Kraft at Combine: Deal with Wilfork "close"

[upstater1]

Oh boy.....

LOL, I think his statement proves his point.

 

[emoney_33]

My slant is on ownership and revenue sharing.

Which had nothing to do with anything being discussed nor the post in which you referenced.

 

[Kasmir]

I agree. He is one of the top 5(?) at what he does in the WORLD. How much do you think the top 5 professors at the most prestigious universities in the world make? The average salary for professors at universities like Harvard make close to 200k. Sound comparable to the average NFL player?

The top money earners in academia are the professors who leverage their academic credentials into commercial relationships, from consultancies to board positions. Over the lifetime of their careers, they can make a *lot* of money.

 

[upstater1]

I agree. He is one of the top 5(?) at what he does in the WORLD. How much do you think the top 5 professors at the most prestigious universities in the world make? The average salary for professors at universities like Harvard make close to 200k. Sound comparable to the average NFL player?

Woooooaaaaaaah!! $200k??? Not even half of that.

The stats are readily available.

 

[upstater1]

The top money earners in academia are the professors who leverage their academic credentials into commercial relationships, from consultancies to board positions. Over the lifetime of their careers, they can make a *lot* of money.

Sounds like you're talking about business, finance, international relations, and I'd say that most have a symbiotic relationship with the business world.

In the Humanities and Sciences, you have a lot of research money coming into schools and the professors do not cash out. They don't even have patent rights on inventions or discoveries or even a right to the % on the books they sell.

 

[upstater1]

The (relatively high) amount of money athletes make is based on capitalism. Pretty basic supply and demand.

In relative terms, yes, but I would argue that owners treat their sport like a hobby and they do not have anywhere near the margins that they have in other businesses. Say the Patriots have 200 employees, with half of them involved in the highly specialized part of the business (i.e. the part that produces all the dough). I'd wager that they make a ton more money as a % than the top half of employees at similarly lucrative businesses elsewhere. It's an apples and oranges comparison but I guess my argument is that you don't have the imbalances between owners and workers that you regularly see in many companies (this doesn't apply of course to industry where the skills of workers aren't as specialized).

 

[RobertWeathers]

Which had nothing to do with anything being discussed nor the post in which you referenced.

Wrong post. My bad. Don't play post cop, emoney.

 

[emoney_33]

Wrong post. My bad. Don't play post cop, emoney.

I'm not trying to be a post cop or anything, it's just how I follow the conversation. If you reply to a certain post it follows that you are debating a point in that post. But if it's misunderstanding then I'm moving on, sorry.

 

[emoney_33]

In relative terms, yes, but I would argue that owners treat their sport like a hobby and they do not have anywhere near the margins that they have in other businesses. Say the Patriots have 200 employees, with half of them involved in the highly specialized part of the business (i.e. the part that produces all the dough). I'd wager that they make a ton more money as a % than the top half of employees at similarly lucrative businesses elsewhere. It's an apples and oranges comparison but I guess my argument is that you don't have the imbalances between owners and workers that you regularly see in many companies (this doesn't apply of course to industry where the skills of workers aren't as specialized).

I'm not sure I agree. The (top) players are in incredibly high demand while incredibly low supply. Although if your point is that maybe some owners will overvalue/overpay for a top player (employee) more than they would normally in another business for a top employee just because of the nature of it, then I guess I can see where you are coming from.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You're assigning a "deserves" value one way or the other. You just want these players to use your value numbers rather than their own. In a capitalist society, they don't need to accept your valuation, and they don't have to apologize for their own.

I didn't miss your point. I simply don't hold to it. As for diminishing the struggles of others, their struggles are diminished all the time. Players would be foolish not to try to equate their situation with other labor groups.

No... you're definitely missing the point. All that I did was outline a way that they could frame up the subject so that it didn't immediately become a public relations cluster****. So when you say that I'm trying to make players adhere to a different system of values, then that's just you failing pretty fundamentally at reading comprehension. For starters, I have not stated my own position on how athletes should be valued, or what the 'proper' thing for them to say publicly would be. If you're interested, my answer would be that I don't really care. If someone's willing to pay Wilfork $12 million per year, then he's worth $12 million per year. I'm simply proposing what I think would be the best way for them to frame it up on a PR level, so any reference that you make to 'my' values is misguided and just shows that you missed the point.

The economic and civic senses of worth already exist. I'm not creating anything here: just pointing out the fact that there is tension between two different definitions of merit, and it is always the root of the PR quagmire when a highly paid individual has a salary grievance. Every single time, and they still just don't learn. Whether or not it bothers me is irrelevant, because it does bother the public, and the whole reason why they're making public statements is to try to come off at least somewhat sympathetically, so that they can put some pressure on the organization to sign them.

And one of the biggest hurdles to this is the whole concept of the overpaid athlete, which exists solely because the public insists on mixing its civic definition of worth into what would ideally be a strictly economic discussion. That's why athletes are always contrasted to teachers: because teachers have a ton of theoretical civic worth (after all what's more precious than our children?? and all that stuff) but very little economic worth, whereas athletes have a ton of economic worth and virtually none on a civic level (they play a game for a living). They're polar opposites.

So obviously, the best PR strategy is to clarify early on that you're not talking on a civic level. Render that viewpoint irrelevant before it has a chance to get going. So, when you say that you deserve 200 times a teacher's salary, you're not saying that you're worth more to society than 200 teachers, or 200 times better than a teacher, or anything like that. Even if it's true, that's PR suicide, and is exactly what they don't want if they're trying to use public sentiment as a leverage point. Rather than blurring the lines between economic and civic worth by analogizing themselves to teachers (which is a battle that they can't win), they ought to be moving the discussion as far away from that as possible.

Which means that you're claiming that I'm taking a position that I never even suggested. What I brought up was strictly a PR strategy, and it's a pretty basic one, at that. It always surprises me that they so consistently fail at it, and surprises me even more that you can't seem to differentiate between a an effective PR strategy and my own personal feelings on the subject. Trust me, I am fully aware that my personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant to them.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm not trying to be a post cop or anything, it's just how I follow the conversation. If you reply to a certain post it follows that you are debating a point in that post. But if it's misunderstanding then I'm moving on, sorry.

Moving onward....

 

[slash83]

How important is it for the Pats to close out the contract before the start of free agency? I wonder what kind of impact it would have on the team if a deal has or has not been reached by March 5th..

 

[upstater1]

I'm not sure I agree. The (top) players are in incredibly high demand while incredibly low supply. Although if your point is that maybe some owners will overvalue/overpay for a top player (employee) more than they would normally in another business for a top employee just because of the nature of it, then I guess I can see where you are coming from.

That's exactly what I'm saying. For many of the owners, this is more about getting their face in the papers. They really care about winning. They will pay. Think of Daniel Snyder. I'm sure some guy has come up with some thingie to make him many millions at his business. But he treats it like a business. The Redskins? I'd say there's an extra involved there somewhere.

Regardless, I do agree with the original poster that Vince's statement was inappropriate. You can't compare yourself to a teacher. A teacher may be fired (and a lot of them have been recently) and they'll find themselves in dire straits. A football player, not so much.

 

[BelichickFan]

As usual, the more players talk the worse off they are. Vince can work the free market and get all he wants. More power to him. But for him to say he "deserves" more than $7M while comparing it to a teacher or garbageman, Vince sounds like an ignorant d!ck. Work the system and say you're thankful that you are in the profession you are - people equally talented in different professions can barely make ends meet. So do what you do, get what you can get . . . and STFU.

 

[Coach42]

That's exactly what I'm saying. For many of the owners, this is more about getting their face in the papers. They really care about winning. They will pay. Think of Daniel Snyder. I'm sure some guy has come up with some thingie to make him many millions at his business. But he treats it like a business. The Redskins? I'd say there's an extra involved there somewhere.

Regardless, I do agree with the original poster that Vince's statement was inappropriate. You can't compare yourself to a teacher. A teacher may be fired (and a lot of them have been recently) and they'll find themselves in dire straits. A football player, not so much.

Not to get to far off topic but Wilfork is literally putting his life on the line. Both of his parents died from complications of diabetes. Wilfork weighs 350 lbs. do the math, he will be lucky to see fifty and that is not an exaggeration.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Actually, the NFL and how monies are distributed is pretty close to socialism.

We're talking in the grander economic scheme, particularly when comparing athletes' salaries vs. teachers, and why athletes make exponentially more. The reasons have everything to do with capitalism.

 

[Kasmir]

Sounds like you're talking about business, finance, international relations, and I'd say that most have a symbiotic relationship with the business world.

In the Humanities and Sciences, you have a lot of research money coming into schools and the professors do not cash out. They don't even have patent rights on inventions or discoveries or even a right to the % on the books they sell.

Professors involved in Sciences or Engineering of any field relevant to marketable ideas are often involved in the founding of commercial enterprises based on their work, in roles from advisers to founders. Draper Labs history wrt MIT is a good example of how such professors can make a lot of money on the side. Economists can also make a great deal of money from commercial relationships. You also left out Law School types -- enough said there.

Also, when looking at the large amounts of money some athletes can make, you need to remember that their careers are relatively short. After all a double income family making an average of $250K over 40 years has a lifetime income of $10m. Athletes need to either invest well or leverage their careers well to compensate for their relatively short earning careers, particularly in football. And of course far too many athletes fail to understand this and find themselves in financial difficulties when their big money years come to an often abrupt end.

 

[Schmo]

Woooooaaaaaaah!! $200k??? Not even half of that.

The stats are readily available.

Yes. Yes they are:

Harvard - Larry Summers and The Financial Crisis at Harvard

Yale by year(with schools in parenthesis how much Yale is under each school) - http://www.yale.edu/oir/open/pdf_public/W061_Fac_Sal_Ivys.pdf

Both are consistent with each other.

 

[BelichickFan]

I agree. He is one of the top 5(?) at what he does in the WORLD.

He is . . . but it's also at something that, in the scheme of things, makes no difference whatsoever. He's great . . . GREAT . . . at something totally meaningless and he should be very thankful that we decide to make it meaningful for whatever reason we do.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I definitely agree with you on this. It is precisely because this is a capital society and there is no intrinsic value determining worth. It's all relevant to the market.

But what is the market? It's not some objective entity. It's a human creation and it's subject to all sorts of human behavior.

Without Daniel Snyder, Vince Wilfork is thinking quite differently right now.

Look at the NBA. They have overpaid their players and they are in bad shape. Look at Tedy Bruschi: he would have been cut and playing for veteran minimum ages before he retired had he not brokered the smart deal he did. Look at John Calipari in Kentucky: a product of boosters because he is NOT worth the amount they paid him. The market determines how much these players are worth, but that doesn't mean players or agents have a grasp of all the values and parameters involved. So, Vince's statement that $7 million is a slap in the face is really too much.

And there are teacher's and such who bring a lot more value to an enterprise but they don't break the bank precisely because they work for a non-profit enterprise in the business of educating, and they know that every extra dime they take drains money from the school's central mission. There are some smart research guys out there pulling many million dollar projects into universities. They could easily set up shop elsewhere, but that would disrupt their schools, their projects, etc. Market-wise, in any specialized discipline, you'll find a lot fewer experts working on, say, photosynthesizing solar cells than you will div. 1 coaches and prospective coaches making $1 million, but that doesn't mean the market or research behind this field is much smaller than the market for college basketball (it's not). The market would dictate those researchers get paid more: if they only demand it.

Exactly, 'worth' is a volatile, market-based dynamic. It's the intersection of supply and demand; nothing more, nothing less. The fact that it can swing radically based on the existence or non-existence of a few variables doesn't invalidate it: just shows how subjective it really is. It's not rooted in any sense of intrinsic value.

In the NFL, there are billions of dollars at stake, with the end goal of putting the best football team possible on the field. So yeah, guys that are among the very best at football are suddenly worth tens of millions of dollars. Fifty years ago, players were doing all the same stuff, but there wasn't so much money at stake, and therefore their worth was lower.

In short, their worth has increased astronomically purely as a function of the amount of money that teams stand to make by offering a successful product, and there's a lot of money there. It did not scale with how hard they worked, or how much they gave up, or how much they risked: it scaled up only with how much they were worth as assets to the organizations that employ them.

It's a very rare set of conditions, and that should be brought to the forefront when contextualizing your labor disputes. The exact opposite, then, is saying that your situation is identical to school teachers'.