Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Richard Sherman: Players need to be willing to strike

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Popeyejones wrote:Lots of good posts in here, but we can dispel the notion that Sherman is wrong to complain with just four simple numbers:

    Share of MLB revenue that goes to players: 57.5%

    Share of NBA revenue that goes to players: 51%

    Share of NHL revenue that goes to players: 50%

    Share of NFL revenue that goes to players: 47%

    People are free to argue that ALL of these are too low, or too high if they want, but it's basically impossible to argue that in comparison to all the other major sports NFL players aren't getting screwed.

    You don't need to talk about roster size, non-guaranteed contracts, etc., etc. to do that. It just takes those four numbers.

    I think anybody will have a CONSIDERABLY uphill battle arguing that the league that makes far and away the most revenue should have the worst split between owners and players (when there's simply more money flowing around there's no way to justify shortchanging people).

    Good on Sherman.

    Also, anyone saying the players shouldn't strike also needs to account for the fact that the lockout WAS the owner's equivalent of a strike last time around.


    I'm not intending to argue here, but the more correct percentage would be to look at the owner's percentage. The presentation assumes the 100% - the numbers you report go to the owners, but that isn't necessarily the case. The coaching staffs, I assume, are quite large in football compared to the other sports (especially basketball). There are probably a lot of other equipment people (heck, the Patriots have somebody whose sole job is deflating footballs :3-1: )

    Now, you might still find the same disparity, it would just be the better number to look at.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 104876
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


  • HawkGA wrote:
    Sports Hernia wrote:
    DJrmb wrote:I don't understand the vitriol for Sherman in here. What he said was 100% right on the money. The players in the NFL are widely considered the worst compensated of the major sports leagues. That, in a sport that has some of the shortest careers and most severe life threatening repercussions with CTE and brain damage. They are also in the healthiest and most profitable major sports league in the nation. They should be getting a bigger cut of the profits, no doubt, in my opinion.

    This argument should have nothing to do with the pay of teachers, or police or anyone else. They are completely separate from one another. It's not as if NFL players demanding more money from the NFL is going to decrease a teachers wage...

    This is a free market and the NFL has created a commodity that each one of us consumes in one way or another. It's pretty simple supply and demand. Why should I be mad at the players wanting more of the pot? It's not like the money is changing in any way. So in a sense people getting mad at the players for wanting more money are advocating for giving the Billionaire owners more money instead. Why the heck would you argue for more money for the Billionaire owners rather than wanting to see more of it go to the players that you actually root for (Again it's not like the overall money is changing, it's just being distributed different)?

    A lot of the vitriol towards Sherm are from fanboys of the OC, and they are still pissed he called the OC out.

    On the strike thing, like it or not Sherm is telling the truth. Anyone that has any idea of how collective bargaining works will tell you the same thing.


    I would say they need to be willing to do it such that it is a credible threat. I think a strike could potentially destroy the sport. Football is very popular for now but there is no guarantee it always will be. Force people to find other things to do with their Fall Sundays . . . and they might do just that.

    Absolutely correct. You don't mess around with strikes just for shits and giggles. You have to be very aware of the consequences.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22155
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • HawkGA wrote:
    I would say they need to be willing to do it such that it is a credible threat. I think a strike could potentially destroy the sport. Football is very popular for now but there is no guarantee it always will be. Force people to find other things to do with their Fall Sundays . . . and they might do just that.


    Some already have due to the BS issues of last season. More can do it easier. If I get a shop set up, I may do that myself.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7012
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • HawkGA wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:Lots of good posts in here, but we can dispel the notion that Sherman is wrong to complain with just four simple numbers:

    Share of MLB revenue that goes to players: 57.5%

    Share of NBA revenue that goes to players: 51%

    Share of NHL revenue that goes to players: 50%

    Share of NFL revenue that goes to players: 47%

    People are free to argue that ALL of these are too low, or too high if they want, but it's basically impossible to argue that in comparison to all the other major sports NFL players aren't getting screwed.

    You don't need to talk about roster size, non-guaranteed contracts, etc., etc. to do that. It just takes those four numbers.

    I think anybody will have a CONSIDERABLY uphill battle arguing that the league that makes far and away the most revenue should have the worst split between owners and players (when there's simply more money flowing around there's no way to justify shortchanging people).

    Good on Sherman.

    Also, anyone saying the players shouldn't strike also needs to account for the fact that the lockout WAS the owner's equivalent of a strike last time around.


    I'm not intending to argue here, but the more correct percentage would be to look at the owner's percentage. The presentation assumes the 100% - the numbers you report go to the owners, but that isn't necessarily the case. The coaching staffs, I assume, are quite large in football compared to the other sports (especially basketball). There are probably a lot of other equipment people (heck, the Patriots have somebody whose sole job is deflating footballs :3-1: )

    Now, you might still find the same disparity, it would just be the better number to look at.


    Good post, but that's not going to really change the percentages for a league with 14 billion in revenue. Head coaches make about the same, the coordinators cancel out with all the other coaches in the other leagues, and position coaches in the NFL mostly make 150-200 k. If we want to be stupidly generous let's say that's 2 million per team.

    Even with that incredibly generous figure we're talking about less than one half of one percentage point of total league revenue.

    There's a reason the owners decided to lock the players out when the players requested that both sides have equal information and the owners open their books.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4108
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • Hasselbeck wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:The players make a shitload of money.


    They also make a shitload of money for their owners.

    ivotuk wrote:If they had my health issues, but the level of care that they get, they would be quiet as a mouse. If you're rich and famous, everything comes easy.


    My bad - forgot every NFL player is living a very healthy and fulfilling life the moment the leave the game and never do they suffer some awful injury during the game that can greatly impact their way of life.

    BRB going to write this former NFL player and see how everything is coming "easy"
    http://www.teamgleason.org/

    ivotuk wrote:Must be nice to commute back and forth to Hawaii.

    Must be nice to drive Lamborghinis.

    Must be nice to ride chartered Jets, then be escorted to giant stadiums by the Police with sirens on.


    I'm sure it is definitely a perk yeah. Doesn't mean Sherman isn't right either.

    ivotuk wrote:My problem with Richard's talking lately is this, he's putting himself out in front of the team, but he's doing it under the guise of "representing the players." I find that to be insincere.

    How about the players focus on winning games that us fans pay them so handsomely for.


    Image

    .......

    pmedic920 wrote:Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?


    Considering the players are the entire reason people watch sports to begin with... uh yeah. Yeah they should. When you go to a restaurant, maybe you're partially going because of positive experiences with service.. but what is taking you there is the food. When you go to a movie, you're going to watch a certain actor or a certain directors work.. you're not going to go cheer on an usher as he checks tickets.

    pmedic920 wrote:
    The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

    Admirable job, they're almost certainly underpaid.. but no.. Jane Smith the caretaker should not be making 10M a year.

    pmedic920 wrote:Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.


    Again.. no.

    pmedic920 wrote:Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.


    Certainly no.

    pmedic920 wrote:The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

    This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

    I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

    I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
    How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?


    Again - what you do for a career is very admirable and I don't think you can find a single person that would say first responders are not incredibly important people and that what you do isn't something that should come without that implicating that importance.

    And I'll agree, EMT's/Firefighters/Teachers/etc etc. YES .. they definitely SHOULD get a pay raise. To be honest you can say that about a ton of careers.. but context most certainly matters. Richard Sherman sells millions of dollars in merchandise. Richard Sherman is part of the allure for fans to collectively spend millions of dollars on tickets. This - in a $13B industry that will grow even more.

    When you watch the Seahawks on Sunday's - you're not tuning in to see Paul Allen in a luxury suite. You're not tuning in to see the popcorn vendor walk up and down the 300's. You're not taking trips to Seattle with your wife to take in how Jim in the concession corridor serves you some of that Ivars Clam Chowder.

    I think many fans lose this context and start trying to compare what they do in their careers to what athletes and actors/actresses do. The two things are not the same. At all. So while I DO AGREE 100% that the previously mentioned professions all should make more money than they do now.. that doesn't mean football players shouldn't make more money either.

    pmedic920 wrote:How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?


    I know as many people that can't take their kids to Disneyland. Or as many people that cant get a 60 inch TV to watch sports. Or as many people who can't travel anywhere - much less a game.

    However - none of that is related to this issue. Again, you're relating issues that are not in the same vein with one another.

    pmedic920 wrote:I get it, at least I think I do.
    But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.


    No one is saying to "feel bad" for them.. but rather, "hey these guys throw themselves around for 3 hours a week, 4-5 months out of the year in what is basically a controlled version of a car accident.. maybe they should get a fairer deal for the amount of money they pull in on an annual basis for the billionaires that profit off their skills."

    pmedic920 wrote:I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.


    It's most certainly messed up - but not because of NFL contract demands. :lol:

    pmedic920 wrote:If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
    We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

    We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.


    Again - I think most rational people would agree teachers are very underpaid, as are police officers and what you do for a living. But again - THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

    pmedic920 wrote:Football players on strike, ok.

    What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

    What if our grocery workers went on strike?


    Idk what the difference between a strike and real strike is.. but they just did a few weeks ago in LA.
    https://teamster.org/news/2017/06/port- ... os-angeles

    It happens a lot more than you would think. It's just not talked about as much as a pro sports strike because hey wow, almost like sports are pretty resonating with a huge chunk of people. And this isn't just an American thing.. some soccer stars make our sports stars salaries look laughable.

    pmedic920 wrote:It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.


    Well.. yeah. :lol:

    Probably even way less than 75K. Think 30-40K. Again - not really the point here.

    pmedic920 wrote:Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....
    MLB
    NFL
    NBA
    All went on strike and refused to play?


    I imagine there would be a lot of pissed off people needing the shack to cuss. Almost like pro athletes have a lot of power if they wish to use it. Which is EXACTLY THE ENTIRE POINT OF WHAT RICHARD SHERMAN SAID.

    pmedic920 wrote:Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
    One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
    Would yours?


    I have no idea what the hell this is even supposed to prove. :lol: Farmers make a rough average of 70K a year. So a 857x salary bump may actually be a little hard to obtain but hey if they want to go for it.. more power to them.


    My whole point is that I support Athletes getting all they can get up to the point of a strike or holdout.

    Hold outs hurt the team, strikes only hurt the fans.
    No one suffers in a strike situation beside the the fans.

    Athletes make the sport but without the fans none of the industry exists.

    It's just my opinion of the situation, I have no expectation of anyone agreeing with me.


    As far as a "real" strike goes, I was talking about a nation wide truck driver strike. A strike where no goods got delivered until the drivers got what they were seeking.
    Wasn't talking about a local/regional strike in one city.
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 15617
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


  • I wish the NFL would just make less money and not have
    extra point
    commercial
    KO touchback
    commercial

    The freaking commercials.
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3648
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


  • Smellyman wrote:I wish the NFL would just make less money and not have
    extra point
    commercial
    KO touchback
    commercial

    The freaking commercials.

    Agree 110%!

    Take one less break, eliminate the after kickoff break, and take a longer break after the XP/FG attempt.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22155
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • StaffAmerica74 wrote:The NFL players did get screwed this last contract but you they need to take that up with the union. Striking would work in negotiations. The owners have been making a killing and it hasn't flowed downhill as much as it should. The fact that the owners make so much money and force tax payers to finance the stadiums blows my mind.


    I'll agree with the last part. If you want to make a ton of money, tax payers shouldn't fund it.

    Comparing owners to players is like NFL players comparing themselves to NBA players. It's not the same.

    NFL players don't need to invest hundreds of millions (and now Billions) of dollars to buy into their business. Owners did. Everyone can cry and whine about it, and they do because very few people have the kind of money to buy into it.

    As said before, if NFL players don't like what they're paid, they need to renegotiate the CBA next time it comes up. You're in a union and you signed off on the negotiations. Now you have to deal with it. Comparing yourselves to a different sport is useless. If they really don't like it.....well go play basketball then. Baseball players make too much? Go play baseball. Quit trying to make Football like Baseball. It's not. It's like being pissed that Tiger Woods made all his money. Go play Golf and make it then son !

    I liken this argument to the same argument people have when they complain that they should make more working at McDonald's. You don't like it ? Get a different job. If you can't, you're not worth more.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7233
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


  • pmedic920 wrote:If /when Pro athletes "strike" the only ones that really suffer is the "fans".

    Without the "fans", pro athletes are NOTHING.

    Insert Shack language here.


    Not only that, but the owners aren't going to make less because the players start taking a larger chunk. They will simply increase prices to compensate, passing on the player's pay raise (plus some) to the fans.
    I used to be Bitter.
    User avatar
    JustTheTip
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1178
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:38 pm


  • So the fans should exercise their value to the market.

    Stop paying for tickets. Stop going to games. Stop buying jerseys. Stop watching games on TV. Stop paying for football sports channels with your cable package. Stop playing fantasy.

    Etc. etc. etc.

    Fans have a say in all of this. From ticket prices right down to salaries.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11999
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • I look at the share of revenue that goes to players in MLB and NBA and also notice they are the two leagues that have the greatest difference between competitiveness between teams, a few elite in the NBA and few Elite in the MLB and everyone else training grounds for the Free Agents signed by those elite few. It's the owners sure but lower revenue teams pay less to their players and have a less competitive team. Unless your the Mariners and your just bad at evaluation and cursed.

    I can't remember but the NFL shares revenue and I am not sure the other leagues do off the top of my head which also would add to the difference in competition.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 20968
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • JustTheTip wrote:
    Not only that, but the owners aren't going to make less because the players start taking a larger chunk. They will simply increase prices to compensate, passing on the player's pay raise (plus some) to the fans.

    No, they won't. That's not how economics works.

    Whether you are selling an NFL ticket or a carrot, the price is set by what the *buyer* is willing to pay for it. The seller may choose to sell for less to attract new clients, to undercut a competitor, or other reasons, but he can't sell for more without losing clientele.

    Some companies are happy to sell for more money to a fewer number of clients, to maintain exclusivity of a product, or because that's the sweet spot in their costs vs units sold, but in order to do so they need to convince the buyers that the product is worth more via advertising. See: Fashion, exotic cars. etc.

    However, NFL teams don't operate that way because if they don't move the units (tickets) they get blacked out and lose TV revenue. They have to sell tickets, so they have to make them affordable, but to maximise profits they sell them for as much as they can.

    Buyers determine what a product sells for. Costs determine how much profit is made, and whether or not it is feasible to continue selling the product, but have little to do with price.

    Yes, there are some stores that work on a markup basis. They take the cost, double it, and that's what they sell it for. However, they are mainly retail businesses that don't do any market research to see what they can get away with, and sell products from companies that *have* done that research and know what the public will pay for their product, post-markup.
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1760
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


  • KiwiHawk wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:
    Not only that, but the owners aren't going to make less because the players start taking a larger chunk. They will simply increase prices to compensate, passing on the player's pay raise (plus some) to the fans.

    No, they won't. That's not how economics works.

    Whether you are selling an NFL ticket or a carrot, the price is set by what the *buyer* is willing to pay for it. The seller may choose to sell for less to attract new clients, to undercut a competitor, or other reasons, but he can't sell for more without losing clientele.

    Some companies are happy to sell for more money to a fewer number of clients, to maintain exclusivity of a product, or because that's the sweet spot in their costs vs units sold, but in order to do so they need to convince the buyers that the product is worth more via advertising. See: Fashion, exotic cars. etc.

    However, NFL teams don't operate that way because if they don't move the units (tickets) they get blacked out and lose TV revenue. They have to sell tickets, so they have to make them affordable, but to maximise profits they sell them for as much as they can.

    Buyers determine what a product sells for. Costs determine how much profit is made, and whether or not it is feasible to continue selling the product, but have little to do with price.

    Yes, there are some stores that work on a markup basis. They take the cost, double it, and that's what they sell it for. However, they are mainly retail businesses that don't do any market research to see what they can get away with, and sell products from companies that *have* done that research and know what the public will pay for their product, post-markup.


    And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.
    I used to be Bitter.
    User avatar
    JustTheTip
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1178
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:38 pm


  • JustTheTip wrote:
    And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.


    I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1522
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:
    And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.


    I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.

    That's only one stadium. Most stadiums are not as healthy as Seattle. Owners aren't making all that money on selling tickets to the games. Most of the money is coming from TV etc. I doubt they could make up 3-9% revenue of 14+ billion through ticket sales.
    User avatar
    DJrmb
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 857
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


  • DJrmb wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:
    And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.


    I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.

    That's only one stadium. Most stadiums are not as healthy as Seattle. Owners aren't making all that money on selling tickets to the games. Most of the money is coming from TV etc. I doubt they could make up 3-9% revenue of 14+ billion through ticket sales.


    The discussion was "would our ticket prices go up?". Our stadium is the only one that matters when dealing with that question.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1522
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    DJrmb wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:
    And the buyers have proven over and over that (for the most part) they are willing to pay more.


    I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.

    That's only one stadium. Most stadiums are not as healthy as Seattle. Owners aren't making all that money on selling tickets to the games. Most of the money is coming from TV etc. I doubt they could make up 3-9% revenue of 14+ billion through ticket sales.


    The discussion was "would our ticket prices go up?". Our stadium is the only one that matters when dealing with that question.

    Well then in that case we're talking about Paul Allen and I believe the argument that it will hurt the fans is even less likely. Paul Allen isn't one of the "stick it to the fans" type of owners nor does he need the money.
    User avatar
    DJrmb
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 857
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


  • DJrmb wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    DJrmb wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    I agree with this. And when you look at the fact the Blue Pride waiting list is over 10,000, that right there says prices could stand to go up even higher.

    That's only one stadium. Most stadiums are not as healthy as Seattle. Owners aren't making all that money on selling tickets to the games. Most of the money is coming from TV etc. I doubt they could make up 3-9% revenue of 14+ billion through ticket sales.


    The discussion was "would our ticket prices go up?". Our stadium is the only one that matters when dealing with that question.

    Well then in that case we're talking about Paul Allen and I believe the argument that it will hurt the fans is even less likely. Paul Allen isn't one of the "stick it to the fans" type of owners nor does he need the money.


    Sounds great, and at a quick glance I would agree, until you figure in the secondary market. If they are too cheap, people will buy them solely as an investment, then make a huge profit in the secondary market. Some of that already is happening in high demand games now.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jesselawrence/2015/07/13/seattle-seahawks-tickets-most-expensive-in-nfl-on-secondary-market-up-9-from-2014/#5eacaef9178e
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1522
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • chris98251 wrote:I look at the share of revenue that goes to players in MLB and NBA and also notice they are the two leagues that have the greatest difference between competitiveness between teams, a few elite in the NBA and few Elite in the MLB and everyone else training grounds for the Free Agents signed by those elite few. It's the owners sure but lower revenue teams pay less to their players and have a less competitive team. Unless your the Mariners and your just bad at evaluation and cursed.

    I can't remember but the NFL shares revenue and I am not sure the other leagues do off the top of my head which also would add to the difference in competition.


    There's a lot of factoare, but the one that never gets talked about is that if the NFL had an 82 or 162 game season and best of five and best of seven playoffs (I know all of this is impossible for football) you'd see a TON less variation in who is winning the Super Bowl each year.

    And the same thing works in reverse for MLB and and the NBA. It was a weird year for the NBA this year with the two championship teams rolling through the playoffs almost undefeated, but if either of those leagues had a one and done playoff structure and sixteen game seasons you'd have a ton more parity.
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4108
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • Popeyejones wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:I look at the share of revenue that goes to players in MLB and NBA and also notice they are the two leagues that have the greatest difference between competitiveness between teams, a few elite in the NBA and few Elite in the MLB and everyone else training grounds for the Free Agents signed by those elite few. It's the owners sure but lower revenue teams pay less to their players and have a less competitive team. Unless your the Mariners and your just bad at evaluation and cursed.

    I can't remember but the NFL shares revenue and I am not sure the other leagues do off the top of my head which also would add to the difference in competition.


    There's a lot of factoare, but the one that never gets talked about is that if the NFL had an 82 or 162 game season and best of five and best of seven playoffs (I know all of this is impossible for football) you'd see a TON less variation in who is winning the Super Bowl each year.

    And the same thing works in reverse for MLB and and the NBA. It was a weird year for the NBA this year with the two championship teams rolling through the playoffs almost undefeated, but if either of those leagues had a one and done playoff structure and sixteen game seasons you'd have a ton more parity.


    Well there was a lot of parity before the current format and Contract structures, sure Boston and the Lakers had strong teams always, but pre ABA merger you had a lot of new teams pushing every year, Bucks, Bullets, Pistons, Knicks, 76ers, Trailblazers, SuperSonics, Bulls, before Jordon, Cavaliers had a few good years as well, Rockets Kansas City Omaha Kings I could go on but there was a chance and opportunity every season for teams to break through, Oh don't want to leave out the Golden State Warriors as well.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 20968
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Uncle Si wrote:So the fans should exercise their value to the market.

    Stop paying for tickets. Stop going to games. Stop buying jerseys. Stop watching games on TV. Stop paying for football sports channels with your cable package. Stop playing fantasy.

    Etc. etc. etc.

    Fans have a say in all of this. From ticket prices right down to salaries.


    There unfortunately is a problem with this, if the players did go on strike, I would want to go on strike as well. However, I have had season tickets for going on 20 years now, and if I stop paying for them then they will just find someone else to take over my seats. I can't just tell them piss off without losing something that I would never get back when they get done with their shenanigans.
    It's about damn time #45 is in the HOF
    tacomahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 682
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:36 am
    Location: T-town


  • tacomahawk wrote:There unfortunately is a problem with this, if the players did go on strike, I would want to go on strike as well. However, I have had season tickets for going on 20 years now, and if I stop paying for them then they will just find someone else to take over my seats. I can't just tell them piss off without losing something that I would never get back when they get done with their shenanigans.

    That moment you realise that season tickets exists to keep you paying when the team is down, not to guarantee your seat when the team is up.
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1760
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


  • tacomahawk wrote:There unfortunately is a problem with this, if the players did go on strike, I would want to go on strike as well. However, I have had season tickets for going on 20 years now, and if I stop paying for them then they will just find someone else to take over my seats. I can't just tell them piss off without losing something that I would never get back when they get done with their shenanigans.


    Absolutely, but remember though that in narrating your weak bargaining power almost all of the players who hypothetically are going to go on strike are in an even more precarious situation than you.

    It would suck for you to have to decide if you want to give up your seasons tickets or not, but we're talking about a group of people who have spent their entire lives getting ready for an occupation which in all likelihood will last three to five years in total.

    For most of them, to go on strike they're basically agreeing to give up 20% or more of their lifetime earning potential in their profession.

    We already know the owners are MORE than willing to force a strike and have the cash reserves to do so because the last go around they couldn't get the players to strike (which would have been a PR win for them) and instead locked them out (which wasn't NEARLY as much of the PR hit as it should have been).

    And don't forget WHY the owners went on strike (i.e. locked out the players): they did so to make sure that neither the players nor anyone else would ever be able to know how much profit they had been generating (those books come open and you unequivocally can't argue for the owner-friendliest revenue split in professional sports, or that taxpayers should be paying for your revenue generating buildings for you).
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4108
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • I'm a teacher, and I'm not silly enough to think that I should make as much as an NFL player. Until I pack a stadium and my place of employment can sign a billion-dollar TV deal for people to watch me teach, I'm not worth that much in the free market. Americans love free markets until football players want more money! (And LEOs should definitely get less money if anything, but that's a whole 'nother story).

    I wish that the players would strike, but they don't have the spine or discipline to do it. MLB players lost a year, but they saved their salaries and now dudes are headed toward half-a-billion dollar contracts, and since the league makes the revenue to sustain it, good for them. Like I care that some billionaire wants to extend his profit margins. NBA players weathered lockouts and strikes and now players are getting up to quarter-billion-dollar contracts, and they are STILL underpaid relative to the revenue they generate, but at least they're not getting played for suckers.

    Football players are the lamest dudes out there, though. They can't even get guaranteed contracts; pathetic. If football players would save their money until 2020 and then just wipe a year out to get fully-guaranteed contracts and a higher cap, that would be a win for them, but they have no discipline or sense, so they won't.
    Colin Kaepernick is a great person, something that the NFL is sorely lacking.
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4310
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


  • Spin Doctor wrote:Sherman needs to shut the hell up. I'm getting sick and tired of his antics, and outspoken nature. I didn't mind it for the last few years, but now it seems like he has the need to make headlines every, single, week.


    I wish the legions of sports fans who think that everyone needs to hear their moronic, ill-thought-out hawt taeks about the opinions of sports players would shut the hell up, but that's not going to happen, either, so I guess neither of us will be happy.
    Colin Kaepernick is a great person, something that the NFL is sorely lacking.
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4310
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


  • Bigpumpkin wrote:
    LolaRox wrote:
    In my opinion the players make all the sacrifices and take on all the risks (short & long term). If they want a bigger slice of the pie, I won't hold it against them. In fact, I'd be rooting for them to get it even if they strike to get it.


    Bottom of the chain is the consumer...the paying fan. I have my doubts if fans will pay $200 a game to sit in the nose bleed section( Row GG) of the #300 section.....but what do I know....a fool and his money are easily separated.



    Not sure what this has to do with my comment. My comment was supporting them getting a bigger piece of the pie not the overall size of the pie or how the pie is made.

    The pie could be $13B or $13 dollars, if they want a larger % I would root for them to get. I'd rather they have it than the owners.
    User avatar
    LolaRox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 566
    Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:22 pm
    Location: Atlanta, GA


  • Here's my take on what needs to be done:

    Salary cap needs to be divided in three parts. Part one goes to the owners, part two goes to the players and forms the salary cap, just like now.

    Part three is the new bit. This part is placed in trust with the NFLPA to be distributed among players after the season. This money gets paid out in the form of bonuses to players who out-perform their contract (see: Russell Wilson, rookie deal), injury settlements to players who are forced to retire due to injury, fringe players who are on and off practice squads, and perhaps some golden handshakes to retiring veterans who were consistent starters but who somehow never got the big deals.

    The goal is a more equitable distribution of funds among the players without eliminating money as an incentive, and compensation for players who lose income from not being able to hold a regular job directly as a result of participation in the NFL.
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1760
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


  • KiwiHawk wrote:Here's my take on what needs to be done:

    Salary cap needs to be divided in three parts. Part one goes to the owners, part two goes to the players and forms the salary cap, just like now.

    Part three is the new bit. This part is placed in trust with the NFLPA to be distributed among players after the season. This money gets paid out in the form of bonuses to players who out-perform their contract (see: Russell Wilson, rookie deal), injury settlements to players who are forced to retire due to injury, fringe players who are on and off practice squads, and perhaps some golden handshakes to retiring veterans who were consistent starters but who somehow never got the big deals.

    The goal is a more equitable distribution of funds among the players without eliminating money as an incentive, and compensation for players who lose income from not being able to hold a regular job directly as a result of participation in the NFL.


    Don't they already have something like that? Performance Based Bonuses, they get distributed at the end of each season.
    User avatar
    LolaRox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 566
    Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:22 pm
    Location: Atlanta, GA


  • pmedic920 wrote:Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

    IDK.

    I DO KNOW THIS.
    The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

    Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

    Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

    The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

    This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

    I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

    I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
    How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

    How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

    I get it, at least I think I do.
    But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

    I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

    If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
    We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

    We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

    Football players on strike, ok.

    What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

    What if our grocery workers went on strike?

    It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

    Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

    MLB
    NFL
    NBA
    All went on strike and refused to play?

    I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


    Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
    One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
    Would yours?


    Dude... 100% spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself. My company profited some crazy amount like 15 billion last year. We got a candy bar wrapped in a wrapper that said thank you on it. So I don't wanna hear it when they say they want more millions. When is more ever good enough? I can't even imagine what it would be like to have 1 million dollars... but 30, 40, 50 million? And it's still not enough? Please... it's way out of hand. Everyone is so worried what other players are making instead of focusing on themselves, being thankful for what they have, and remembering where they came from.
    Touchdooooooown SEAHAWKS!!!!
    User avatar
    Seahaaaawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 853
    Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:33 am
    Location: Redmond Washington


  • Seahaaaawks wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

    IDK.

    I DO KNOW THIS.
    The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

    Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

    Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

    The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

    This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

    I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

    I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
    How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

    How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

    I get it, at least I think I do.
    But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

    I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

    If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
    We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

    We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

    Football players on strike, ok.

    What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

    What if our grocery workers went on strike?

    It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

    Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

    MLB
    NFL
    NBA
    All went on strike and refused to play?

    I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


    Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
    One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
    Would yours?


    Dude... 100% spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself. My company profited some crazy amount like 15 billion last year. We got a candy bar wrapped in a wrapper that said thank you on it. So I don't wanna hear it when they say they want more millions. When is more ever good enough? I can't even imagine what it would be like to have 1 million dollars... but 30, 40, 50 million? And it's still not enough? Please... it's way out of hand. Everyone is so worried what other players are making instead of focusing on themselves, being thankful for what they have, and remembering where they came from.


    See, this is the issue: Instead of thinking, "Why don't I get more from my company for the value that I helped create," you think, "I didn't get as much money as I should have gotten from my company, so football players shouldn't either."

    No, you're both workers and you both generate profits. You both should be eating better than you are. Just because Sherm makes 10M a year and you make 60K a year doesn't mean that you both probably deserve to be compensated more for your labor.

    Honestly, if farmers and ranchers want to hold out, they can. In fact, they do, because farmers often vote for whomever will give them subsidies to farm. Frankly, if farmers held out, they would get crushed by competition from other countries. What they do can be duplicated by farmers in Mexico or Peru or Canada. What Richard Sherman does can only be duplicated by like five other guys. That's why Sherm is worth 50M and a corn farmer in Iowa isn't worth nearly that much.

    If some of you guys are against market forces being the major determinant of value, that's fine. Just say that this is what you believe and share what sort of planned economy that you prefer over a free market economy. Me, I think that when it comes to pro sports, the free market is the best determinant of value. I'm totally against salary caps of any type. All they do is keep players from getting fair value for their labor. That's why I'm also in favor of programs that allow all workers to get the highest value for their labor possible (such as a baseline universal income that would allow people to negotiate for wages for their labor without worrying about having to take a crappy job to eat or put a roof over their heads), but now we're getting too political.

    However, I reject the idea that just because you don't think that you get fair value for your labor, other people should just shut up and be happy with their lot even if they're also not getting fair value for their labor.
    Colin Kaepernick is a great person, something that the NFL is sorely lacking.
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4310
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


  • pmedic920 wrote:Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

    IDK.

    I DO KNOW THIS.
    The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

    Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

    Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

    The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

    This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

    I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

    I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
    How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

    How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

    I get it, at least I think I do.
    But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

    I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

    If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
    We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

    We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

    Football players on strike, ok.

    What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

    What if our grocery workers went on strike?

    It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

    Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

    MLB
    NFL
    NBA
    All went on strike and refused to play?

    I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


    Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
    One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
    Would yours?


    Mine would eat because I know how to Grow and hunt and protect, the country would look like the great depression with food lines, violent crime would be at a all time high as people would take what they needed from the people that had something, this is really a bad example since your not dealing with a luxury but a necessity, last I heard food is important. You could not import enough fast enough to supply the demand, with our new position in the world looking less favorable countries that were alliances may not be willing to send relief as readily as before. Again I don't see how Professional Sports versus Farming can be comparable. A better comparison may be the Movie and Television industry since it is also a luxury we take for granted but really don't have to have.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 20968
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Smelly McUgly wrote:
    Seahaaaawks wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?
    IDK.
    I DO KNOW THIS.
    The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.
    Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.
    Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.
    The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.
    This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.
    I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.
    I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
    How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?
    How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?
    I get it, at least I think I do.
    But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.
    I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.
    If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
    We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.
    We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.
    Football players on strike, ok.
    What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?
    What if our grocery workers went on strike?
    It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.
    Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

    MLB
    NFL
    NBA
    All went on strike and refused to play?
    I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.
    Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
    One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
    Would yours?

    Dude... 100% spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself. My company profited some crazy amount like 15 billion last year. We got a candy bar wrapped in a wrapper that said thank you on it. So I don't wanna hear it when they say they want more millions. When is more ever good enough? I can't even imagine what it would be like to have 1 million dollars... but 30, 40, 50 million? And it's still not enough? Please... it's way out of hand. Everyone is so worried what other players are making instead of focusing on themselves, being thankful for what they have, and remembering where they came from.


    See, this is the issue: Instead of thinking, "Why don't I get more from my company for the value that I helped create," you think, "I didn't get as much money as I should have gotten from my company, so football players shouldn't either."

    No, you're both workers and you both generate profits. You both should be eating better than you are. Just because Sherm makes 10M a year and you make 60K a year doesn't mean that you both probably deserve to be compensated more for your labor.
    Honestly, if farmers and ranchers want to hold out, they can. In fact, they do, because farmers often vote for whomever will give them subsidies to farm. Frankly, if farmers held out, they would get crushed by competition from other countries. What they do can be duplicated by farmers in Mexico or Peru or Canada. What Richard Sherman does can only be duplicated by like five other guys. That's why Sherm is worth 50M and a corn farmer in Iowa isn't worth nearly that much.

    If some of you guys are against market forces being the major determinant of value, that's fine. Just say that this is what you believe and share what sort of planned economy that you prefer over a free market economy. Me, I think that when it comes to pro sports, the free market is the best determinant of value. I'm totally against salary caps of any type. All they do is keep players from getting fair value for their labor. That's why I'm also in favor of programs that allow all workers to get the highest value for their labor possible (such as a baseline universal income that would allow people to negotiate for wages for their labor without worrying about having to take a crappy job to eat or put a roof over their heads), but now we're getting too political.

    However, I reject the idea that just because you don't think that you get fair value for your labor, other people should just shut up and be happy with their lot even if they're also not getting fair value for their labor.

    Perfectly stated. I relate to the players (not in skills or pay) but in being an employee who works hard for a company that makes record profits year after year, but only receives minimal pay/bonuses (if any) while the people at the top take home millions. I know the situations aren't exactly the same, but I understand the player (employees) wanting their fair share and I hope they get as much as they can.
    I never understand why the fans seem to always side with the Billionaire owners when questions of $$ come up.
    User avatar
    LolaRox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 566
    Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:22 pm
    Location: Atlanta, GA


  • Smelly McUgly wrote:
    Seahaaaawks wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

    IDK.

    I DO KNOW THIS.
    The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

    Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

    Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

    The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

    This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

    I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

    I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
    How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

    How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

    I get it, at least I think I do.
    But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

    I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

    If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
    We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

    We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

    Football players on strike, ok.

    What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

    What if our grocery workers went on strike?

    It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

    Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

    MLB
    NFL
    NBA
    All went on strike and refused to play?

    I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


    Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
    One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
    Would yours?


    Dude... 100% spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself. My company profited some crazy amount like 15 billion last year. We got a candy bar wrapped in a wrapper that said thank you on it. So I don't wanna hear it when they say they want more millions. When is more ever good enough? I can't even imagine what it would be like to have 1 million dollars... but 30, 40, 50 million? And it's still not enough? Please... it's way out of hand. Everyone is so worried what other players are making instead of focusing on themselves, being thankful for what they have, and remembering where they came from.


    See, this is the issue: Instead of thinking, "Why don't I get more from my company for the value that I helped create," you think, "I didn't get as much money as I should have gotten from my company, so football players shouldn't either."

    No, you're both workers and you both generate profits. You both should be eating better than you are. Just because Sherm makes 10M a year and you make 60K a year doesn't mean that you both probably deserve to be compensated more for your labor.

    Honestly, if farmers and ranchers want to hold out, they can. In fact, they do, because farmers often vote for whomever will give them subsidies to farm. Frankly, if farmers held out, they would get crushed by competition from other countries. What they do can be duplicated by farmers in Mexico or Peru or Canada. What Richard Sherman does can only be duplicated by like five other guys. That's why Sherm is worth 50M and a corn farmer in Iowa isn't worth nearly that much.

    If some of you guys are against market forces being the major determinant of value, that's fine. Just say that this is what you believe and share what sort of planned economy that you prefer over a free market economy. Me, I think that when it comes to pro sports, the free market is the best determinant of value. I'm totally against salary caps of any type. All they do is keep players from getting fair value for their labor. That's why I'm also in favor of programs that allow all workers to get the highest value for their labor possible (such as a baseline universal income that would allow people to negotiate for wages for their labor without worrying about having to take a crappy job to eat or put a roof over their heads), but now we're getting too political.

    However, I reject the idea that just because you don't think that you get fair value for your labor, other people should just shut up and be happy with their lot even if they're also not getting fair value for their labor.


    My statement is more they make tens of millions and it's still not enough. They are complaining owners are profiting billions, well so are most employers in America. The margin isn't really that different from players/owners or CEO/employees. But I guess it all comes down to is justifying greed, everyone wants more and more is never enough.
    Touchdooooooown SEAHAWKS!!!!
    User avatar
    Seahaaaawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 853
    Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:33 am
    Location: Redmond Washington


  • I'm not saying that I deserve to be paid more.
    Already stated that I knew going in what my earning potential was.

    I simply won't support a guy that makes millions when he threatens to strike or hold out.
    Hold outs hurt the team, strikes hurt the fans.

    I think I just heard that the Rockets are up for sale, they said they were last purchased in 94 or 96 for 85 million. They are currently being valued at 1.4-1.65 billion.
    Sure the owners and leagues are raking it in but that holds true for many industries.

    Again, I hope athletes get all they can get, I simply won't support a strike. I can't and won't feel sorry for anyone that already makes millions and is crying for more.
    I understand the logic that y'all are using, I just won't subscribe too it.
    ITS A GREAT TIME TO BE A SEAHAWK FAN !
    User avatar
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 15617
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


  • pmedic920 wrote:.....Again, I hope athletes get all they can get, I simply won't support a strike. I can't and won't feel sorry for anyone that already makes millions and is crying for more.
    I understand the logic that y'all are using, I just won't subscribe too it.


    +1.
    Pretty much where I stand on this as well.

    I would personally find it difficult to "stay hungry" with a closet full of 100 bills, and I think we see signs of that with this team at times. I can only think of 2 current players that have actually improved since being paid. Wagner, and Baldwin.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1522
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • pmedic920 wrote:I'm not saying that I deserve to be paid more.
    Already stated that I knew going in what my earning potential was.

    I simply won't support a guy that makes millions when he threatens to strike or hold out.
    Hold outs hurt the team, strikes hurt the fans.

    I think I just heard that the Rockets are up for sale, they said they were last purchased in 94 or 96 for 85 million. They are currently being valued at 1.4-1.65 billion.
    Sure the owners and leagues are raking it in but that holds true for many industries.

    Again, I hope athletes get all they can get, I simply won't support a strike. I can't and won't feel sorry for anyone that already makes millions and is crying for more.
    I understand the logic that y'all are using, I just won't subscribe too it.


    Pretty sure that it's close to 75% that make less than a million.

    I am wrong on that, but still most do not make much more as the younger playeres are paid less.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-e ... aid-2013-9
    Russell has some stats that aren't Superb? Ow! Love his balls anyways!

    SC
    User avatar
    StoneCold
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2531
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:29 am


  • Seahaaaawks wrote:
    Smelly McUgly wrote:
    Seahaaaawks wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

    IDK.

    I DO KNOW THIS.
    The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

    Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

    Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

    The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

    This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

    I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

    I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
    How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

    How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

    I get it, at least I think I do.
    But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

    I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

    If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
    We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

    We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

    Football players on strike, ok.

    What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

    What if our grocery workers went on strike?

    It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

    Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

    MLB
    NFL
    NBA
    All went on strike and refused to play?

    I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


    Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
    One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
    Would yours?


    Dude... 100% spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself. My company profited some crazy amount like 15 billion last year. We got a candy bar wrapped in a wrapper that said thank you on it. So I don't wanna hear it when they say they want more millions. When is more ever good enough? I can't even imagine what it would be like to have 1 million dollars... but 30, 40, 50 million? And it's still not enough? Please... it's way out of hand. Everyone is so worried what other players are making instead of focusing on themselves, being thankful for what they have, and remembering where they came from.


    See, this is the issue: Instead of thinking, "Why don't I get more from my company for the value that I helped create," you think, "I didn't get as much money as I should have gotten from my company, so football players shouldn't either."

    No, you're both workers and you both generate profits. You both should be eating better than you are. Just because Sherm makes 10M a year and you make 60K a year doesn't mean that you both probably deserve to be compensated more for your labor.

    Honestly, if farmers and ranchers want to hold out, they can. In fact, they do, because farmers often vote for whomever will give them subsidies to farm. Frankly, if farmers held out, they would get crushed by competition from other countries. What they do can be duplicated by farmers in Mexico or Peru or Canada. What Richard Sherman does can only be duplicated by like five other guys. That's why Sherm is worth 50M and a corn farmer in Iowa isn't worth nearly that much.

    If some of you guys are against market forces being the major determinant of value, that's fine. Just say that this is what you believe and share what sort of planned economy that you prefer over a free market economy. Me, I think that when it comes to pro sports, the free market is the best determinant of value. I'm totally against salary caps of any type. All they do is keep players from getting fair value for their labor. That's why I'm also in favor of programs that allow all workers to get the highest value for their labor possible (such as a baseline universal income that would allow people to negotiate for wages for their labor without worrying about having to take a crappy job to eat or put a roof over their heads), but now we're getting too political.

    However, I reject the idea that just because you don't think that you get fair value for your labor, other people should just shut up and be happy with their lot even if they're also not getting fair value for their labor.


    My statement is more they make tens of millions and it's still not enough. They are complaining owners are profiting billions, well so are most employers in America. The margin isn't really that different from players/owners or CEO/employees. But I guess it all comes down to is justifying greed, everyone wants more and more is never enough.


    With all due respect, this sort of pocket-watching is really unseemly. If the make millions, but they generate billions, they should complain. Why is it greed to want to achieve your earning potential? No matter if you make fifteen bucks an hour, fifty bucks an hour, or five thousand bucks an hour, if your value is more than that going rate, your calls to earn more are a fair assessment of the value of your labor, not greed. Greed is wanting to keep everything for yourself and only yourself, and I haven't seen Sherman or most of these football players say, "I want it all for me, forget the owners or other players."
    Colin Kaepernick is a great person, something that the NFL is sorely lacking.
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4310
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


  • The players should just take the share meant for player contracts and cut it up equally between all player on the team. Anything else is hypocrisy, seeing that they are for equality in all other things. Why should RW get paid more than a rookie O lineman? Give the money to the players, let them hash out the contracts after the coaches finish the cuts. There would be no more holdouts, everyone would be making great money. The superstars would still be raking in millions in endorsements and commercial deals.
    jeremiah
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 35
    Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:10 pm


Previous


It is currently Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:35 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online