Rock out with your Lockout

Let's dispel some of the myths here. On average - 80% of NFL players are nearly bankrupt within 2 years of leaving the league, their careers only last 3 years, and have a median salary of $790,000 per year. Only a few are like Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/Haynesworth.

First the facts:
- NFL Average salary: $2 million / year (nfl salaries (http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team))
- NFL Median salary: $790,000 (nfl median salaries (http://www.ehow.com/about_6611223_average-income-nfl-players_.html))
- Career of an NFL player: avg 3 years (nfl career (http://www.nflplayers.com/about-us/FAQs/NFL-Hopeful-FAQs/))
- Firefighter/Teacher - median $41,000 (salary firefighter (http://www1.salary.com/Fire-Fighter-Salary.html) or salary teacher (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary))

So:
- teacher/firefighter $41,000 x 45 years (20yo->65yo) = $1.85 million, after 15% tax: $1.6 million
- NFL player: $790,000 x 3years = $2.4 million, after 35% tax: $1.6 million

My point is that although the NFL players make a lot of money per year, their career is OVER after they retire. They are thus compensated for a lifetime - and it is similar to what others make over a lifetime of work. So teachers are "millionaires" too - over their lifetime. Sure, NFL players can get other jobs after their NFL careers, and this means they will probably make more over a lifetime -- but it's still hard for them to support themselves & million dollar house going from the NFL to working at the grocery store. At least the firefighter or teacher gets the money over a lifetime, so they can more carefully invest it -- most NFL players are 20-something and waste much of the money & crippled by divorces.

In fact, most NFL players declare bankruptcy -- 78% of players are nearly bankrupt within 2 years (sports illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153364/index.htm), or other reference (http://www.rollingout.com/insiderohome/ro-today/8597-almost-80-percent-of-nfl-players-near-bankrupt-60-percent-of-nba-ballers-why.html)).

Not to mention the fact the average lifespan of NFL players is only 55 years - they usually die young of heart disease ( espn - nfl lifespan (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2313476), cbc nfl lifespan (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/story/2008/11/19/fifthestate-headgames.html)).


Second, even if they make a little more over a lifetime - they probably deserve it. In our society and capitalism, people are rewarded for what they do. It is MUCH MUCH harder to become an NFL player, and they are compensated as such. People (ie. all of us) are willing to pay to watch them - if we did not value what they did, we wouldn't pay $4000 a ticket to the Superbowl.

Good stats ethat. A few questions:

1) in terms of 78% being bankrupt shortly after leaving the game - what does this prove to you? I ask since you quoted the stat. For me it says that regardless of the amount paid, many players will poorly manage their money. And would lead me to the suggestion that maybe less focus should be on salaries, and more on retirement care and follow up.

Same question about the average lifespan. I don't see that much as an argument for or against the player's union, as much as a need for greater education of the player's on healthy after football lifestyles.

I don't think anyone, players, owners, or fans, are saying players should be paid at the same rate as a teacher, or policeman, etc. However, no teacher starts at 41000 at 20 y.o. Most teaching positions require at least a BA degree, and higher paid positions certainly require MBA or better. Although policemen may start at 20 y.o. I also doubt that most teachers or policemen work for 45 years as the stress and general environmental factors would drive those who make it 20 years to seek retirement somewhere along the lines.

One last hypothetical (and truly this is not anywhere near reality), given your statement At least the firefighter or teacher gets the money over a lifetime, so they can more carefully invest it -- most NFL players are 20-something and waste much of the money & crippled by divorces. what would you think of a proposal that a significant portion of a player's salary be put in a fund, and paid out over a 10-year time frame, thus hoping to reduce the number of bankruptcies and give players more time to prepare for their after-NFL career.

I hate this argument. Let's really step back and look at this. Anyone can be a cop or a firefighter. Most people on this board could study/train for a year and become a cop or fireman. None of us could become world class athletes. What these players have are special skills that they hone, either for free or pay [tuition, equipment costs, etc], until the age of 20-21ish. Then they are given a very short career span to make money. Their routine work day includes far more violence and danger than the typical cop and fireman as well. I'm not saying service people don't face danger, but I'm arguing over the course of a week, a football player has a far higher risk of being seriously injured. Most of these guys get a short amount of time in the NFL, it's important they're well compensated.
Halle-freaking-lujah

I tire of this argument too. The commerce of our country and (increasingly in the rest of the world) is governed by freedom. In a free market, products and services of value are paid at the level at which they are available (scarcity). Professional athletes are amongst the most scarce commodities anywhere. You don't have to like it but it is the system by which you yourself gain a great amount of benefit.

The common misconception is that people get paid to do their job based on how "important" society deems it. That couldn't really be any further from the truth. It's a function of value and scarcity. And where there is little scarcity (teachers) there is little pay no matter how much society values the work they do.

I appreciate what teachers do (as an example) and I have many friends/acquaintances who do it. A few complain about pay some. I always ask why so many people teach if the pay isn't good enough. They never have a real answer.

I use to watch the Orioles and Caps on the regular...then they had strikes and with that I left and never really cared for either sport again. The NFL will get the same exact treatment if they strike.

I truly applaud your free market consumerism. I wish I had the intestinal fortitude to do that with sports. I love 'em too much though. Otherwise I would have given up on the sorry group of legacy killers we call the Redskins nowadays a long time ago. Boo me.

I truly applaud your free market consumerism. I wish I had the intestinal fortitude to do that with sports. I love 'em too much though. Otherwise I would have given up on the sorry group of legacy killers we call the Redskins nowadays a long time ago. Boo me.


It helps being in the West Coast. It's an effort for me to watch them and I'm not interested in expanding effort for a bunch of millionaires squabbling about who should get more millions.

Halle-freaking-lujah

I tire of this argument too. The commerce of our country and (increasingly in the rest of the world) is governed by freedom. In a free market, products and services of value are paid at the level at which they are available (scarcity). Professional athletes are amongst the most scarce commodities anywhere. You don't have to like it but it is the system by which you yourself gain a great amount of benefit.

The common misconception is that people get paid to do their job based on how "important" society deems it. That couldn't really be any further from the truth. It's a function of value and scarcity. And where there is little scarcity (teachers) there is little pay no matter how much society values the work they do.

I appreciate what teachers do (as an example) and I have many friends/acquaintances who do it. A few complain about pay some. I always ask why so many people teach if the pay isn't good enough. They never have a real answer.

Interesting concept. I'm not sure I completely buy it though. I believe one reason cops and teachers are paid the way they are is because they are state employees. While state employees tend to have pretty good benefits, their salaries aren't always high, but I don't know if that is an argument of scarcity or just the fact that the government is only going to supply X amount of money to pay these state employees, since the government has X amount in their budget to pay for each and every program.

A truer comparison would be if all education and law enforcement was privately funded. Not saying cops and teachers would be making millions a year, but I could potentially see them making more.

Teachers are paid less because their "firm", aka government, doesn't get as much money coming and/or has to spread out the money coming in to more recipients and expensive goods such as asphalt. The government can only get income from its tax base or loans from other governments. It's often not a very willing transfer of money to the government.

NFL has a ton of money distribute to its employees because people always spending a giant-ass amount money to satisfy their football fix, other companies want to put their advertising money into the NFL because they believe that they'll grab a ton of consumers, etc.

I wanted to invite all of you to check out the NFLPA's Super Bowl ad. The players want only one thing, let us play!

Check it out on Youtube by pasting this link into your browser: youtube.com/watch?v=Jl9BpUgYljQ

I wanted to invite all of you to check out the NFLPA's Super Bowl ad. The players want only one thing, let us play!

Check it out on Youtube by pasting this link into your browser: youtube.com/watch?v=Jl9BpUgYljQ


To be fair, the one thing the players want it to be allowed to play - - under terms that do not change from the present terms in any significant way. They have said from the beginning that they are happy with the current CBA and don't need to negotiate any changes to it at all.

So, "Let us play!" is a bit of an over-simplification of the confrontation here.

In addition, the idea that all they want is "Let us play" sort of conflicts with DeMaurice Smith's statement that the NFLPA and the NFL are "at war".

This is NFLPA "propaganda" just as the interviews with Roger Goodell on NFL Network (gee, who owns NFL Network?) is NFL "propaganda". When really serious negotiations start, NONE of that propagandizing will happen. Things have not yet gotten serious at the bargaining table...

Hey guys, as many of you know, the NFL recently filed a claim with the National Labor Relations board against the NFLPA.

The NFLPA has responded to that claim:

The players didn’t walk out, and the players can’t lockout. Players want a fair, new and long-term deal. We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised. This claim has absolutely no merit.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!