it is generally a system that makes the players very rich.

jimmyjames

I agree with you there 100%. My post was meant more as an observation on contract discussions in general.