I shouldn't expect much from someone who uses 'epic fail' seriously, but here we go.
1) Kraft was a massive outlier in financing Gillette privately, with only 17% coming from taxpayers (still, that's 93.5 million dollars that taxpayers will never see the benefits of, because there's no evidence that a stadium provides anything resembling an economic boost). Most stadiums are largely publicly funded. In sum, the public has paid for about 78% of the total expenditures for facilities and has seen next to no return on this investment. Rather, the returns of those public investments go almost entirely into the pockets of private owners.
Again, you ignore what was said. The FACT is that most teams paid for their ORIGINAL Stadiums. The original ones were NOT tax-payer funded and some of the newer ones weren't either. Such as Gillette. Joe Robbie Stadium. Etc.
Really? The "public" has seen no return on investment for stadiums? So, they've seen no increased tax revenue from these stadiums on food taxes? They've seen no increased revenue for hotels in the areas? I bet all the businesses along Route 1 would love for you to tell them that they've seen no benefit from Gillette Stadium. Hey, wait, aren't there all sorts of new businesses around Gillette? Let me guess. They were all there before, right???
2) People who work for the Patriots and all major sports teams - not vendors - are very poorly paid for their job duties compared to people in other private sector industries with a similar skillset. Part of this is because people are willing to 'work for less' in sports because they have a passion for it, but this is an example of where people make themselves losers in a labor market that thrives off of it. Regardless, the point is that owners end up paying dimes on the dollar for the skills they want in their non-football personnel (marketing, business, etc.)
Wrong again. People who work for the Pats are very well paid compared to other private sector jobs. This idea that they are paid poorly is fictitious on your part.
Now, aides and coaching assistants are paid like crap. But we knew that already.
3) I'm curious how you think so, other than your counterattack with no evidence behind it. The draft, the structured nature of free agency, the new rookie pay scale, the salary cap - all of these are instruments that artificially deflate the salaries of players below what they would demand in a perfectly free market. Some of these are important for competition, but in a freer market like what you see in baseball, many players would be paid far more than they are now. The players were forced to accept these mechanisms as part of the CBA precisely because the free labor market goes against the wishes of the owners, who have more financial leverage within the league.
Could you please show me just 1 other industry in this country outside of a pro sports league where the employees get to take home 47% of the GROSS Revenue?
The players weren't FORCED to take anything. They CHOSE to be a union and CHOSE to accept the labor agreement.
You think that MLB has better free agency rules? How is having to wait 6 years (from when they are called up to the majors) to become a free agent is better than only waiting 3?
There is no such thing as a "perfectly free market" since those wanting to be employees will always claim collusion if they don't like what they are being offered...
4) It's funny that you mention the Raiders, because in the mid-90s only the Raiders and the Cardinals were running operational (note: not net cash flow) losses. Every other team was running a cash flow surplus. Today, it seems likely that every team - especially given the tax exemptions NFL teams hold - is running a cash flow surplus. Of course, we don't actually know this because the owners refused to allow an independent audit, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable accommodation given that the Panthers were running a healthy cash flow surplus a couple years ago when their books leak and that the Packers - whose books are public knowledge - run a very sizable surplus every year. And these cash flows include salaries, meaning the team pays for itself and more.
NFL Teams get very few tax exemptions as they are "FOR PROFIT" entities. Being "For Profit" and not publically held, they aren't required to release their data.
The Packers surplus was NOT sizable. In fact, many people were surprised at how little money they had, all things considered. Well, unless you honestly think that a profits of $10 million in 2010 and $43 million in 2011 are a lot..
Packers present financial report
BTW, having 30 million in cash extra is piddly when you are paying out a signing bonus of 15 million. I mean, yeah, you can focus on the "snapshot" that doesn't tell you the whole story or you can look at the whole picture and realize that $30 million isn't squat in a sports league where you could hand that to one player for one contract.
5) They get healthcare when they play that repairs them so they are able to play football more rapidly. Whether that is actually beneficial to the players' long-term health is something I think is not often taken into consideration.
I don't know where you have worked, but most companies and their health care companies don't often look at the "long term health" of their employees because the average length of time someone is with a company is now less than 7 years.
Considering that most of the advances in ACL surgeries have come from the sports field and trying to make it so the players don't get injured again, I'm going to have to disagree with you that they don't take the long term health into consideration. Now, I'm sure you're going to try and point to concussions and CTE, but there have been studies that have come out recently that question the previous thought that they are linked. Whether or not it's true is another story.
6) NFL players retire at the latest by 40, long before Medicare kicks in, so I'm not sure why that's an argument. The players aren't 'lucky' to get pensions, the death of the private pension in our country is a sad testament to where we stand today. Given the vast profits the industry turns on the backs of the players, there should be a moral imperative to do better by them, but judging by your arguments you're not interested in moral imperatives.
WOW. Moral imperatives? Another clueless statement by a clueless poster.
It's not a sad testament to where we stand in society. What is a sad testament is that we have gotten lazy and complacent and rely too much on credit. So 90% of Americans don't plan for the future, don't put money away for retirement and expect the government to take care of them when they are too old to take care of themselves. It used to be that FAMILIES took care of one another. Now, you throw your parents in a nursing home and forget about them.
Now, let's get a few things straight. The NEWER owners of the NFL don't turn their backs on players. In fact, if you knew a damn thing, you'd know that it was Gene Upshaw who went out of his way to screw the previous players. He's the one who fought tooth and nail to NOT get proper medical funding for the players in the previous CBAs, to not get pension funding in them.
I have news for you since you seem to be oblivious to reality. No company gives a crap about it's employees after they have left employment. NONE. And they never have. Nor should they because that isn't their responsibility.
What should be a moral imperative is teaching people to take personal responsibility for themselves and to make sure their families are taken care of. THAT is the moral imperative I care about. And that is what this country has lost because people like you think that it's someone else's responsibility.
Players have a right as workers not to be dumped without reasonable accommodation, even in at-will states, for a disability. It seems the Patriots offered that reasonable accommodation, so I don't see that there's anything wrong here (other than leaving the team dangerously thin in run-stuffing tackles). But I was answering the poster who was criticizing players for 'making too much,' which is a terrible, played-out argument that hands over the reins to capital in an industry that is already swimming in money and hardly needs fans arguing for them.
Except that isn't what you said initially. You claimed that PLAYERS were being denied their rights. You were wrong. Just admit it and move on..
This is the first I've heard of any of this... does this date back to last season?
