You're saying, if someone handed you $1M, you couldn't live quite well while working a normal (say $40K/yr job).
I know I could. Paying for everything in cash, and never having to take loans cuts the price of pretty much every major purchase (like your house) hugely.
I highly doubt I could live on $65K a year for the next 40 years, no. Absolutely not if I wanted to support a family. For the next 5 years, with no family to support, sure not too bad but I surely wouldn't shoot for that or retire early to earn that.
Of course I'd have to pay a large amount of taxes on that $1M as well. And in order to buy a house with "cash" that entire $1M is gone (after taxes), unless I go for the cheapest house possible rather than one in an area I enjoy and feel comfortable living in and raising a family in long term.
When you are in your 60's, your entire gross earnings will likely exceed $1M by a large amount. As a matter of fact, all you have to do is average $30K/year starting in your 20's and you will exceed $1M by 20%. Not to mention for MOST people it is much more difficult to manage one large lump sum than it is to manage earnings spread out long term.
And football players all know they're going to get hit.I think the PLAYERS UNION should be pushing for some of this stuff, but I don't think the NFL has any obligation, and frankly, I don't see why I should have some obligation to care.
The NFL has the obligation because of, well, self-interest. You -should- care because of, well, the human condition.
Again, coal miners don't make any money, and in most areas with heavy coal mining, there aren't many other job opportunities. They know what they're getting into, but most of them HAVE NO CHOICE. Thats not something NFL players can say.
What exactly is your point? There are inherent risks and unnecessary risks to any "job". Because coal miner's are subject to inherent risks of coal mining, is it then OK to subject them to any other unnecessary risks? Point being that football players do not HAVE to be subject to violent and risky hits while defenseless. It does NOT add to the game, it is not a fundamental of the game, there is no place for it in the game. The same you wouldn't argue that sucker punches in Boxing aren't a big deal because well they chose that career.
I'm not arguing against protecting them. I'm arguing against the moral outrage. I don't think its the NFL's responsibility to do anything. The NFL's responsibility is to keep the marketability of the game as high as possible. The Player's Union's responsibility is to protect the players.
What moral outrage exactly? The NFL's 'responsibility' btw is to make money, and rest assured they know that. There will never be another driving force for their decisions. Every decision is based around $$$ in business. Anything done that appears to be done based on "morals" is done for the $$$ that the people who care about the perception of their morals will give them (or because they are required to by law).