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?