Justin Jefferson, Vikings agree to 4-year, $140M deal

[KinesProf]

Looking at these contracts where players are making way more money than they'll ever need for the rest of their life in just one year, I think we have found at least one thing that could potentially be cut in order to help pay for new stadiums if they are needed.

If the players get less, then the billionaires get more. The owners already have plenty of anti-free market mechanisms in place that restrict pay (salary cap, tags, rookie wage scale) and movement (draft, tenders, tags); I can't envision an agreed upon reduction to the salary cap coming anytime soon.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

If the players get less, then the billionaires get more. The owners already have plenty of anti-free market mechanisms in place that restrict pay (salary cap, tags, rookie wage scale) and movement (draft, tenders, tags); I can't envision an agreed upon reduction to the salary cap coming anytime soon.

If the players get less, then that gives the capacity for owners to finance more of the stadiums instead of relying on taxpayers.

Like I said, that's IF it isn't feasible for owners to finance new stadiums and remodels themselves, and IF these expensive stadiums are necessary. If those two IFs are true, then cutting player and coach salaries has to be the next option.

 

[Hawkinaz]

Just because you might pay the players less doesn’t mean the owners will finance their own stadiums. If cities are willing to put up money the owners will readily accept. The other option is the cities call the owners bluff and don’t give in this could result in the team leaving which result in the city losing millions of dollars in revenue. A new NFL stadium is now usually promised a Superbowl which generates about $500 million in revenue for the city

 

[Seahawks Guy]

Exactly. That's where the "ifs" play in. Make everyone show their cards, first and foremost.

 

[hgwellz12]

Congrats, JJ. Enjoy!

 

[Lagartixa]

I don't really see it as punishment. They can either accept the new system of cash flow that doesn't pay as much or go find another job.

Here's how I see it. Owners should fund new stadiums themselves. If the issue is that it's too expensive even for them and the profits they are making, then the players and coaches should start being offered less money. It makes sense, because in this type of system the owners aren't making as much profit because they are paying for new stadiums to be constructed every 20 years.

You have the economics completely bass-ackward, and I'm not sure whether you're doing it intentionally (I'm leaning toward "yes").

The market supports current advertising rates for NFL games, current ticket prices, current prices on TV and streaming services, and current prices on merchandise. For NFL teams to charge any less than what they can would be business malpractice, and their MBAs would never let them do it.

Given that there's market support for the current billions of dollars in revenue, I want as much of that as possible to go to the players. It's the players we want to watch. It's the players who push the limits of human performance in this specific game. What the owners have to contribute is money, and money by definition is fungible. There's a line around the block of billionaires waiting for the opportunity to buy a top-league professional sports franchise.

The choice isn't cheaper NFL experiences vs. the players being fairly compensated for being among the top 2% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% in the world at what they do, in an industry where their work generates many billions of dollars of revenue. The choice is between the players being fairly compensated on the one hand and the owners simply pocketing more of the revenue they've already discovered the market supports.

The owners and their buddies in the media like to keep spreading the zombie lie that NFL prices are high because player salaries are high. The truth is exactly the opposite. The owners hire people to keep their prices where they optimize profit, and so far, that has meant prices climbing consistently, with no signs of slowing down. The players negotiate a percentage of league revenue to be spent on player compensation. So it's not that NFL merchandise, ticket, and subscription prices are high because the poor owners need the money to pay the players. It's that the players have correctly demanded a significant percentage of league revenues for player compensation and the greedy owners won't stop jacking up the prices, so player salaries are high because the prices are high [EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the zombie lie you're helping to propagate by suggesting that cutting player salaries would somehow make NFL experiences cheaper], and the prices are high because the teams have found so far that the market is willing to pay those prices.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

You have the economics completely bass-ackward, and I'm not sure whether you're doing it intentionally (I'm leaning toward "yes").

The market supports current advertising rates for NFL games, current ticket prices, current prices on TV and streaming services, and current prices on merchandise. For NFL teams to charge any less than what they can would be business malpractice, and their MBAs would never let them do it.

Given that there's market support for the current billions of dollars in revenue, I want as much of that as possible to go to the players. It's the players we want to watch. It's the players who push the limits of human performance in this specific game. What the owners have to contribute is money, and money by definition is fungible. There's a line around the block of billionaires waiting for the opportunity to buy a top-league professional sports franchise.

The choice isn't cheaper NFL experiences vs. the players being fairly compensated for being among the top 2% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% in the world at what they do, in an industry where their work generates many billions of dollars of revenue. The choice is between the players being fairly compensated on the one hand and the owners simply pocketing more of the revenue they've already discovered the market supports.

The owners and their buddies in the media like to keep spreading the zombie lie that NFL prices are high because player salaries are high. The truth is exactly the opposite. The owners hire people to keep their prices where they optimize profit, and so far, that has meant prices climbing consistently, with no signs of slowing down. The players negotiate a percentage of league revenue to be spent on player compensation. So it's not that NFL merchandise, ticket, and subscription prices are high because the poor owners need the money to pay the players. It's that the players have correctly demanded a significant percentage of league revenues for player compensation and the greedy owners won't stop jacking up the prices, so player salaries are high because the prices are high [EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the zombie lie you're helping to propagate by suggesting that cutting player salaries would somehow make NFL experiences cheaper], and the prices are high because the teams have found so far that the market is willing to pay those prices.

I never mentioned prices.

Prices are high because of the demand for tickets. Compared to how much the population of this country and the world has grown, along with the popularity of the game, the supply can't keep up with the demand. The NFL hasn't expanded at the same rate as the demand for tickets.

What I'm saying is that if you take away the taxpayer from funding stadiums, and it's determined that teams need multi billion dollar stadiums to be built every 20 years, and if it's determined that owners simply cannot afford to finance those themselves, then you likely have to start cutting salaries.

You can argue that expensive stadiums aren't necessary. You can argue that owners should have the capacity to pay for them. That's fine. I would probably agree with that.

However, the current system of taxpayers subsidizing luxurious stadiums is helping the teams generate more revenue, which in turn is making the owners and players/coaches richer. Ideally, the owners would just eat the cost of financing the stadiums and nothing else will be affected.

If for some reason they can't, then in my opinion the next best result would be for the players/coaches to be paid less instead of receiving tax dollars. I'd rather people making way more than your average person be "punished" instead of taxpayers.

The likely outcome though would be a mix. The owners decide to go cheaper on the stadium to make funding it more realistic, and in turn there wouldn't be as much revenue due to decreased demand in ticket sales, not as many concessions, etc. Less revenue would also mean less pay for the players, if I'm understanding how the system works.

 

[CPHawk]

Looking at these contracts where players are making way more money than they'll ever need for the rest of their life in just one year, I think we have found at least one thing that could potentially be cut in order to help pay for new stadiums if they are needed.

Yes. Let’s let the owners keep all the money. Solid idea. I’m sure they would definitely use the money for the stadium and community, and not still want to get taxes to bankroll stadiums

If you don’t like how players are paid, you can not support the sport.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

Yes. Let’s let the owners keep all the money. Solid idea.

That's not my idea. Go read through all my posts. I don't want to explain this again.

 

[CPHawk]

That's not my idea. Go read through all my posts. I don't want to explain this again.

Your idea is unrealistic. What will happen, just like with all ideas that people think will share the wealth for the good of everyone else. One guy will end up with that money back in his pocket. In this cae, the team owners. While the players, who actually bring in the money and put their bodies on the line for the profit of the NFL. You suggest should give up that money for a stadium, which there is a good chance they never play in the new stadium or they only play a few years in it. Why would players ever agree to those terms?

 

[Seahawks Guy]

Your idea is unrealistic.

Realistic isn't the point of what I'm saying.

 

[evergreen]

They should’ve traded him earlier for draft picks like they did with Stephon Diggs. Hopefully we trade DK for more than the third round comp pick we’ll get when he walks in FA. I don’t really think you want the highest paid anyone on your team. The key is churn. Churn that roster to keep it young and cheap. No third contracts unless it’s for a HOF player in there prime.