You all remember last year when Ricky Williams retired. He thought he could walk away without any consequences. Well, as soon as he was told that he would have to pay back the $8+ million in signing bonus he suddenly became gung-ho for coming back.
I thought that that would be a one-shot deal due to the unique circumstances of the case, but it appears that the arbitrators are beginning to agree with the owners:
My God, what a novelty that would be, a situation where the players have to live up to their contracts! How intriguing!
Of course, here comes the owner bashing, about how the players get used and abused and then thrown to the curb when something happens to them. There are three things I have to say to that:
The owners provide the jobs and therefore have a right to expect a return on investment. The players, by all rights, should not get any more than an average Wal-Mart employee, but they have managed to get more through collective bargaining. That brings me to point 2…
The players signed the collective bargaining agreement, and as long as the owners live up to their end they have no bitch, and no right to hold out without penalty. The star of my team, Hines Ward, held out for more money. Using the production-based economy of the NFL he deserved a raise, but I must say that he was obligated to fulfill his contract, which he did by coming back and playing in the first game and part of the preseason. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, though. If you sign a contract you live up to it. Period.
Nobody bleeds for a millionaire getting a massive severance package and the freedom to go elsewhere. Well, maybe some of you do, but I sure as hell don’t.
The bottom line is that the players are starting to find out that they can’t screw around anymore, and that breaks my heart not even a little bit. They are employees, and as an employee of many companies that paid me not even a hundredth of what some of these cats make I have no sympathy.
Hopefully this trend will continue, starting with that arrogant ass T.O. when he tries that crap again next year.
While I’m at it, in what topsy turvy universe would NFL players get paid the same scale as Wal*Mart employees? Who the hell would subject themsevles to that kind of pain and potential injury for a low wage and no benefits? They have a skill that people will pay (lots of) money to watch. Sure, the owners provided the capital and created the market, but without the players there would be no market. Both sides deserve something, and they get exactly what they bargained for. The problem is just that the players get hit with the greed and guilt more when they try and hold out for something more. I don’t worry that Keyshawn Johnson or Peyton Manning is underpaid. I do, however, feel bad about the poor schmoe who struggles in the trenches and/or on special teams, then is crippled or seriously debilitated for life and dies at an early age.
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe the single mother that screws her back up for $7.50/hr because she has to feed her kids? How are the players entitled to more? Answer: they’re not. Nobody is entitled to anything, but they think they are which is why these holdouts happen.
In a perfect world, nobody would pay them to play football at all. But the fact that some of those prima donnas are getting whacked for breaking theirs contracts brings a tear of joy to my eye.
I still don’t see how you can say a NFL player should recieve the same as a Wal-Mart Employee. Try replacing Javon Walker and then try replacing your single mother. I’m sorry but her skills just are not particularly valuable because they are not particlarly scarce.
As long as the sheep continue to shell out big bucks to see these clowns and buy their merchandise, they’ll continue to demand (and receive) bigger bucks.
That has nothing to do with the question that was asked. However, I will respond to you by saying that having athletic ability is hardly a “valuable skill”. It is an overvalued skill because people find games entertaining (admittedly I am one of them). But the guy that catches a football is certainly no more valuable than the guy who cleans the crappers at the stadium after the game. Hey, I can catch a football! Put me in, coach! Pay me!
I guess to some extent. But you’re neglecting that the NFL is a valid, and wildly successful business model, and the commodity they provide (sports/games in the way of entertainment) relies on the likes of Randy Moss, Hines Ward, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick, etc. Swap those guys to WalMart and the WalMart employees to the NFL and the business model fails. Employee satisfaction is not an inconsequential part of the successful business equation, especially when your business is the employees, by and large. It’s the balance part of it that’s tricky. Ask the NHL owners about this one.
Poor old Phil Rivers didn’t have to get sued to be punished for his holdout. Instead of reporting on time and accepting the starting quarterback job that the Chargers were dying to hand him, he decided a few extra bucks were more important. What happened? Seemingly-on-his-way-out Drew Brees caught fire, and poor Phil is in the middle of another year stuck on the sidelines.
Read this and tell me if you think the players are getting screwed.
The primadonna holdout-type players know the deal up front and they protect themselves by demanding (and getting) big signing bonuses. Anybody who says that they don’t get paid is deluding themselves.
While that may be true in the NHL, it is not the case in the NFL. The league chugged along pretty well with scabs in the strike years. I have yet to hear a single person ever devalue the Redksins Superbowl win during the strike-shortened season in '87. (Assuming I have the year and team right.)
No, the only mention I hear of that is about how great Joe Gibbs was to win three Superbowls with three different QBs. (A sentiment I wholly agree with.)
Although I’m a bit concerned with the trend for penalizing players for retiring, ala Ricky Williams. That failsafe seemed to me to even the scales appropriately:
The team can cut you, terminating the contract and giving the player no more money. The player can retire, terminating the contract and giving the team no more snaps.
To me, that was parity, in that neither side ws guaranteed to have the contract fulfilled. I mean, if The Chad or William Peterson have to retire due to their injuries, do they have to pay back all the money they got in their recently signed big contracts? That would seem pretty shitty to me.
You’re mixing apples and oranges. There is a difference between voluntary retirement, such as what Ricky Williams did, and involuntary retirement, such as Joe Theismann (unless you think that he could have come back from that…).
Punking out without fulfilling your contract is vastly different from being unable to fulfill your contract.
