Is the Greed in the NFL Really So Bad...

[Brady'sButtBoy]

that there needs to be an auction to help former players (from the 60's and 70's) and that said auction is called a success while raising only $125,00? Where are the present day players on this issue? Busy counting their millions I guess. It's a hideous thought that today's players wouldn't get together and pony up just one half of one percent of their pay for just a year in tribute to the men who helped bring the NFL to prominence via the Super Bowl era.

The cap's above the $100mil mark meaning 53 players are averaging $2mil or better per year - a figure that exceeds the lifetime earnings of many, many of the guys from the 60's and 70's for their entire careers - even if they had a long one.

One half of one percent of the 32 team's players salaries/bonuses for one year would be around $32mil - an amount probably far greater than Kramer's organization has dreams to ever collect. Heck, how about just .25% for one year - that would be more than 100 times the amount raised by this recent auction. Even for the bottom barrel guys making $750K, 1/4 percent would only be $1700! Not much to pay back the dudes who built the foundation for an extremely wealthy group of modern day players.

I'll lose a lot respect for our Patriots players if they don't see this effort and do more than whatever already's being done.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9997538

 

[PatsFanSince74]

that there needs to be an auction to help former players (from the 60's and 70's) and that said auction is called a success while raising only $125,00? Where are the present day players on this issue? Busy counting their millions I guess. It's a hideous thought that today's players wouldn't get together and pony up just one half of one percent of their pay for just a year in tribute to the men who helped bring the NFL to prominence via the Super Bowl era.

The cap's above the $100mil mark meaning 53 players are averaging $2mil or better per year - a figure that exceeds the lifetime earnings of many, many of the guys from the 60's and 70's for their entire careers - even if they had a long one.

One half of one percent of the 32 team's players salaries/bonuses for one year would be around $32mil - an amount probably far greater than Kramer's organization has dreams to ever collect. Heck, how about just .25% for one year - that would be more than 100 times the amount raised by this recent auction. Even for the bottom barrel guys making $750K, 1/4 percent would only be $1700! Not much to pay back the dudes who built the foundation for an extremely wealthy group of modern day players.

I'll lose a lot respect for our Patriots players if they don't see this effort and do more than whatever already's being done.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9997538

Disagreeing with your point is a little like dissing motherhood, but I'm going to offer a slightly different perspective, while acknowledging that my gut empathizes strongly with what you are saying when it comes to the top quartile earnings-wise of the players in the league.

I think that the burden here rests not on the failure of today's players either to respond more favorably to the auction you described or to behave otherwise more generously on an individual basis (when these same players also confront a two-fold daily reality of potential career-ending injuries as well as of non-guaranteed contracts that can be yanked with little notice). Rather, I think that the burden rests on the NFL Players Association that has failed to stand up for the rights of retired players who are in financial or physical distress as well as of contemporary players who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they must risk their health and well-being to hold onto their jobs.

I'll admit that there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg dynamic here, in that the NFLPA is, presumably, only responding to the instructions/votes of its members. However, it's also the responsibility of that association to contually illuminate its membership on issues of equity in relation to retired players and otherwise injured players.

I do strongly agree with you on one point, though. Both players and owners are going to have to dig deeper into their pockets in the future, as this is becoming a scandal. I just think that the place to resolve this is at the collective bargaining table and not in a well-intentioned charity auction or in other ad hoc forums. If the NFLPA doesn't "get it," then it should be the beneficiary of new leadership.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I was happy to see that the topic here was not envious *****ing over current player salaries but the sad utter neglect of the guys who BUILT the NFL. The NFLPA reflects its membership. Neither the owners, players nor their elected leaders have shown much interest in these old timers. It would be a pittance to establish a fund that would really help some of the old geezers. If you're gonna have a union, have one that takes care of the players.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I was happy to see that the topic here was not envious *****ing over current player salaries but the sad utter neglect of the guys who BUILT the NFL. The NFLPA reflects its membership. Neither the owners, players nor their elected leaders have shown much interest in these old timers. It would be a pittance to establish a fund that would really help some of the old geezers. If you're gonna have a union, have one that takes care of the players.

Amen, brother.

 

[Crowpointer]

Greed is good

 

[DaBruinz]

The NFL players have shown time and again that, as a whole, they are quite stingy with their money.

Look at how much they actually gave to Katrina charities?

Now, some players like Peyton Manning, did go out of their way, but, on the whole, they failed miserably in my eyes.

Now, regarding the NFLPA, when did they come into existence? I personally don't know. But if they came into existence after some of these players retired, I wouldn't expect the union to help them. However, if they were members of the union, the union should damn well be doing whatever it can to support them.

Unfortunately, the current Union boss doesn't believe that and has turned a blind eye to many a plight. And that speaks volumes about Upshaw and why he should have been removed as the president of the Union.

 

[solman]

that there needs to be an auction to help former players (from the 60's and 70's) and that said auction is called a success while raising only $125,00? Where are the present day players on this issue? Busy counting their millions I guess. It's a hideous thought that today's players wouldn't get together and pony up just one half of one percent of their pay for just a year in tribute to the men who helped bring the NFL to prominence via the Super Bowl era.

I don't see why the players and owners should feel obligated to donate money to people who haven't been involved in the NFL for many decades. There are many people and causes that are worthy of money. Both the players and owners are forced to donate almost half of their earnings to causes selected by the government. Both groups voluntarily give money to many other organizations.

If I had several billion dollars and owned an NFL team, I'd like to think that I could find better causes to donate to than former players with no ongoing involvement in the game. Today I choose to distribute my money based on what people will do with it, not based on what people have done in the past. I'm not sure why being super rich should change this.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

the head of the player's association offers no apologies when he says that his job is to look out for active players, not retired ones. until this changes i don't see the current situation changing.

with how much money is out there you could probably take a quarter of a percent of player salaries and take care of every vet. the union just doesn't see any need to.

 

[Krugman]

If the top ten or so players who get decent endorsement contracts would donate some of what they make from a single endorsement,they could raise millions.....and yes,I include TB in that group,not just Peyton.Think of the money they could make for those guys.....

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

I'm sure many players donate largely to their respective college programs under the premise that the school's football system helped get them into the NFL. It's very much the same sentiment to fund a retirement system for needy players in the Super Bowl era who had profound contributions to setting in motion the forces that led to the present player's extreme wealth.

Given the fact that probably every single player in the NFL gets some kind of endorsement money how could they possibly argue against the one quarter percent of their football salaries for one year idea? The bottom rung guys would only put in $1700 (about .25% of the min. salary) and the very high end guys would have to cough up around $30,000 but make fifty to 100 times that much, or more, in endrosements in just one year.

Considering it would take so little of their present income to rectify the problem of needy older players, for today's players to stand by and allow Kramer's organization to scrape and scratch for $125,00 (most of that the result of donations by FORMER players) is simply a shameful display of self-centered greed by some of most highly paid athletes this country has ever known.

I have to admit it takes a bit of the shine off my enthusiasm for our team.

 

[tailgater]

I was lucky enough to get invited to play in the NFL Charities Golf Tournament the day before the super bowl. The lowest fee was $1500pp, the most expensive $2500pp (depended on which players you were partnered with and which of the three courses you played). There were about 300 participants in all.

All the money was going to local childrens charities, as it does every year. Thats a great thing for them to do, but I'd think at some point they would 'take some off the top' and start a fund for the older players. Many were at the tournament, along with at least half the living HOF members. To see them limping around the course was painful, especially since so many are still so young.

 

[patfanken]

I don't see why the players and owners should feel obligated to donate money to people who haven't been involved in the NFL for many decades. There are many people and causes that are worthy of money. Both the players and owners are forced to donate almost half of their earnings to causes selected by the government. Both groups voluntarily give money to many other organizations.

If I had several billion dollars and owned an NFL team, I'd like to think that I could find better causes to donate to than former players with no ongoing involvement in the game. Today I choose to distribute my money based on what people will do with it, not based on what people have done in the past. I'm not sure why being super rich should change this.

I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that you are under 35, solman. Its just that your inherent selfishness and lack of historical prospective shines sadly through here. In the early 70's (my generation) the bottom half of the 45 man rosters made well under $20,000/yr and most had second jobs after the season. IIRC when the cap game into being in the mid 90's it was around $30MM for the 53 man roster. NOW after seeing the cap more than TRIPPLED, the league, the union, and the individual players SHOULD BE competing to set this injustice right. Instead they procrastinate and push off any attempt to "do the right thing". In fact the union goes out of its way to deny the few medical benefits the older player DO have in many cases.

The fact is the only way to right this wrong, is to KEEP putting this in the public eye.... constantly. The sad fact is that only when this black eye on the league becomes detrimental to teams and players making the obsene amounts of money being made these days, will they FINALLY have to take care of those who created the league we all love to follow so much.

This isn't a great thread....its an IMPORTANT one.

 

[solman]

I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that you are under 35, solman. Its just that your inherent selfishness and lack of historical prospective shines sadly through here. In the early 70's (my generation) the bottom half of the 45 man rosters made well under $20,000/yr and most had second jobs after the season.

I am under 35, but to have a member of the selfish generation label me as selfish based on my age is absolutely ridiculous. I'll safely bet that I donate more of my income to charity than you. I'll tell you plainly that my generation volunteers a greater fraction of its time than any other does now, or has since NGOs started measuring such things. If we're going to play the generational game, the boomer generation (1945-1965) has pased a set of laws that require my generation to pay more than $15 trillion 2007 dollars towards your retirement while leaving behind exactly $0 (and a huge national debt) for our own retirement.

Never in the history of mankind has one generation forcibly taken so much from its descendants. So before you even think of throwing the selfish label around, go look in a mirror. The sell off all of your possessions and give it to the old NFL players. Better yet, give that same money to a cause that will actually make the future a brighter place.


I don't think that encouraging people to give money to old NFL players, instead of to education or Katrina relief makes you a bad person.

However, casting doubt on the character of others because they choose to make that decision is, in my opinion, very questionable behavior indeed.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Easy now, let's keep it real folks. The present day players are the ones under scrutiny not posters on this board.

If anyone out there has more in the way of specific details on this matter then let's please have it. I bet no one has even put to the players exactly how little it would cost them to help out older, needy players (see my 1/4 of 1% formula above).

 

[Patters]

I don't see why the players and owners should feel obligated to donate money to people who haven't been involved in the NFL for many decades. There are many people and causes that are worthy of money. Both the players and owners are forced to donate almost half of their earnings to causes selected by the government. Both groups voluntarily give money to many other organizations.

I think it's pretty natural to feel an obligation to those who paved your way. Also, while there are certainly more important causes, who will help these guys if not for today's players?

 

[RayClay]

I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that you are under 35, solman. Its just that your inherent selfishness and lack of historical prospective shines sadly through here. In the early 70's (my generation) the bottom half of the 45 man rosters made well under $20,000/yr and most had second jobs after the season. IIRC when the cap game into being in the mid 90's it was around $30MM for the 53 man roster. NOW after seeing the cap more than TRIPPLED, the league, the union, and the individual players SHOULD BE competing to set this injustice right. Instead they procrastinate and push off any attempt to "do the right thing". In fact the union goes out of its way to deny the few medical benefits the older player DO have in many cases.

The fact is the only way to right this wrong, is to KEEP putting this in the public eye.... constantly. The sad fact is that only when this black eye on the league becomes detrimental to teams and players making the obsene amounts of money being made these days, will they FINALLY have to take care of those who created the league we all love to follow so much.

This isn't a great thread....its an IMPORTANT one.

You're so right, Ken. These guys gave their all and have trouble walking and unimaginable medical problems.

The union and the owners should get together and draft a plan to help the one's that are left.

They spend more on PR, trying to look respectable than they would if they pooled some of the huge revenue streams they have access too.

Upshaw, Kraft, Bruschi, Brown. Do the right thing and take care of the warriors who set the table for you.

 

[Steamer86]

This same logic would apply to a guy works for original McDonalds for 5 years in the 1960s and makes small wages - now that McDonalds is multi-billion company, do they owe this guy more $ to thank him for what he did then in helping to build the company?

How about an NFL owner who sold his team 25 years ago for 10 million and now it is worth 500 million? Does the new owner owe him for building the history of the franchise? Do current Hollywood stars owe the past stars and their families? Do current coaches owe old coaches? Do you owe the workers you replaced, because your job now pays more that it did when they had the job?

I think these guys chose to be football players. They chose what type of direction they wanted to go in post-football life. None of my ex-employers are offering to keep paying me for all the great things I did when I worked there. In fact, except for the gov't, few companies even pay a pension anymore. Once you quit or are released, you are done - no benefits, no money, nothing....

That being said, I think it is great that current players want to help out old-timers in need, but they should not be forced to subsidize the past players.

 

[chunkypony]

I just watched this Outside the Lines, where this player from the 60's (an offensive Lineman, for the Vikings. I think he last name was Boyd) had to rely on his social security to pay his outrageous medical bills because the NFL would not pay him disability, because they could not prove that his injuries were because of football.

I thought it was rediculous and sad.

 

[patfanken]

You're so right, Ken. These guys gave their all and have trouble walking and unimaginable medical problems.

The union and the owners should get together and draft a plan to help the one's that are left.

They spend more on PR, trying to look respectable than they would if they pooled some of the huge revenue streams they have access too.

Upshaw, Kraft, Bruschi, Brown. Do the right thing and take care of the warriors who set the table for you.

The sad fact is it will take a media group to litterally take on the nfl and nflpa for a continual battle OR some currently multimillionares to recognize their obligation to the ones who paved the way for their own financial success.

BTW- comparing the NFL experience to McDonald's is intellectually flawed. Also IMHO the real bad guy here is the NFLPA. They are the "player's" union.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I don't see why the players and owners should feel obligated to donate money to people who haven't been involved in the NFL for many decades. There are many people and causes that are worthy of money. Both the players and owners are forced to donate almost half of their earnings to causes selected by the government. Both groups voluntarily give money to many other organizations.

If I had several billion dollars and owned an NFL team, I'd like to think that I could find better causes to donate to than former players with no ongoing involvement in the game. Today I choose to distribute my money based on what people will do with it, not based on what people have done in the past. I'm not sure why being super rich should change this.

I disagree with you, but I think your perspective is important in this discussion. You are taking a more or less Libertarian view of "every boat on its own bottom." It's a reasonable view and you don't deserve the slamming you've received. However, I would argue that there is a shared responsibility for the well-being of the collective that goes beyond one's contemporaries in a sport as demanding as professional football, especially given the increased level of present-day awareness of the game's toll on body--and mind. The NFLPA, Players and Owners would be wise to address this proactively before they are forced to by the lawsuits by former players that are now popping up. I once worked with a guy in his 30's who had never played a regular season snap in the NFL, but who had been in two NFL camps over three seasons. His knees were already shot.