This is pretty accurate. The old CBA was intentionally fatter than it needed to be because the owners wanted to stabilize the money flow by getting a new TV agreement that paid them even in the event of a strike or lockout. Now they're loaded for bear and there's no way the players have the same chunk of the pie after 2011 that they got from 2006 to 2010. It's just not happening, especially given the overall economic factors in play. Pro football is the one sport where the players really don't have much pull. Why? Because the average career is too short for them to be able to accumulate the individual power required for good collective bargaining. The few players (the star QB's) who actually have a tendency towards long careers do have that power but everybody else is screwed. Well, as screwed as you can be in a job where you could potentially make millions for a few years work, even though most don't.
And that's my point. At some point the old "entertainment does better in down economies" is no longer going to be valid. People are going to cut back. You can see it happening at the box office right now. Couple the economy with a work stoppage and people are going to say "Enough is enough."
there is a huge difference between their current salary size not being able to be maintained much longer and them being overpaid. being overpaid is a comparative declaration, because you must have an accepted value of what they should be paid to declare what they are being paid is too high. and where is that value coming from? other professions, and they aren't comparable. the only comparable salary in this argument would be salaries form 10 or 20 years ago. but then by that logic I am overpaid because I am making more than someone in my position did 10 or 20 years ago.
We need him to stay. Our defense would be difficult to run without him in the mix. We need him in NY and happy. I don't agree with paying him Aso money and the bar should not set on that because Al Davis is an idiot. He definitely deserves a raise, no doubt about that. But not, 16-17 million a year.
The Jets have sold out every year, the only reason they are having problems now is b/c of PSLs but that would have been a problem in any economy. Until people stop going to games, stop watching on TV, stop buying merchandise these leagues will not be affected.
Explain the NHL then. The Rangers sell out routinely with a 99.3% average of tickets sold at home. People watch them on TV and buy their merchandise and yet the NHL collectively is worth about 20% of what the NFL is. The NFL isn't guaranteed of anything moving forward. It's only because of strong business decisions and a booming economy that the NFL is where it is now. If you look at the NFL pre-1990 there's no question they were the #2 sport behind baseball. Then baseball had a series of crippling strikes, culminating in the fiasco of 1994, the economy started booming at almost the same time and the NFL passed baseball and never looked back. That's just a snapshot in time. There's nothing that says that the NFL is still a leading sport in 2030 and maybe even sooner than that. Heavyweight Boxing was the undisputed king of arena sports in 1975. Where is it now?
The NFL has been the top sport for decades, it probably took over in the 70s(it was long before 1994) and it has been our most popular sport and continues to grow. Hockey was never a sport on par w/ baseball, football or basketball. People don't watch the NHL, they have a terrible TV contract. You cannot compare the NHL to the NFL and despite less than 20,000 seats I do not believe the Rangers(one of the flagship franchises) sell out every game. The NHL is alot closer to the WNBA than it is to the NFL. There is no comparison.
Compromise: Let him be the highest paid CB this year. 5yr, 12.5mil/yr deal except a 4mil signing bonus. first 3yrs guaranteed.
This is just not true. The NFL only caught up to MLB in terms of TV revenue in the 1990 deal that expanded the playoffs by adding 2 wildcard teams and more than doubled the TV money each team received in the process. Before that MLB was in a 65/35 relationship in terms of overall TV dollars. In 1989 the ESPN, ABC and NBC contracts were more than equivalent to the NFL contract and then local deals factored in to put baseball far ahead in TV revenue. BTW, just as a reinforcing point here: in 1981 the NFL teams all got 5.8 million apiece when they split the NFL TV revenue. The Yankees alone got more than 40 million that year in the newly signed MSG deal.
We can't have a reasonable discussion on this topic. It's a matter of perspective. I think any shithead who complains about a couple of millions on top of their dozens of millions is just that, a shithead. They play a sport. They don't cure cancer. They're not working on solutions to the world's economic crisis. They're not walking on the moon. They're doing something any of us would do for half what they make. Sorry. They're overpaid. And again junc, it's going to happen. Maybe not this year, but what about next year, after the next big economic dip has happened, and unemployment is even higher. Add that to the people, who like me, will be fuming that the league isn't playing (just like it happened in baseball.) Everyone is overplaying their hand. They'll learn. The hard way. Exactly. Well said. Because the sport is popular. What happens when people say "Enough is enough" and walk away?
Obviously it's irritating to see a millionaire complain about money but them man has a very short window to make as much as he can and he is in a profession where he has the ability to make insane money and where his career can be over in the blink of an eye. I don't like the way he has gone about it but I understand what he is trying to do. If an economic dip happens in the NFL in the coming years isn't it smart to try to get all he can now? If people say enough is enough and walk awya things will change. I don't see that happening. We as fans have taken incredible abuse by pro sports leagues w/ late start times, night games in cold weather cities in Dec/Jan, outrageous ticket prices, PSLs, etc... and we keep coming back.
someone wanting to make more because he is comparing his salary to a comparable job within the same industry is not being overpaid. you are committing the logical flaw of comparing two incomparable positions. whether being a professional athlete has the same social value of a doctor or a teacher is irrelevant, and I'm shocked you'd be so proud to commit such a logical flaw. your argument is simply illogical, which means it is an emotional issue for you not a logical issue, and thus you aren't interested in a logical discussion on the matter. that isn't a matter of perspective. by your logic, you should be able to point to a completely irrelevant job's salary when up for a raise and demand a raise because they make more. that isn't how any position works. salaries are based upon the salaries of comparable jobs. a marketing salary isn't evaluated on the basis of how much doctors make, and a graphic designers salary isn't based no how much teachers make. but that is what you are doing. what is your solution, players make less so the owners make more? that's where the money would go if you are opposed to players being paid based on the revenue of their industry.
that's the leagues problem to manage, but it doesn't change the fact that the NFL and NHL aren't equal just because they both sell out stadiums. but it isn't an indictment of the players to want more, it is up to the league to curb that attitude if it is destructive. sure doesn't seem like it is to me. until people stop buying tickets, watching on tv, and buying merchandise at prices that raise every year, the industry can handle those salaries. essentially, it is the consumers fault at the most basic level, so don't be angry at the players, be angry at yourself.
Glauber: Jets soon will pay off Revis Revis needs to come to his senses, and forget about what he makes yearly. This contract sounds fucking big time, but Brick over Mangold? Dunno bout that shit.
