Not sure where to put this, so I’m just starting a new thread.
5 Reason the NFL’s Way More Evil Than You Thought Possible was published today at Cracked.com, and I know that earlier this year there were a bunch of people who were somewhat disappointed with the NFL for their handling of Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, etc., so I figured maybe some people would be interested in the article.
ETA: The 5 reasons listed in the article (all of which require explanation and context to be fully understood) are:
#5. They Sell Millions of Dollars Worth of Merchandise for Charity, Then Keep Most of the Cash #4. They Buried Reports About How Dangerous Their Sport Is #3. The Players Are Screwed as Soon as They Leave the Game #2. They Are Dicks to Fans #1. They Punish Harmless Bullshit While Protecting Violent Players
I’m curious mostly, I guess, to hear from anyone who knows about these issues but doesn’t care about them, as far as whether or not they will affect anyone’s watching habits and support of the organization.
I’d also be curious to hear from people who have already walked away from football fandom, for whatever reasons.
Much ado about nothing. All the pink crap for breast cancer does nothing, regardless if it is sold by the NFL or any other mega corp. The players are bankrupt because most of them are very stupid men, it is even more prevalent in the NBA. They’re similar to lottery winners, they simply have no basic concepts of money management. The blackout rule has already been abolished.
Maybe. I don’t think too much about the pink crap either.
I’m not sure this makes it OK. I think this criticism is valid. Especially to the old time players before the NFL was paying millions.
OK. But you’ve ignored maybe the two biggest criticisms:
Is the NFL punishing bullshit while protecting violent players?
Is the NFL really burying reports about how dangerous it is?
I think these are the most important “slams”. And I think the NFL looks real bad here. I’m no fan of Cracked.com. But I think they have pointed out some real issues here. I find it pretty damning of them that the danger of playing has been swept under the carpet. I kind of think that this will eventually be the death of the NFL.
I walked away from the NFL two years ago when I could no longer count all the things I disliked about it and its product. But let’s add to Cracked’s list the fact that it has a closed shop, deliberately designed to make cities and fans grovel for franchises. Call me a silly populist but I think the national football league ought to be, well, really national.
The NFL doesn’t have guaranteed contracts, but the NBA does. Both leagues have salary caps, but the caps are tied to a percentage of league revenues (about 50% in both leagues). Interestingly, MLB, which does not have a salary cap or max contracts, appears to pay out significantly less of its revenue to players than the NBA or NFL (Source)
Limited franchise leagues are mostly American. The national football league in England (and most other countries) is pretty much an all-comers league. We could do that here if not for the fact that the entrepreneurs got their hands on our sports first.
The NFL’s sole purpose is to make 31 rich people richer. Just because millions have bought what they’re selling doesn’t make them anything other than what they are.
Obviously you didn’t read the article. It preemptively addressed several of your responses.
For example, I also read the headlines that the blackout rule was abolished but as the article pointed out, that isn’t what happened. The rule with that name was abolished but the NFL reserved the right to negotiate the same policy with the individual networks and they all agreed so essentially the rule still exists.
The concept of a “franchise” doesn’t apply, for example, to European soccer.
The league umbrella sets minimum standards for any club that wants to put on the roster of a particular division. Some divisions are open admission and some divisions require you to perform well at lower divisions and qualify you for promotion.
There could also be loosened rules on playing matches against non-member clubs.
Even keeping a franchise system, there’s no reason why you couldn’t easily double the current number of clubs in the top level leagues.
What has that to do with anything? It’s huge, it’s powerful, it’s abusive of its workforce, its fans and its cities, and it keeps everybody else from participating. Of course that’s the way it is and that’s the way it is with all the other franchise leagues but it being oblivious to the criticisms doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be criticized. The NBA NHL and MLB can take a flying fuck at the moon, too. I don’t like their systems and if I’m quiet about it, none of them will ever get changed (they probably won’t get changed in any regard but so what?).
You didn’t address the issue of football as it’s organized everywhere else.
If a city can raise the money for a team and a stadium, why not? It shows people willing to pour billions of dollars into a franchise. More pro sports teams should have the model of the Packers where they are fan owned and democratized.
Why can’t a city just raise billions of dollars and build its own Disney Land?
There’s nothing stopping you from starting your own football team you just can’t join the NFL without their permission
That’s one of the many things that sucks about the NFL. If it’s going to be the “national” game, maybe it should be available to the whole nation, not just 30 cities.
The lack of cities with NFL teams does not seem to be the problem.
On most of the complaints, the players are absolutely as much at fault as the owners for the terrible treatment of the retired players. The union has been horrible about pensions and benefits, it is always about the current players.
And why not? By restricting admission they are acting as a cartel, which is generally considered anticompetitive and this type of cartel is generally banned by antitrust law.