Money vs. Winning

[BTTA]

There's an assumption that shows up here and elsewhere that players who sign for less in order to win are of higher character, or have more admirable values.

My son and I were talking of this and came to a different conclusion.

If you have a $30M offer from a bad team with little hope of improving soon, and your values are focused around the good of your fellow human being, how much would you reduce that $30M in order to play for a winner? A Super Bowl champion?

You can do a lot of good in the world with that money. $1M can underwrite the renovation of an elementary school. It can rebuild small villages after earthquake or hurricane. It can put dozens of poor kids through college. Etc.

Each of those investments change the lives of hundreds of people. If you are offered $20M to play for winner, you give up $10M worth of opportunity. Especially if you have a good tax/foundation lawyer.

Even playing on a losing team for an entire career, your bad day is better than the best day for the majority of people on the planet. Wouldn't it be profoundly selfish to give up the opportunity to do those things just to improve your life by a tiny percentage?

 

[Tunescribe]

There's an assumption that shows up here and elsewhere that players who sign for less in order to win are of higher character, or have more admirable values.

My son and I were talking of this and came to a different conclusion.

If you have a $30M offer from a bad team with little hope of improving soon, and your values are focused around the good of your fellow human being, how much would you reduce that $30M in order to play for a winner? A Super Bowl champion?

You can do a lot of good in the world with that money. $1M can underwrite the renovation of an elementary school. It can rebuild small villages after earthquake or hurricane. It can put dozens of poor kids through college. Etc.

Each of those investments change the lives of hundreds of people. If you are offered $20M to play for winner, you give up $10M worth of opportunity. Especially if you have a good tax/foundation lawyer.

Even playing on a losing team for an entire career, your bad day is better than the best day for the majority of people on the planet. Wouldn't it be profoundly selfish to give up the opportunity to do those things just to improve your life by a tiny percentage?

Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but I doubt Asante Samuel and Randall Gay took bigger contracts to play for lesser teams with an eye toward philanthropy.

 

[Ring 6]

There's an assumption that shows up here and elsewhere that players who sign for less in order to win are of higher character, or have more admirable values.

My son and I were talking of this and came to a different conclusion.

If you have a $30M offer from a bad team with little hope of improving soon, and your values are focused around the good of your fellow human being, how much would you reduce that $30M in order to play for a winner? A Super Bowl champion?

You can do a lot of good in the world with that money. $1M can underwrite the renovation of an elementary school. It can rebuild small villages after earthquake or hurricane. It can put dozens of poor kids through college. Etc.

Each of those investments change the lives of hundreds of people. If you are offered $20M to play for winner, you give up $10M worth of opportunity. Especially if you have a good tax/foundation lawyer.

Even playing on a losing team for an entire career, your bad day is better than the best day for the majority of people on the planet. Wouldn't it be profoundly selfish to give up the opportunity to do those things just to improve your life by a tiny percentage?

I have a different take.
I think that players at the top of the pay chart, think that THEY will be the reason the new team becomes a winner, and probsably believe their old team won't win without them.
I have little doubt that Asante Samuel has convinced himself that the Eagles by adding him are better the Patriots without him.

 

[Truck]

Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but I doubt Asante Samuel and Randall Gay took bigger contracts to play for lesser teams with an eye toward philanthropy.

Plus you get get around this, especially with teams like the Patriots that are loaded in money but conservative in cap by saying things like
"I'll sign for a 15% discount if you promise to donate that discount to charity" - best of both worlds

 

[spacecrime]

It isn't money vs winning. It is about enjoying your life, and using money as a means to happiness, not as an end in itself.

People who say it is wrong to leave a nickel on the negotiating table look at life as amassing money, and whoever dies with the most money wins. Having a lot of money makes them happy.

Others look at money only as a means to bring happiness.

For players, some players enjoy the winning part of the game, and say I would rather be on the winning side of a lot of games and go to the playoffs and have 25 million dollars than to lose most of my games, do not sniff the playoffs and have 30 million dollars.

There's no right or wrong, no morality. The important thing is for everyone to figure our what makes them happy and do that.

Of course, if you are not going to maximize your happiness, it is better to make 30 million and not be happy, than to make 30 thou a year and not be happy

 

[MoLewisrocks]

There's an assumption that shows up here and elsewhere that players who sign for less in order to win are of higher character, or have more admirable values.

My son and I were talking of this and came to a different conclusion.

If you have a $30M offer from a bad team with little hope of improving soon, and your values are focused around the good of your fellow human being, how much would you reduce that $30M in order to play for a winner? A Super Bowl champion?

You can do a lot of good in the world with that money. $1M can underwrite the renovation of an elementary school. It can rebuild small villages after earthquake or hurricane. It can put dozens of poor kids through college. Etc.

Each of those investments change the lives of hundreds of people. If you are offered $20M to play for winner, you give up $10M worth of opportunity. Especially if you have a good tax/foundation lawyer.

Even playing on a losing team for an entire career, your bad day is better than the best day for the majority of people on the planet. Wouldn't it be profoundly selfish to give up the opportunity to do those things just to improve your life by a tiny percentage?

Players seldom donate substantially of their own personal money to charities (beyond the one that starts at home) or even their own foundations. What they do donate is time and the capacity to attract interest from others with even deeper pockets in doing so. Winners attract more doners over the long haul, as do long time if not career players who are in a better position over time to continue facilitating giving based on their profile and status.

Guys who chase the money in the NFL more often than not end up scrambling so much to try to retain it in transition that they lose sight of most anything beyond their own career survival. From what we heard over the course of last season, I don't think Mike Vick donated nearly as much to charity as he spent underwriting an illegal dog fighting ring - although in his defense he apparently thought he was just providing lucrative employment opportunity to some of his homies... And Pac man seemed inclined to do his donating at area strip clubs as opposed to say soup kitchens.

 

[dhamz]

The guys who "choose winning over $" are typically guys who have already made a ton of $. Veterans for the most part who want to win, who know the misery of losing, and are willing and able to pass up the last dollar for a chance to spend the end of their career with good teams.

What the Pats are typically losing are younger guys (Samuel, Branch, Woody, Givens, etc.) who have already won. They don't have a ring to chase. What they haven't done is made big time NFL $. Those guys are typically going to go out and take the cash.

There are exceptions to both of those of course but for the most part that is what you see.

 

[Dragda]

On one hand, money isn't everything. OTOH, giving up money doesn't guarantee you anything. I would likely take the money. Maybe I'd regret it, but I think it'd be too hard to pass up.

Context is also important. Maybe if I had already won a ring I'd be more inclined to leave for the money. If I had played all my years in a horrible franchise, I'd probably take less to play for the winner.

 

[Tunescribe]

For a good perspective on happiness in the NFL, I'd recommend Tedy Bruschi. He won't be swimming in dough when his playing days end, but he likely won't have to work another day in his life and will have a winning legacy few others can match.

 

[PatsFan37]

There's an assumption that shows up here and elsewhere that players who sign for less in order to win are of higher character, or have more admirable values.

While it always risky to generalize among 2000 players from different backgrounds, it makes sense to me that the kind of person who stays with one team, valuing their teammates over the money, is the kind of person who is philanthropic.

When was the last time you heard a player say he took the offer from team X because it gave him a better opportunity to donate to charity? I certainly remember hearing all about respect and feeding one's family. So let's just say I'm skeptical.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

There comes a time
When we head a certain call
When the world must come together as one
There are people dying
And it's time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all

We can't go on
Pretending day by day
That someone, somewhere will soon make a change
We are all a part of
God's great big family
And the truth, you know love is all we need

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

Send them your heart
So they'll know that someone cares
And their lives will be stronger and free
As God has shown us by turning stone to bread
So we all must lend a helping hand

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

When you're down and out
There seems no hope at all
But if you just believe
There's no way we can fall
Well, well, well, well, let us realize
That a change will only come
When we stand together as one

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

 

[Wildo7]

These guys are also super competitors. It's easy to think they are greedy, and a lot probably understandably are, but to them I think contract size is a measuring stick of your standing in the league. I remember T.O. or someone like that talking about his new contract and how he wanted x amount of dollars because that would put him top 3 in the league, not because he cared what the figure was.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Why hasnt anyone talked about THE CAP. It doesnt matter if you make a lot or a little, the team will be paid the same amount. What you do is allow your teammates to make a better salary. If you each give the same % to whatever charity you want it amounts up to the same thing!!
More important than $$, players are celebrities and their giving of their time can be as valuable in raising awareness to let others donate to the same causes.

 

[HSanders]

I don't mind when players leave for the $$..it is their right. I hate when they are hypocrites and say that ISN'T why they are leaving when it's pretty clear that it is.

 

[ivanvamp]

There's an assumption that shows up here and elsewhere that players who sign for less in order to win are of higher character, or have more admirable values.

My son and I were talking of this and came to a different conclusion.

If you have a $30M offer from a bad team with little hope of improving soon, and your values are focused around the good of your fellow human being, how much would you reduce that $30M in order to play for a winner? A Super Bowl champion?

You can do a lot of good in the world with that money. $1M can underwrite the renovation of an elementary school. It can rebuild small villages after earthquake or hurricane. It can put dozens of poor kids through college. Etc.

Each of those investments change the lives of hundreds of people. If you are offered $20M to play for winner, you give up $10M worth of opportunity. Especially if you have a good tax/foundation lawyer.

Even playing on a losing team for an entire career, your bad day is better than the best day for the majority of people on the planet. Wouldn't it be profoundly selfish to give up the opportunity to do those things just to improve your life by a tiny percentage?

One other aspect to this is the fact that if you play for a high-profile, winning team, you're more likely to earn money through endorsements. So let's say that you get offered $4 million to play for the Cardinals and $3 million to play for the Patriots. But by playing for the Pats, you're always in the limelight, and you get a few more endorsement deals that put your total income to right about the same range as it would be if you got the extra salary, but no endorsements, from the Cardinals.

In this scenario, you get similar money, more fame, and a better shot at winning.

In fact, you'd think that teams could work that out as a strategy...contact local businesses and invite them to use your players in ads...that's a creative way to bring in extra income for the players without you paying it and without it counting towards the cap.

 

[patsfanofNC12]

Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but I doubt Asante Samuel and Randall Gay took bigger contracts to play for lesser teams with an eye toward philanthropy.

I am going to agree with you on this one. It may not be true, but I just can't see those two choosing the bigger contract so they could donate some of it to charity.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I don't mind when players leave for the $$..it is their right. I hate when they are hypocrites and say that ISN'T why they are leaving when it's pretty clear that it is.

I was also initially hating their responses but then realized that they can't say anything else but that they want to be on a winning team. It's PR for the team signing them and imagine how it will look if the newly signed player loudly proclaims that he just signed with the best bidder.

So, I learnt to ignore the public stances and the media soundbytes. "it is what it is...."