Why do players care if they make say 8 million or 12 million?

Tunescribe · Mar 4, 2015

Rob0729 said:
You are kidding yourself. You really think NO ONE would think the person is insane for turning down a job with a 50% pay raise because he is happy where he is? Really?!?

Money isn't "God" to everyone, especially after a certain point. Why is that so hard to believe?

Here's a basic hypothetical to illustrate:

Choice A: Work and live in San Diego near extended family for $4 million annual salary on a job maximizing your creative potential.

Choice B: Work and live in Fargo N.D. for $8 million salary as personal assistant to a morally bankrupt slave-driving boss.

Which would you choose?

BradyManny · Mar 4, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Ummm..... $4 million is a 50% raise in this scenario. How is that two different argument? If he makes $4 million more in this scenario, he is making $12 million. If he is making 50% more in this scenario, he is still making $12 million. How is it a different argument? I just used the percentage increase in the statement over the actual dollar increase.

Because if we're talking about a lawyer, a 50% raise might mean 200K to 300K. You keep throwing around $4 million raise, and then a 50% raise for a lawyer. The average lawyer does not make $8 million a year.

Again, to say no person would say they are insane not to take a $4 million a year (or 50%) raise is totally BS. Plenty of people would think that lawyer is certifiably insane.

Well, then the world is pretty stupid. We're here a short time and then we're dead, we should probably value our time and happiness far more than we do. If a given person thinks that X amount of $$ is more likely to increase their happiness in their time here, than so be it, then the choice is easy! But as we're working under the assumption said person is already financially comfortable, then no, I don't think someone would be insane to pass up a boatload of money if they are both happy and financially secure.

But people who go into those type of careers are not typically given the offer of a huge high paying salary or the salary to be a teacher, social worker, or whatever. They are never given that option. So it is completely different than the scenario. So while accusing me of making two different arguments, you throw a completely irrelevant argument into the mix.

Because I'm taking the broader view I am trying to advocate. People make these decisions every day of their lives all along the way, and if they made them simply $ for $, we'd all wind up in the same place. As for being more specifically relevant, scientist is a fine comp, because any scientist or professor could go triple their salary in consulting if they wanted.

Rob0729 · Mar 4, 2015

Tunescribe said:
Money isn't "God" to everyone, especially after a certain point. Why is that so hard to believe?

Here's a basic hypothetical to illustrate:

Choice A: Work and live in San Diego near extended family for $4 million annual salary on a job maximizing your creative potential.

Choice B: Work and live in Fargo N.D. for $8 million salary as personal assistant to a morally bankrupt slave-driving boss.

Which would you choose?

You are twisting my words. For some people, money is everything. For others, it is nothing. You said NO ONE would think a person is crazy to turn down $4 million more a year if they are happy where they are. That isn't the case. Some will admire the decision and others will think the person is insane.

BradyManny · Mar 4, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Yes, there are other factors to consider, but at times the money is so much more that you work around those factors to make it work. Most contracts are only three years no matter how long they are. After 3 years, players with big contracts are usually asked to restructure or let go if they don't. So three years of your life to cash in is worth it to most players.

Of course. A guy coming off his rookie deal has to factor in mind it might be the last time he gets paid.

Rob0729 · Mar 4, 2015

BradyManny said:
Because if we're talking about a lawyer, a 50% raise might mean 200K to 300K. You keep throwing around $4 million raise, and then a 50% raise for a lawyer. The average lawyer does not make $8 million a year.

Who cares what in the real world a lawyer makes for this scenario. In my hypothetical, the lawyer was offered $4 million more a year or a 50% increase in salary, That is all that matters for this argument. They are the same thing. It isn't two different arguments.

Well, then the world is pretty stupid. We're here a short time and then we're dead, we should probably value our time and happiness far more than we do. If a given person thinks that X amount of $$ is more likely to increase their happiness in their time here, than so be it, then the choice is easy! But as we're working under the assumption said person is already financially comfortable, then no, I don't think someone would be insane to pass up a boatload of money if they are both happy and financially secure.

You are assuming that taking the money is going to be a worse situation. Just because a job pays more money doesn't mean it is less rewarding. I will bring up my brother. He left a job that he absolutely loved for a lot more money. He actually loves the new job more because he ended up getting a lot more responsibility for his work and a lot more autonomy to do what he wants. It actually ended up being a better situation.

Because I'm taking the broader view I am trying to advocate. People make these decisions every day of their lives all along the way, and if they made them simply $ for $, we'd all wind up in the same place. As for being more specifically relevant, scientist is a fine comp, because any scientist or professor could go triple their salary in consulting if they wanted.

Again, you assuming that the more money is alway a worse situation. For example, even when the Cardinals sucked, many players loved to play there because they could get 9 holes in every day after practice. Many players like playing in big cities even if the team sucks because they are young and single and there is plenty to do on their off time. So going to those teams for more money may not be a bad thing especially if you already have a ring.

And some people are just happier with more money. People find happiness in many different things. I don't know if being materialistic is especially worse than other things that drive people. Of course it is worse than some passions, but not others.

Sicilian · Mar 4, 2015

The human mind, by default, is not very good at looking at things in a vacuum or at too large of a picture. The survival instinct is more efficient when it's focusing on more immediate environmental factors, so people tend to compare their situation primarily to those directly around them. If they're doing better than their peers, they feel satisfied. If they don't, there is an internal drive to want more. So most pro athletes, psychologically, are not comparing their situation to that of a teacher, or a minimum wage worker. They're comparing themselves to the other athletes and celebrities that tend to populate their circles. In those crowds, the need to raise your standing is a powerful internal draw.

IllegalContact · Mar 4, 2015

Tunescribe said:
Money isn't "God" to everyone, especially after a certain point. Why is that so hard to believe?

Here's a basic hypothetical to illustrate:

Choice A: Work and live in San Diego near extended family for $4 million annual salary on a job maximizing your creative potential.

Choice B: Work and live in Fargo N.D. for $8 million salary as personal assistant to a morally bankrupt slave-driving boss.

Which would you choose?

pointless example when you start mixing in irrelevant variables.....while completely avoiding the most important one.......either employer at any time can/will tell you to take a cut in pay because they want to bring someone else in for their creative potential or to be slave-driven....or even better, a competitor makes you incapable of creative potential and your boss says 'I need someone with creative potential' and shows you the door with zero severance...all you get is what you've already gotten.

as for 'certain point' WTF does that mean? why does Brady not play for the minimum? he is probably the only player int he NFL whose spouse makes more then he does.....does that 'certain point' consider the fact that the person was paid 31M 2 years prior?

LOL @ the notion that the 'Money isn't god' ..... pretty naive

IllegalContact · Mar 4, 2015

Sicilian said:
The human mind, by default, is not very good at looking at things in a vacuum or at too large of a picture. The survival instinct is more efficient when it's focusing on more immediate environmental factors, so people tend to compare their situation primarily to those directly around them. If they're doing better than their peers, they feel satisfied. If they don't, there is an internal drive to want more. So most pro athletes, psychologically, are not comparing their situation to that of a teacher, or a minimum wage worker. They're comparing themselves to the other athletes and celebrities that tend to populate their circles. In those crowds, the need to raise your standing is a powerful internal draw.

The family of Junior Seau appreciates every dime he made

Sicilian · Mar 4, 2015

IllegalContact said:
The family of Junior Seau appreciates every dime he made

I'm sure they do...? Not sure what that had to do with my post though.

BradyManny · Mar 4, 2015

Rob0729 said:
You are assuming that taking the money is going to be a worse situation. Just because a job pays more money doesn't mean it is less rewarding. I will bring up my brother. He left a job that he absolutely loved for a lot more money. He actually loves the new job more because he ended up getting a lot more responsibility for his work and a lot more autonomy to do what he wants. It actually ended up being a better situation.

I'm not assuming the money is the worse situation, in general. I'm saying that in our hypothetical it is, as you are asking me to find a scenario in which someone could reasonably turn down millions of dollars. My entire point was that the bottom line should be overall well-being for the person and or his family, and not money, and of course money is part of that evaluation. Naturally, if you are telling me the higher paying job B is going to satisfy the person as much as job A, then it's an easy choice.

PatsWickedPissah · Mar 4, 2015

Players have short careers and most likely will face health problems in middle age. They need to max out on income to ensure fiscal comfort for the decades after their mid 30s.

It's easier for us with expected longer careers to forego money for quality of life issues. I am glad I did.

50-yard-line · Mar 4, 2015

Tunescribe said:
Money isn't "God" to everyone, especially after a certain point. Why is that so hard to believe?

Here's a basic hypothetical to illustrate:

Choice A: Work and live in San Diego near extended family for $4 million annual salary on a job maximizing your creative potential.

Choice B: Work and live in Fargo N.D. for $8 million salary as personal assistant to a morally bankrupt slave-driving boss.

Which would you choose?

Honestly, in that situation, I'd go to Fargo for about 3 years. The difference is too great, with too many implications on the long-term health of my family.

But I get your point. It all depends on where you're starting from and where you'll end up, regarding financial security. 4/year for 3 years in San Diego (expensive as hell, big tax hits) will set you up comfortably for life.

8/year for 3 years in Fargo (cheap as hell with minimal taxes) will set you up for life with a nice beach house in Maui. Worth it.

For someone like Revis, I'd take the quality of life. For a guy coming off his rookie deal with this being his one big shot, I'd chase the cash if it represented a large raise.

If I were McCourty, I'd stay in New England for 8, over taking 9 somewhere else. But I'd leave if the difference was 3-4 a year.

Tunescribe · Mar 4, 2015

IllegalContact said:
pointless example when you start mixing in irrelevant variables.....while completely avoiding the most important one.......either employer at any time can/will tell you to take a cut in pay because they want to bring someone else in for their creative potential or to be slave-driven....or even better, a competitor makes you incapable of creative potential and your boss says 'I need someone with creative potential' and shows you the door with zero severance...all you get is what you've already gotten.

as for 'certain point' WTF does that mean? why does Brady not play for the minimum? he is probably the only player int he NFL whose spouse makes more then he does.....does that 'certain point' consider the fact that the person was paid 31M 2 years prior?

LOL @ the notion that the 'Money isn't god' ..... pretty naive

Just when you begin to redeem your existence here with a string of fairly plausible posts, comes this. Back on the sauce, eh?

Tunescribe · Mar 4, 2015

Rob0729 said:
You are twisting my words. For some people, money is everything. For others, it is nothing. You said NO ONE would think a person is crazy to turn down $4 million more a year if they are happy where they are. That isn't the case. Some will admire the decision and others will think the person is insane.

I didn't twist your words. Re., the bolded statement: I said no such thing, I think you're mixing my post up with someone else's.

billdog3484 · Mar 4, 2015

Ken Canin said:
I'm honestly confused as to why these free agents make such a big deal about these increments to their salary well beyond what they could possibly need, want, or spend. The whole point of making a lot of money is mainly to have a good life for yourself and your family, and I can't believe their lives are better uprooting themselves from a great team and region they've played for a while, force everyone to switch schools, buy new houses, and so on.

At that level of income, for one thing, the actual amount of money one has is going to depend on intricacies of tax law and how one structures one's investments. It's not like it's sitting in a checking account and you need that extra 2 million to buy a new car.

You might say it's "long term security" but surely the security of playing for a great team for a long time is better from a career standpoint or for preserving options post-career.

Finally, some people say "it's about respect". Maybe that's true without a salary cap, but with one, there's a finite amount of money, and paying some people too much will just kill a team's chances to win. Don't they get respect making more than just about anyone and winning championships besides?

I just, I really can't understand someone seriously considering uprooting their lives over an amount of money that won't make any difference in their lifestyle at all (but moving to some new town that doesn't know them and doesn't have a good team will probably be unpleasant for everyone).

Are you serious. why do people complain about getting more money? haha i wonder why.

hornetfb85 · Mar 4, 2015

Nunchucks · Mar 4, 2015

50-yard-line said:
No, you're wrong - take a look at the diminishing marginal utility of money. There is NO real difference between 9 million and 10 million in terms of lifestyle. None.

It's a number in a portfolio (which, at that level, will fluctuate 10's of thousands a DAY) and more importantly, it's a number in the part of your brain that gives you a sense of self-worth...if you're buying into the cultural stupidity.

Declining utility? Really? 1 million dollars is a million dollars. Maybe the player even donates it to charity....it still is a million dollars.

FreeTedWilliams · Mar 4, 2015

Tunescribe said:
Money isn't "God" to everyone, especially after a certain point. Why is that so hard to believe?

Here's a basic hypothetical to illustrate:

Choice A: Work and live in San Diego near extended family for $4 million annual salary on a job maximizing your creative potential.

Choice B: Work and live in Fargo N.D. for $8 million salary as personal assistant to a morally bankrupt slave-driving boss.

Which would you choose?

LOL, bad example...

San Diego's cost of living is 50.8% higher than Fargo, ND!

http://www.areavibes.com/cost-of-living-calculator/fargo,+nd-vs-san+diego,+ca/

San Diego, CA is 50.8% more expensive to live in than Fargo, ND.
You would need to make $75,422 in San Diego, CA compared to $50,000 in Fargo, ND to maintain the same standard of living.

Think about that, so in your example you would have to make 4 million dollars more in San Diego just to cancel out the difference between the cost of living in Fargo versus San Diego. Plus that is not even taking into account California's 8.41 tax rate versus North Dakota's 6.5%. So your hypothetical employee would be an idiot to choose San Diego over Fargo.

BradyManny · Mar 4, 2015

IllegalContact said:
why does Brady not play for the minimum?

You, and others, are severely missing the point. No one is arguing these guys should play for free. No one is trying to say money is a bad thing or any sort of nonsense. Only that there potentially are other factors with equal or greater utility than the hypothetical 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th million dollar in this scenario, and that it's not ridiculous for someone to consider those factors.

Brady is a perfect example because he easily could've made 25% more money over the course of his career if he wanted to. He shouldn't play for free because that would be asinine, and he's capable of making decisions that involve some level of complexity. Unfortunately, that's something people here seem not to have the attention span for.

BradyFTW! · Mar 4, 2015

Because $12M is a lot more than $8M. It's really that simple, especially when your earning potential evaporates in your mid-late 30s and you're hoping to live the rest of your life in luxury and also set up your kids as well, while anticipating some monstrous medical bills down the line.

Some guys, once they've reached a certain point in career earnings, are willing to make concessions because they know they've already made enough to set up themselves and their families in any plausible scenario. Other guys aren't there yet, and still others just don't think that way. For a lot of them, it's a competitive thing. For the most part, you get to the NFL by working your ass off and being ultra-competitive, and the paycheck is just one more area to compete with everyone else.

Personally, I don't blame any NFL player that chases top dollar. Knowing what we know now about about the long-term health ramifications of playing in the NFL, it's hard to argue with that motive. If you're going to sell out your health and quality of life like that, I can't fault you for demanding top dollar while you do so.

Why do players care if they make say 8 million or 12 million?

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

PatsFans.com Supporter

RIP NEM

Pro Bowl Player

Goodell sucks

Similar threads