Steeler wants players to save now for a strike

[BradyFTW!]

It's beyond ridiculous.

Too many 100k dollar watches and Rolls Royces for guys who will literally struggle making it through the work stoppage. Talk about pathetic.

I agree it's stupid, and that's exactly why it's good news that player reps are taking this issue seriously. If you think players should be more responsible with their money and should actually engage in long-term financial planning for a change, then you should be glad that player reps are putting this message out there.

 

[Jlaff]

There are so many things wrong with this post that I'm not sure where to start. Here's a list.

1. The NFLPA isn't the players' employer.
2. The Steelers' union rep thinks players won't save up enough to go a few months to a year without a paycheck because, historically, players haven't saved up enough to go a few months to a year without a paycheck. There's no guesswork here, they have a long history and a firmly established track record to look back upon. Were you watching the NFL in 2011?
3. How is what you're describing any different from any other drug test?
4. If you think a situation that requires saving is on the horizon, it's always a good idea to advise saving as early as possible. What's the downside? The mental gymnastics required to interpret this as an insult are kinda impressive.

1. I misread the title, does not change how insulting that is

2. I would submit that is irrelevant. I worked in the oilfield where the workers had a reputation for alcoholism and drug use, didn't change how demeaning it was when the idea of standard drug testing for all employees was mentioned. That presumes I'm a lowlife because of my occupation. The comment from the Steelers rep demonstrates lowered expectations in the same way. Further, this can't be the first occasion these players have been advised not to blow their money. To those who couldn't help themselves before, why would anything change now?

3. I think using crack shows exceptionally poor decision making on a higher level than other drugs. You might disagree. The example was meant to show that the person requesting the crack specific drug test thinks the testee possesses those exceptionally poor decision making skills.

4. If you assume someone making millions of dollars in what is more than likely a one-time-only opportunity to make that kind of money. And you assume they haven't been saving any of it for retirement, but are in fact using that once in a lifetime opportunity to live paycheck to paycheck, then I don't think you can escape the conclusion that you are assuming that person is an idiot.

 

[Joker]

well, if that person is DeSpazzolo Williams, I don't believe any assumptions are needed. HE is a bona fide idiot.

 

[makoute]

I have always rooted for the owners against the players because I believe in capitalism (i.e. owners put up capital and therefore should reap a significant portion of the reward) and because I want to watch football. This time is different though, I will root for the players and I don't care if we lose a season and think that will be the same with a lot of fans.

What's so different this time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tunescribe]

LOL... NFL players save money. That's a good one.

Didn't you know? At the annual rookie symposium they teach them all about saving money, avoiding predatory women and finding a fall guy.

 

[primetime]

I have always rooted for the owners against the players because I believe in capitalism (i.e. owners put up capital and therefore should reap a significant portion of the reward) and because I want to watch football. This time is different though, I will root for the players and I don't care if we lose a season and think that will be the same with a lot of fans.

Capital is nothing more than condensed labor-time. The players put up their time, talent, and (most notably) bodies and health. Most owners don't even pay for their stadiums. Why should vultures reap the rewards?

 

[IllegalContact]

the only way the NFLPA can gain leverage is to sit on top of a pile of money........all players put a game check per season into the pool and all of a sudden, they can say 'no' to the owners very easily

you also put a system in place to return the money to a player who is no longer playing.

 

[XLIX]

the only way the NFLPA can gain leverage is to sit on top of a pile of money........all players put a game check per season into the pool and all of a sudden, they can say 'no' to the owners very easily

Do you really think players will be eager to give up 1/16th of their salaries? What about the guys who make a lot of money? Will they be happy to give up so much more than rookies and minimum wage players?

It is the shortness of the typical player's career that makes prolonged work stoppages much more damaging to them than the owners. The owners know this and have been taking advantage of that fact for decades.

 

[IllegalContact]

Do you really think players will be eager to give up 1/16th of their salaries? What about the guys who make a lot of money? Will they be happy to give up so much more than rookies and minimum wage players?

they would not be giving it up.......it would just be in the account while they are playing and would get it all back when they are done........just a constant running pool with cash flowing in and cash flowing out........like a money reserve to give players better leverage......it does not need to keep growing, just be enough to offset the owners ability to hold out

 

[XLIX]

they would not be giving it up.......it would just be in the account while they are playing and would get it all back when they are done........just a constant running pool with cash flowing in and cash flowing out........like a money reserve to give players better leverage......it does not need to keep growing, just be enough to offset the owners ability to hold out

Except the "cash running in" part dries up during a work stoppage. So what happens to a player who is part of the Union in 2020 but not 2021? Does he get his money back? How about players who didn't contribute to the pool, but get drafted in 2021? Do they get any outlays?

 

[XLIX]

I think we are getting off the track of what the biggest problem is. It isn't a matter of how prepared these guys are for a work stoppage. The biggest problem is this:

The typical NFL player has a very short career. About 3 years on average. I don't know the exact numbers, but one may logically deduce that the significant majority of players play for 5 years or less. Oh sure, the big name superstars go a lot longer than that, but they are the outliers.

As such, most of these players have very small windows with which to earn whatever they can (realistically speaking, after leaving the NFL, these guys will never earn money anywhere near their NFL playing days salary). So when you ask a player to engage in a prolonged work stoppage, you are asking them to sacrifice significant amounts of money they will make over the course of their careers -->that they will never have the chance to recover.<--

NFL Management/Ownership has been taking advantage of this fact for decades. I wish there was a better solution because I hate the league office. I sympathize with the players for how they are treated, and I understand why they are not in a position of strength to change things.

 

[IllegalContact]

Except the "cash running in" part dries up during a work stoppage. So what happens to a player who is part of the Union in 2020 but not 2021? Does he get his money back? How about players who didn't contribute to the pool, but get drafted in 2021? Do they get any outlays?

every single one of those details can be addressed with a minimum of imagination.......the bigger, more important question is 'do the players want to have something that mitigates the ownership's unfettered ability to f*ck them up the ass?

 

[XLIX]

every single one of those details can be addressed with a minimum of imagination.......

Then please feel free to provide us with "a minimum of imagination" and address those critical issues because I see those as HUGE sticking points which are not solvable in a manner that the majority will see as fair.

 

[SalemPats]

Because of my hatred of Goodell, owners like Jerry Jones and my disappointment with Kraft. I hope the players win big.

If they are smart they hire Donald Fehr.

They should also make the owners put aside some money to help the retired injured players

 

[IllegalContact]

Then please feel free to provide us with "a minimum of imagination" and address those critical issues because I see those as HUGE sticking points which are not solvable in a manner that the majority will see as fair.

first, if a draft pick does not have a contract signed, then they're not part of the union......tough luck......it's like saying a college grad who can't find a job should collect unemployment....just victims of bad timing.....

second, the NFLPA will couple the money they have saved with a strike time insurance policy as the one they purchased during the lockout

honestly.....who gives a flying f*ck what you see as sticking points since you had your mind made up before the convo even started......they can either choose to prepare for a work stoppage or not.....I don't give a **** either way, but something along these lines is the ONLY thing that will help the players during a work stoppage unless they decide to have a contingency plan on having a shadow league where the players will remain together as teams and get the games played anyway at alternative locations....potentially with live internet streaming of the games

bottom line, bucko, is that to lack in preparation such as last time will yield the same result.........

 

[XLIX]

honestly.....who gives a flying f*ck what you see as sticking points since you had your mind made up before the convo even started......

Child, relax. I am trying to politely explain to you why your ideas are not feasible. You seem to think the NFLPA has a money-printing machine. They can't pay out anything they haven't taken in so it is a zero-sum transaction.

It is very easy to advocate for a strike when you have no skin in the game; not quite as easy when you are an average player who would lose a significant (and unrecoverable) amount of lifetime income from a prolonged work stoppage.

I would love to see them stick it to ownership big time, but that's easy for me to say since it doesn't impact me or my family in the slightest. So I am not going to present "solutions" which are simply not realistic.

bottom line, bucko, is that to lack in preparation such as last time will yield the same result.........

Child, as I explained in a prior post, the big problem is not a matter of contingency plans. It is the fact that most NFLers have such short careers. This is why owners have had so much leverage over the past 30 years of labor negotiations. Setting aside a rainy day fund won't change that.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Child, as I explained in a prior post, the big problem is not a matter of contingency plans. It is the fact that most NFLers have such short careers. This is why owners have had so much leverage over the past 30 years of labor negotiations. Setting aside a rainy day fund won't change that.

It can only help. In a war of pure attrition, sure, the owners will always win. But if the players are better equipped to handle the loss of regular season games than they have been in the past, then they'll have more leverage because nobody--including the owners--actually wants that to happen. It certainly won't give them the advantage in the negotiation, but it will lessen the disadvantage somewhat, hopefully to the point that they can get an extra concession or two out of the owners. Every little bit helps, and when the message (save some ****ing money for a change) is a good one in its own right, it just becomes a net win all around if the players listen.

Also, the average player who makes a week 1 roster as a rookie is 6 years. The average career length statistic is artificially deflated by the constant churn of players at the very bottom end of rosters who play maybe a handful of games over the course of their entire career. If you took a snapshot of active NFL players at any given time, and then took all of their eventual career lengths and averaged them out, you'd get a number much closer to 6 than 3.

Dramatically oversimplified example of this dynamic: imagine you have a union that represents 10 positions. 5 of them will stick around for 10 years. 4 of them will stick around for 5 years. The last worker gets replaced every 2 months. Over the course of 10 years, you'll 5 guys in the 10 year bracket, 8 guys in the 5 year bracket, and 60 guys in the one week bracket.

Based on mean or median, the average career length in this group is extremely short, as 82% of workers only stick around for 2 months. But if you took a snapshot at any given point in time of the active union membership, 90% would have career lengths of 5+ years, and thus the majority of active workers would benefit from holding out for a year to get a 40% pay raise.

 

[IllegalContact]

Child, relax. I am trying to politely explain to you why your ideas are not feasible. You seem to think the NFLPA has a money-printing machine. They can't pay out anything they haven't taken in so it is a zero-sum transaction.

It is very easy to advocate for a strike when you have no skin in the game; not quite as easy when you are an average player who would lose a significant (and unrecoverable) amount of lifetime income from a prolonged work stoppage.

I would love to see them stick it to ownership big time, but that's easy for me to say since it doesn't impact me or my family in the slightest. So I am not going to present "solutions" which are simply not realistic.
Child, as I explained in a prior post, the big problem is not a matter of contingency plans. It is the fact that most NFLers have such short careers. This is why owners have had so much leverage over the past 30 years of labor negotiations. Setting aside a rainy day fund won't change that.

learn to comprehend.....nobody's advocating a strike......just having the apparent leverage to be able to sit for a year should do. with franchise values and the stadium revenue lost (next contract negotiation, the TV people would want to recover some of their money), the owners would have to do some math. the other thing they could kiss goodbye is the guaranteed tv revenue even if the games aren't played. its a game of chicken where the owners know exactly when the players would jump......just the fact that they won't know if/when the players would jump would probably do the job......no different from the stock market....the franchise values would plummet just from one missed season and it would affect league/team economics.

Bob Kraft would miss out on 125M of revenue from tickets/concessions/parking alone from a missed season of games......they're not really ready to lose that kind of money

does anyone know if an entire missed season would void player/team contracts or if there would be an argument for them to be voided?

 

[XLIX]

learn to comprehend.....nobody's advocating a strike......

Are you bleeping kidding me? There are people all over this forum advocating a strike. Lern2read.

Bob Kraft would miss out on 125M of revenue from tickets/concessions/parking alone from a missed season of games......they're not really ready to lose that kind of money

Of course they are. Here's what you seem not to realize: The owners are in it for the long haul. Suppose the sticking point in negotiations is allocating a mere 1% of revenue between the players and owners. That's about $40M per team per year. It is worth losing $125M in profit this year in order to secure a deal that increases profit by $40M per year over the next 10 years. The players, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly looking at short term interests because for them there is no "long term."

Now look at it from the other side: Suppose you are a player with an expectation to play 5-7 years and earn $30 million over the course of your career (players like that are far more common than the guys who last 10+ years and make over a hundred million). Say you are in your 4th year. If you sit out the entire year due to a work stoppage, you lose around $5 million - and that's money you will never get back. Is it worth losing 15% to 20% of your potential lifetime earnings when there are only 2-3 years left in your career in the first place?? You're not a typical UAW guy who can swallow short term losses because he is thinking about 15-20 years down the road. It is a HUGE loss for very minimal gain. It is not worth losing $5 million to increase your future salary by a couple hundred thousand.

THAT'S why the owners get to rape the players. A large part of me wishes the government would step in and straighten the league out.

 

[IllegalContact]

Are you bleeping kidding me? There are people all over this forum advocating a strike. Lern2read.

it sound like you were directing that at me.......

Of course they are. Here's what you seem not to realize: The owners are in it for the long haul. Suppose the sticking point in negotiations is allocating a mere 1% of revenue between the players and owners. That's about $40M per team per year. It is worth losing $125M in revenue this year in order to secure a deal that increases profit by $40M per year over the next 10 years. The players, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly looking at short term interests because for them there is no "long term."

LOL.......the owners aren't giving 1% away....not sure whose ass you pulled that out of.....if the league fails to operate for a year, there will be longer standing repercussions on the bottom line.....they are not going to simply pick up where they left off....it will likely take 4-5 years just to get back to where they were.....many fans will not return after missing a year

your example is insanely oversimplified

Now look at it from the other side: Suppose you are a player with an expectation to play 5-7 years and earn $20 million over the course of your career (players like that are far more common than the guys who last 10+ years and make over a hundred million). Say you are in your 4th year. If you sit out the entire year due to a work stoppage, you lose around $3 million - and that's money you will never get back. Is it worth losing 15% to 20% of your potential lifetime earnings when there are only 2-3 years left in your career in the first place?? You're not a typical UAW guy who can swallow short term losses because he is thinking about 15-20 years down the road. It is a HUGE loss for very minimal gain. It is not worth losing $3 million to increase your future salary by a couple hundred thousand.

the league still has to field the same number of players.......and if there's a work stoppage for a year, there's no guarantee that the owners get to keep the players as though the individual player sat out.....hell, many contracts could be voided anyway......an entire missed season by all players would create a huge mess contract-wise.

THAT'S why the owners get to rape the players. A large part of me wishes the government would step in and straighten the league out.

the government is not going to straighten out labor in the entertainment industry.......2 possibilities happen

1 - loss of anti trust exemption.......doesn't really affect players
2 - the courts see breach of contract and allow the players to void all of them.......this is what I would actually like to see.......make every player a free agent