Okie you are right, they do need to manage their money better. But seriously, to all who say the players are just too greedy, think about what they put their bodies through, granted they don't have to, but regardless, the owners can definitely afford it. Especially when most of their stadiums are built with the help of taxpayer money. I think that if they would just offer players medical for life, they would have no problem with a rookie wage scale, nor the 18 game schedule.
Bingo. This is what is going to happen. The owners don't need the NFL as much as the players do, giving them considerably more leverage. In the end, my bet is on the owners to get what they want.
That's why i'm sure the NFLPA will have no problem conceding on a rookie wage scale. It takes money away from the vets as well.
Obviously players, like any person, needs to save for retirement. But their retirement comes a lot earlier, and if their health becomes poor it will be harder for them later in life whether they work after football or not. I'm not talking about #1 draft picks. I'm talking about the hundreds of players that are on the bench most of their careers and have only occasional fill in roles. According to google and a little bit of math, a 10 year career for a league minimum player would be about 5.6 million. Assuming there's some tax taken out of that, there's not much left to last a lifetime.
Please point me to the job where I can retire after just 10 years of work and draw a lifetime retirement and health insurance package (that may last 20-30+ years). Not even government jobs have benefits that cushy. We had an entire election centered around the long-term feasibility of these kinds of arrangements. If the players want lifetime health and retirement packages, owners are not about to lose money on that. They will jack up the prices of tickets and concessions, hurting their fans' wallets in an already tough economy for disposable entertainment income, and possibly demand more TV revenue. If a team still loses money, it will be sold at a loss, and the money to pay those salaries and benefits may no longer be there. Teams have to turn a profit. Even if the money is there today, there is no guarantee it will be there in the decades after today's players retire.
well, then let's look at them/that situation a couple of different ways.... one, assume they entered the draft without getting their degree. how are they different than any other college drop out? if the average joe drop out works a low wage job, the pay isnt gonna last a lifetime. they are gonna have to find some way to better their situation. many do, many dont. it depends on how hard they work at succeeding in life. how is that different from the football player? even with health issues, he is going to have to go into a different profession to make ends meet and get health care. two, if they did get their degree, this is why. to hopefully have a degree to fall back on and be able to find decent employment and insurance. their health may not be 100% but there are people in the "non-football world" facing that every day. i have a friend with higher degrees that hit some hard luck in the economy that has some health issues, and he has to battle through pain ever day to work and support his family. that is called "welcome to the real world". i dont know many people who can retire after 10 years of working, health issues or not. to me, adjusting, retraining (if needed), and finding another job is just part of being an adult. im not saying the players dont have some real issues, complaints, and needs that shouldnt be met. i do think both sides are unwilling to give on some things and that both sides are at fault here. i think there should be more compromise all around and this thing would get settled.
That's all well and good, but the owners weren't willing to give the players the balance sheets to show that they were losing money, or that they won't be able to afford increased benefits. Also, if you want to retire after 10 years of work, you need to be qualified for the job that allows you to retire after 10 years. 99% of the population isn't able to meet these requirements, so they won't be able to get the job that allows you to retire early. I still stand by my other point that football players "work" prior to even being in the NFL. Their "work" starts in high school so they can get a scholarship to college and then continue to "work" in college so that they can get drafted. They aren't paid for that time, but still that "work" is necessary to get to the NFL. If you choose to include the 4 years of high school and 3-5 in college, that's an additional 9 years to go along with what could be 10 years of the NFL. Baseball operates kind of under that scenario. Rookies generally start out with a 400k to 500k contract. They have about 3 years of play under that. If they are really good, they will get a huge contract, even if they don't keep up that level of play. They are essentially being paid for the time already completed.
The owners own the team. Subject to NFL rules on the league minimum and salary cap, they can hire players for as long as they like, for as much money as they like. If a player thinks a particular team owner wants to give him a raw deal, he can go to free agency and let the market decide his worth. The players have no more "right" to the owners' books as I have the "right" to march up to the LSU chancellor and demand to see LSU's books, so I can determine whether or not they can afford to pay me more than the pittance I get as a research assistant. The amount of money made by the company that employs me is irrelevant. We're all adults, we either accept the terms of the deal, or we don't. That justifies the money athletes make while they play the game, which I don't really have a problem with, except in the case of unproven rookies with ridiculous guaranteed money. Those players are receiving market value while they play for something that 99% of us can't do. We're talking about benefits that will be paid out long after the player has retired and ceased to generate revenue for the team/league. If we're talking about providing health coverage to players during the years they put their bodies on the line, and paying for prolonged treatment in the case of debilitating injuries, then that's more reasonable to an owner's bottom line. Likewise for a retirement pension plan where players can opt to contribute money matched by the team and the league. The point is owners are not simply bottomless ATMs for the players, they've invested their money n an enterprise to make money. When those expenses become excessively burdensome, everyone loses.
In your bench-warmer, league-minimum scenario, that person 1) isn't likely to last 10 years in the NFL, as "dead weight" gets cut, and 2) their bodies will not endure the stress that actual players receive. I know several former NFL players, and they have all done really well after leaving the league, one even works in the NFL corporate offices (after being cut by the 49ers a year shy of his 10-year retirement).
