Mackeyser
Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 14,553
- Name
- Mack
@Rod De Kruyf I'm with ya on this. I understand that making some more money has appeal, but I also understand the point you're trying to make. That is ... how much is enough! Geez! Why not stay somewhere and make $11 million per year for 3 years instead of moving, learning a new system, playing with a lessor QB and making $15 million per year?
Show some loyalty. Give back a little bit in order to better the team's success. Want a good chance at a ring or not? Are you playing to be the best and get a ring? Or are you only playing to earn ridiculously over paid amounts of money?
People say stuff like "they gotta look out for their family." What?!?!? Their family cannot live their entire lives on 10's of millions of guaranteed dollars? Really?
Hey, fellow Ram fans on this board. How many of you would be a-ok with earning $10,000,000 in one year, even just for 1 year in your life? How about "settling" for an $18,000,000 franchise tag for one year?
Would you squander it ... or make it last a lifetime?
People also say, "teams are not loyal to players...." Not true. Teams sit down with a player and offer them a dollar amount and explain the contract (or their agent does). The player can refuse or try to bargain, or accept. What NFL team has never paid a player what the signed contract says he was guaranteed?
Conversely, what player do you know that has every paid an NFL team money in order to play football? None. My point is the team's loyalty in a way IS the huge $$$$$$$$ they pay these guys. What would most NFL players be doing for work if an NFL team wasn't paying them big bucks to be famous and play a game on the field? I don't want to answer that because it might be politically incorrect.
In conclusion, it's just crazy for me to think about uprooting and being a bit disloyal for the difference between $48 million vs $40 million OVER just 3 years. I just don't get it. There is no other way to explain it other than pure greed. Wanting to have more more and more .... even way too much. Even though this is a business, the teams are more loyal in the grand scheme of things than the players are. It's greed. And greed exists everywhere, not just the NFL.
That's a bogus argument that ignores the basic fundamentals of economics.
Firstly, any form of entertainment that allows scale (meaning it's not restricted to in person attendance) has the potential to scale exponentially over other forms of employment. I mean, CEOs average something around $2-3M with a few of them skewing the numbers. The median is lower.
And yet, how much does an average 2nd baseman make? A backup QB? A non-scoring power forward in the NBA? A mediocre pop singer???
Trying to conflate the micro-economic concerns of work-a-day folks with those who are in a employment bracket where wages are based on a scale based on popularity of a population and interest (thus demand) isn't how economics works. Otherwise, police, firefighters and teachers would all make significantly more and entertainers would make substantially less.
It also ignores scarcity. None of us has irreplaceable skills... and I invented something and I know 503 has the best BBQ sauce on the planet (not small feat). When it comes to entertainers, it's not enough to be supremely talented. Most people have never heard of Stanley Jordan. And yet, hear him play and he's one of the best guitarists on the planet. There's also the serendipity of "right place, right time".
More and more players ARE looking financially for the long term, from negotiating their own contracts to being advised to NOT buy the big house or latest supercar and simply live cheap and buy into their retirement.
That said, you're talking apples and oranges. Unless you're working in bomb disposal, a fire fighter, police officer or work at the exchange counter at Wal-Mart (all very dangerous jobs), then it's unlikely that tomorrow your career will end short of automation obviating your profession.
I understand the incredulity when talking about the money entertainers make, but if you ignore the economics of the situation, you're missing the point.