Possible 2011 NFL Lockout

[David Morris]

The October 18 issue of Sports Illustrated had an interesting article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1175714/index.htm) on power and money in the NFL, with thoughts regarding a potential 2011 NFL lockout.

From the outside looking in, I don't understand how it can be that difficult to spread the wealth of a 9 billion dollar industry. But that is probably due to the fact that I am on the outside looking in. I can understand that players want good health coverage after they retire. The sport they play is physical and take a toll on the body. However, no one is forcing them to play the game. No one is forcing them to sign contracts for millions for dollar.

If a lockout occurs, my days as a fan and spectator are over. What would it take for you to say enough is enough?

[Shea Zellweger]

If a lockout occurs, my days as a fan and spectator will continue. If a strike were to occur... that's another matter entirely. The Owners voted to opt out of the CBA, and it will be the Owners' decision to enact a lockout. What you have described is the players' side of things, but the players are not the driving force behind this current dispute. The Owners apparently think that they can strike a better deal (read: spend less) with the players than they currently have, be that through lower salaries, less health coverage, or a different revenue sharing formula, and in exchange for giving the players less money, they are going to require them to play two additional regular season games each year. Now, I'm of the opinion that a large portion of NFL players are overpaid, and that the cost of NFL related items (merchandise, tickets, special channel packages...) is extremely inflated as a result, but if the owners succeed in saving money through a new CBA, it is not likely that the savings will be passed on to the fans, but will only go to further line the pockets of the owners.

[David Morris]

If a lockout occurs, my days as a fan and spectator will continue. If a strike were to occur... that's another matter entirely. The Owners voted to opt out of the CBA, and it will be the Owners' decision to enact a lockout. What you have described is the players' side of things, but the players are not the driving force behind this current dispute. The Owners apparently think that they can strike a better deal (read: spend less) with the players than they currently have, be that through lower salaries, less health coverage, or a different revenue sharing formula, and in exchange for giving the players less money, they are going to require them to play two additional regular season games each year. Now, I'm of the opinion that a large portion of NFL players are overpaid, and that the cost of NFL related items (merchandise, tickets, special channel packages...) is extremely inflated as a result, but if the owners succeed in saving money through a new CBA, it is not likely that the savings will be passed on to the fans, but will only go to further line the pockets of the owners.

Strike or lockout, I would be done. I understand, in general, what it is that both the owners and players want. I don't think a large portion of NFL players are overpaid...I think they are ALL overpaid.

[Ryan Scott]

It'll get worked out. They're all smart; they know what a lockout can do to the sport. I'm pretty sure something will get done, even if they have to give up the offseason workouts, etc. They'll be back for the opening game.

It seems like some of the better off owners (those with the super profitable teams or those with a lot of cash to spend) would like to be able to make more money, or a larger share of the money than they do currently. That could be a real sticking point.

I think the player demands - specifically post-career benefits will be granted in exchange for some form of slotting system for rookies (a la the NBA). Agents will be against it, obviously, and working their veteran clients to that end. Ultimately I think the players are smart enough to recognize that guys who prove themselves on the field should be rewarded - rather than guys who prove themselves in college.

Of all the problems the NBA has - that's the one place they're right on. Rookies make mediocre money for a couple years and then hit the open market.

The NFL has to get to that place.

Honestly, I see the owners internal discussions being more tense than those between players and owners. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are looking to make trouble.

[Shea Zellweger]

Strike or lockout, I would be done. I understand, in general, what it is that both the owners and players want. I don't think a large portion of NFL players are overpaid...I think they are ALL overpaid.

I disagree. The League Minimum Salary is $285,000 for rookies, $360,000 for 2nd year, $435k 3rd, and $510k 4th. The average NFL career, according to the NLPA, is 3.5 years. The minimum salary puts most rookies (unless they have a LOT of dependents) in the 2nd highest tax bracket, which is deducted at about 33%, plus any state taxes. So, for an entire career, a player earning the league minimum can expect to bring home about $890,000 for his (or maybe some day her) playing career, less any state taxes. By the time he covers the most basic of living expenses, the fee his agent exacts, state taxes, and other incidental expenses, he MIGHT have $4-500k put away in savings, and will more likely have far less, especially if he tithed $133,500 during that time period. A lot of these guys come out of college as juniors (or even sophomores, credit-wise), and need to return to school somewhere in order to complete their degrees, if they took their studies seriously in the first place. Since they had been earning hundreds of thousands the year previous, the odds of gaining any real financial aid are low, so they will have to pay for the remainder of their education out of pocket, as well as living expenses, health insurance, etc. At one of our fine Nazarene schools, that's quickly approaching $30,000 per year, and given the health complications which often come from playing three seasons of football, those bills may be much higher for the ex-football player.

I think by the time you really analyze everything that would go into playing the average career at the league minimum, it's rather difficult to say that every single NFL player is overpaid.

[Bob Hunter]

I disagree. The League Minimum Salary is $285,000 for rookies, $360,000 for 2nd year, $435k 3rd, and $510k 4th. The average NFL career, according to the NLPA, is 3.5 years. The minimum salary puts most rookies (unless they have a LOT of dependents) in the 2nd highest tax bracket, which is deducted at about 33%, plus any state taxes. So, for an entire career, a player earning the league minimum can expect to bring home about $890,000 for his (or maybe some day her) playing career, less any state taxes. By the time he covers the most basic of living expenses, the fee his agent exacts, state taxes, and other incidental expenses, he MIGHT have $4-500k put away in savings, and will more likely have far less, especially if he tithed $133,500 during that time period. A lot of these guys come out of college as juniors (or even sophomores, credit-wise), and need to return to school somewhere in order to complete their degrees, if they took their studies seriously in the first place. Since they had been earning hundreds of thousands the year previous, the odds of gaining any real financial aid are low, so they will have to pay for the remainder of their education out of pocket, as well as living expenses, health insurance, etc. At one of our fine Nazarene schools, that's quickly approaching $30,000 per year, and given the health complications which often come from playing three seasons of football, those bills may be much higher for the ex-football player.

I think by the time you really analyze everything that would go into playing the average career at the league minimum, it's rather difficult to say that every single NFL player is overpaid.

Shea,

Very good analysis of the worst case scenario! Truth be told, NFL players get tons of perks, signing bonuses, performance incentives and endorsement deals that sweeten the pot. Not to mention speaking fees (if they go that route), fees for appearance, money from camps, or other opportunities they lend their name and celebrity to. For the low level NFL player, it is as you describe, not a lot of fanfare for the special teams or second string nobodies. But there are scores of players that are afforded many opportunities beyond the base salary. Not to mention coaching opportunities that could present themselves at all levels if they possess any coaching ability at all and pursue that after they retire. I should also add personal consultation fees for High School and College players. The bottom line is this, an NFL player can get a lot of mileage career wise from having spent 3-4 years in the league, and many of them do.

The real challenge faced by NFL players is what happens when they retire as far as benefits go and as I understand they are fighting it all the way to congress. If I could say anything to a prospective NFL player, I would say be as farsighted as possible, get your degree and prepare for a post NFL career in the event that your career is less than stellar.

Okay, I'm bracing for the response Shea....

[Steven Martinez]

My issue is that the players have contracts that are not guaranteed which is the exception to every major sport. The only thing guaranteed is the signing bonus. So player A can blow out his knee in pre-season and be cut and the team does not have to pay him for the year except for any signing bonus money. This is what I find wrong with the system of the NFL. It makes the players look greedy but they inherit almost all of the risk and they can let go at any time. This makes it difficult to look down the road when the road can be closed at anytime. In fact, it has created the system where players must look at the near term situation because that is the only thing they can trust and rely on. IF the owners want a structured contract arrangement then it has to include some guarantees. Or else you will have situations where guys like Chris Johnson (clearly one of the best RBs in the league) demanding a new contract in year three because he can be cut or permanently injured in year four or five.

[Shea Zellweger]

Okay, I'm bracing for the response Shea....
No need to brace yourself, I fully agree with you. My contention in the first place was that a "large portion" of NFL players are overpaid. There are at least a few players on every team receiving the league minimum, not to mention those who are eking out a living on the practice squads, hoping for a shot at earning the league minimum. To say that ALL NFL players are overpaid is an overstatement.

My issue is that the players have contracts that are not guaranteed which is the exception to every major sport. The only thing guaranteed is the signing bonus. So player A can blow out his knee in pre-season and be cut and the team does not have to pay him for the year except for any signing bonus money. This is what I find wrong with the system of the NFL. It makes the players look greedy but they inherit almost all of the risk and they can let go at any time. This makes it difficult to look down the road when the road can be closed at anytime. In fact, it has created the system where players must look at the near term situation because that is the only thing they can trust and rely on. IF the owners want a structured contract arrangement then it has to include some guarantees. Or else you will have situations where guys like Chris Johnson (clearly one of the best RBs in the league) demanding a new contract in year three because he can be cut or permanently injured in year four or five.

Exactly! The owners have all of the power, all of the security, and little or none of the liability. With the exception of contract holdouts- which are infrequent enough that they are still considered newsworthy- players are committed to playing in undervalued contracts, while owners are free to cut players with overvalued contracts with little or no repercussions. Ryan's point about the NBA would work if NFL players could expect some kind of longevity or be compensated accordingly, but so long as nothings guaranteed, every NFL player is going to try to get as much as he can while he's still able to get it.

[Ryan Scott]

My issue is that the players have contracts that are not guaranteed which is the exception to every major sport. The only thing guaranteed is the signing bonus. So player A can blow out his knee in pre-season and be cut and the team does not have to pay him for the year except for any signing bonus money. This is what I find wrong with the system of the NFL. It makes the players look greedy but they inherit almost all of the risk and they can let go at any time. This makes it difficult to look down the road when the road can be closed at anytime. In fact, it has created the system where players must look at the near term situation because that is the only thing they can trust and rely on. IF the owners want a structured contract arrangement then it has to include some guarantees. Or else you will have situations where guys like Chris Johnson (clearly one of the best RBs in the league) demanding a new contract in year three because he can be cut or permanently injured in year four or five.

Actually, players cannot be cut when injured. The team has to pay their salary through their rehab. They can be cut afterwards, but there is a safeguard for injury - at least so long as they recover. They can get cut any other time, though.

[Jim Poteet]

Let me go on record today that there will be a lockout in both the NFL and NBA next year. There has to be some financial restructuring in both leagues for survival. I have just finished a two week unit in my Foundations of Sport Management class about Sport Marketing and the Collective Bargain Agreement. There will be much discussion over the next few months, but my educated guess is that we may only have partial or no season at all in the NFL and NBA next year. It does not make sense to pay Sam Bradford $50 million before he took a snap in the NFL. That kind of pay is nothing but financial suicide. It is nice for Sam, but not good for the NFL if it is a sport you like to watch.

[Steven Martinez]

Actually, players cannot be cut when injured. The team has to pay their salary through their rehab. They can be cut afterwards, but there is a safeguard for injury - at least so long as they recover. They can get cut any other time, though.

Notice the clause "Pre-Season" if a player is hurt in pre-season they can be cut with little or no penalty. This is what happened to Stafon Johnson. He was waived after he injured his ankle in the pre-season. Fortunately, the Titans resigned him and placed him on IR after he cleared waivers, but they did not have to.

[Gina Stevenson]

Nothing the "worst case scenario" Shea mentioned, re "only" netting about half a mil to save up, I'd gladly accept that $500,000 if they wanted something else instead; hey, I could live on that for a long time ... start out with an actual home, and then ....... ;)

[Shea Zellweger]

Let me go on record today that there will be a lockout in both the NFL and NBA next year. There has to be some financial restructuring in both leagues for survival. I have just finished a two week unit in my Foundations of Sport Management class about Sport Marketing and the Collective Bargain Agreement. There will be much discussion over the next few months, but my educated guess is that we may only have partial or no season at all in the NFL and NBA next year. It does not make sense to pay Sam Bradford $50 million before he took a snap in the NFL. That kind of pay is nothing but financial suicide. It is nice for Sam, but not good for the NFL if it is a sport you like to watch.

Well, if coaches would just call timeouts (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Jeff-Fisher-was-asked-to-call-timeouts-for-MNF-c?urn=nfl-278323)like they're supposed to...


Nothing the "worst case scenario" Shea mentioned, re "only" netting about half a mil to save up, I'd gladly accept that $500,000 if they wanted something else instead; hey, I could live on that for a long time ... start out with an actual home, and then ....... ;)

okay, but you are a single person living in Michigan. The married guy with 2 kids who has spent the last seasons playing for the Giants and paying New York City level rent/mortgage isn't going to be able to make that money last nearly as long. I probably wouldn't complain about having $500k either, but if I were a 24 year old offensive lineman, and my career were already over, and my entire "retirement" consisted of $500k to last me and my family indefinitely, I probably wouldn't consider that a positive, particularly if I didn't have some viable skill set which made me employable outside the NFL.

[Bob Hunter]

I probably wouldn't consider that a positive, particularly if I didn't have some viable skill set which made me employable outside the NFL.

Shea,

That is exactly the point, some have theorized that NFL stands for NOT FOR LONG. Therefore, an NFL prospect or player, regardless of how talented, from day one should prepare for life beyond the NFL and that means graduating from college with a viable degree and not just a dumbed down general studies degree. Life is uncertain and sometimes a promising career in the NFL can be cut short. Look at what happened to Bo Jackson. So in some respects it comes down to be less entitled and more responsible when it comes to making decisions with your whole life.

[David Morris]

No need to brace yourself, I fully agree with you. My contention in the first place was that a "large portion" of NFL players are overpaid. There are at least a few players on every team receiving the league minimum, not to mention those who are eking out a living on the practice squads, hoping for a shot at earning the league minimum. To say that ALL NFL players are overpaid is an overstatement.

No understatement whatsoever. The median salaries for most teams (so between bloated veteran contracts and overpaid rookie contracts) are no less than anywhere from $600,000 to over $1,000,000. I am supposed to feel bad that you might get to play for a few years and finish with $500,000 in "retirement." Imagine if you or I graduated from school with our ministry degrees and we had that kind of savings waiting for us after a few years work. I think we would both know how to make that last a long time. And no, there is no overstatement in saying all NFL players are overpaid. The truth is, all pro athletes are overpaid. You play a game, 75,000 people scream your name, and you get to travel first class...oh, and we'll pay you no less than $300,000 to do it. Boo hoo. That is overpaid.

And the practice squad is an entirely different thing. Sure you can be on there one week and that is it, but most remain on the practice squad for longer than that. You get paid $5,200 a week...not chump change, and you are a free agent that can sign wherever you please...if you get the call of course. I wouldn't call that "eking it out."


okay, but you are a single person living in Michigan. The married guy with 2 kids who has spent the last seasons playing for the Giants and paying New York City level rent/mortgage isn't going to be able to make that money last nearly as long. I probably wouldn't complain about having $500k either, but if I were a 24 year old offensive lineman, and my career were already over, and my entire "retirement" consisted of $500k to last me and my family indefinitely, I probably wouldn't consider that a positive, particularly if I didn't have some viable skill set which made me employable outside the NFL.

Your pool of players that are 24 years old with a wife and two kids living in lower Manhattan is going to be extremely small. You could probably count that on one hand, and might not need all of your fingers. If a pastor with a working spouse and 3 kids can live in a comfortable home with two cars and some retirement built up, no NFL player should have any problems. Playing 3.5 years in the NFL should do absolutely nothing except set them up for success.


Exactly! The owners have all of the power, all of the security, and little or none of the liability. With the exception of contract holdouts- which are infrequent enough that they are still considered newsworthy- players are committed to playing in undervalued contracts, while owners are free to cut players with overvalued contracts with little or no repercussions. Ryan's point about the NBA would work if NFL players could expect some kind of longevity or be compensated accordingly, but so long as nothings guaranteed, every NFL player is going to try to get as much as he can while he's still able to get it.

I agree partially with this statement. It would be great to see some of the power shift to the players, but they are not playing in undervalued contracts. The NFL is a business more than anything. You can't play because you just aren't that good or because you are injured...well, that's how it goes. Should you receive some compensation for that and some health coverage? Sure, but please don't act as if you aren't paid enough.

[Ryan Scott]

Anyone who makes over $25,000 a year should consider themselves incredibly fortunate.

[Shea Zellweger]

No understatement whatsoever. The median salaries for most teams (so between bloated veteran contracts and overpaid rookie contracts) are no less than anywhere from $600,000 to over $1,000,000. I am supposed to feel bad that you might get to play for a few years and finish with $500,000 in "retirement." Imagine if you or I graduated from school with our ministry degrees and we had that kind of savings waiting for us after a few years work. I think we would both know how to make that last a long time. And no, there is no overstatement in saying all NFL players are overpaid. The truth is, all pro athletes are overpaid. You play a game, 75,000 people scream your name, and you get to travel first class...oh, and we'll pay you no less than $300,000 to do it. Boo hoo. That is overpaid.

David,
I'm inclined to agree with you on most of this. What I've put forth is basically a worst-case scenario, but honestly I don't think this can be compared to the ministry. There are not many things which could cause a minister to be forced into retirement after 3.5 years, except for a severe moral failing (and even there it MAY not be a permanent retirement). Logic would tell us that most NFL players should be prepared for a post-NFL career before they even enter the draft, but the fact is that many of them treat football as their career When your career lasts only 3-5 years, and you are left with a life expectancy of 40-50 MORE years, you'd best have a pretty well-funded retirement fund.



And the practice squad is an entirely different thing. Sure you can be on there one week and that is it, but most remain on the practice squad for longer than that. You get paid $5,200 a week...not chump change, and you are a free agent that can sign wherever you please...if you get the call of course. I wouldn't call that "eking it out."

$5200 a week for a maximum of 17 weeks, with 0 benefits and 0 paid leave, and a forced retirement after 3 years (or 6 NFL games, whichever comes first). Sure, if the practice squad players weren't prone to being injured, or if they could do it for more than 3 seasons, that's a pretty great gig, but again these players, some of whom had no contingency plan outside of football, are in the situation of having to make money while they're able to make it.



Your pool of players that are 24 years old with a wife and two kids living in lower Manhattan is going to be extremely small. You could probably count that on one hand, and might not need all of your fingers. If a pastor with a working spouse and 3 kids can live in a comfortable home with two cars and some retirement built up, no NFL player should have any problems. Playing 3.5 years in the NFL should do absolutely nothing except set them up for success.
The pool is probably non-existant, but it still stands to illustrate that someone with so short of a career is not necessarily set for life in that regard. As for pastors with a working 3 kids, a comfortable home, two cars, and some retirement.. I know some in that situation, and equally as many with 0 retirement who are relying on food stamps to supplement their church salaries.





I agree partially with this statement. It would be great to see some of the power shift to the players, but they are not playing in undervalued contracts. The NFL is a business more than anything. You can't play because you just aren't that good or because you are injured...well, that's how it goes. Should you receive some compensation for that and some health coverage? Sure, but please don't act as if you aren't paid enough.
"undervalued" is a relative term. If a player is making the league minimum, and other players on the same team at the same position with worse stats are making more, that league minimum player knows that his employers value his performance at a higher rate than he is being paid, and can do nothing about it. On the other hand, if a high-paid player's stats dip, the owner can basically tell him to take a lower deal or find work elsewhere. That's a stranglehold on power in the hands of the owners.


Anyone who makes over $25,000 a year should consider themselves incredibly fortunate.

In the abstract sense, you're right. In the sense that these guy's paychecks tend to stop coming much more quickly than people who work in most other businesses, it gets complicated.

As an aside, I would be completely in favor of a league maximum salary set at about where the minimum currently is, so long as some of the money saved went to providing livable pensions for the players, and the rest of the decrease in salaries were passed on in savings to the fans, rather than extra $$ to the owners. I don't see either of those measures being taken any time soon.

[David Morris]

In the abstract sense, you're right. In the sense that these guy's paychecks tend to stop coming much more quickly than people who work in most other businesses, it gets complicated.

As an aside, I would be completely in favor of a league maximum salary set at about where the minimum currently is, so long as some of the money saved went to providing livable pensions for the players, and the rest of the decrease in salaries were passed on in savings to the fans, rather than extra $$ to the owners. I don't see either of those measures being taken any time soon.

There is a major difference in the size of the paycheck that quit coming. They may have a career that lasts 4 or 5 years. I hope to have a fruitful ministry beyond retirement age. The difference though is in the size of the previous paychecks. Barring a major medical emergency or living to be 120, I could live off of one Peyton Manning game check. Sure, he is an exception, and most NFL players will never see that kind of money. But if you can get a steady annual paycheck of $300K or more for a few years, there is no excuse to not being financially stable for the rest of your life.

And you and I both will never see the savings passed down to the fan. If we want to save, we need to just not root for our teams or go to a game. That is hard to do when you enjoy the game so much.

Good points on your end, I appreciate them and having my mindset challenged from a different perspective.

[Steven Martinez]

I never think the discussion on this topic is healthy when so much seems to be driven by envy. I believe in fair wages where the wage of a worker is in direct relationship to the profit of the company. If the colts are worth anything at this point it has to be due to the play of Peyton Manning. The same could be said of Brady and the Pats. Therefore I have nothing against them making millions of dollars over a career considering that the owners will make at least 10-20 times what their highest paid player will make.

To me the issue is that we the fan fuel this sport. If every fan decided to quit watching then there would be no NFL. Therefore I think it is logical to support the players who entertain us. When most Americans go to work they work hard in order to enjoy benefits such as possible promotions and raises as well as health benefits and a retirement. However the NFL is made of teams of around 50 players (including practice squad) where only 10-20% of the players make the big money or have any guarantees of financial security. I think it is in the best interest of the league and the fan to come up with some system where players can be as safe as possible and that all players have an opportunity to have health coverage for future problems that resulted in present day play. If we want a league maximum then we should stop consuming all products and merchandise of the NFL or those that NFL players sponsor. At the same time we will also lose out on a large tax bracket in America as well as many community service projects sponsored by the millions of dollars that the NFL and NFL players make.

[David Morris]

I never think the discussion on this topic is healthy when so much seems to be driven by envy.

I don't think this is a discussion driven by envy, just personal opinion. I really was hoping to gain other perspectives on what it would take for other people to stop supporting, watching, attending professional sports. No one has answered that yet.


I believe in fair wages where the wage of a worker is in direct relationship to the profit of the company. If the colts are worth anything at this point it has to be due to the play of Peyton Manning. The same could be said of Brady and the Pats. Therefore I have nothing against them making millions of dollars over a career considering that the owners will make at least 10-20 times what their highest paid player will make.

I agree, to an extent. I think for many there needs to be a cap somewhere in there. If you are making that much money, then you need to eventually level off the cost of merchandise, tickets, etc. Do you think you could apply this to ministry? If a church keeps gaining members and the tithe goes up, do you think a pastor should continue to get significant raises, or would there be a place where you would cap that? Or am I trying to compare apples and oranges?


To me the issue is that we the fan fuel this sport. If every fan decided to quit watching then there would be no NFL. Therefore I think it is logical to support the players who entertain us. When most Americans go to work they work hard in order to enjoy benefits such as possible promotions and raises as well as health benefits and a retirement. However the NFL is made of teams of around 50 players (including practice squad) where only 10-20% of the players make the big money or have any guarantees of financial security. I think it is in the best interest of the league and the fan to come up with some system where players can be as safe as possible and that all players have an opportunity to have health coverage for future problems that resulted in present day play. If we want a league maximum then we should stop consuming all products and merchandise of the NFL or those that NFL players sponsor. At the same time we will also lose out on a large tax bracket in America as well as many community service projects sponsored by the millions of dollars that the NFL and NFL players make.

I agree, we fuel it as the fans (some more than others). A few questions though:

-Do you really think we will miss out on a "large tax bracket in America" if the NFL didn't exist? You are talking about 1,600 people. In 2009, there were 7.8 millionaires. Do you think losing 800 of them is going to hurt us?
-Can you name one community service project you know of that has been sponsored by the millions of dollars that the NFL and NFL players make?


However the NFL is made of teams of around 50 players (including practice squad) where only 10-20% of the players make the big money or have any guarantees of financial security.

This is where I am perhaps alone in my thinking. We look at Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and compare the rest of the players to them. A $300,000 base salary is BIG MONEY. Even if that is for just a few years, that should set you up to be financially secure for the rest of your life. Have the athletes take a Dave Ramsey class.

[Steven Martinez]

I don't think this is a discussion driven by envy, just personal opinion. I really was hoping to gain other perspectives on what it would take for other people to stop supporting, watching, attending professional sports. No one has answered that yet. There really is no answer, Baseball has proven that. We desire entertainment and we are willing to pay for it.


I agree, to an extent. I think for many there needs to be a cap somewhere in there. If you are making that much money, then you need to eventually level off the cost of merchandise, tickets, etc. Do you think you could apply this to ministry? If a church keeps gaining members and the tithe goes up, do you think a pastor should continue to get significant raises, or would there be a place where you would cap that? Or am I trying to compare apples and oranges? I think it is mostly apples to oranges. However, if a church grows and its giving base grows churches begin to spend more on pastoral service. For example, a larger church usually hires more associate staff. By offering competitive wages, the church can afford to hire the very best in specific fields. For example, many large churches have professional counseling service free of charge to their members or others in need. That requires funding of various sorts. While I would have a hard time trying to justify myself as a minister who made Peyton Manning money, it would be nice to be a minister who could afford to send my children to school without debt and to be able to have healthcare and possible retirement benefits. Considering that I have served as a minister while on government assistance (WIC) and known others who have done the same, I think it is not a stretch to be able to say that our pastors should be able to live the same level as the congregation. In our situation the role is generally reversed where the organizational leadership makes far less then the players.


I agree, we fuel it as the fans (some more than others). A few questions though:

-Do you really think we will miss out on a "large tax bracket in America" if the NFL didn't exist? You are talking about 1,600 people. In 2009, there were 7.8 millionaires. Do you think losing 800 of them is going to hurt us?
-Can you name one community service project you know of that has been sponsored by the millions of dollars that the NFL and NFL players make?
Considering that recent reports claim that up where of 50% of Americans actually pay taxes, to lose any in the upper bracket would be devastating to the economy as a whole. Not only would we lose direct taxes from income but football players also buy expensive cars and homes which adds taxes into the economy as well. Also many pro athletes give their time and money to organizations that help people. If you had read Peter King's articles on SI you would here dozens of stories of how NFL players are helping their communities. For example, Charlie Batch has developed an inner city athletic program in his home town as a way to end gang violence that claimed the life of one of his sisters. The NFL is also one of the largest sponsors of the United Way which is one of the largest food distributors in this country for the poor and needy. Recently Peter King has shown how players have stepped up to support some of his causes such as providing recreational equipment for troops in the Middle East as well as for stroke research. Also I am sure you have noticed that the NFL players have had many pink accessories this month as the NFL is a major sponsor of promoting research and education for breast cancer. Perhaps you can ask the people of New Orleans how much Danny Wuerffel has given before and after hurricane Katrina as his ministry organization has helped in rebuilding homes and lives of those effected most by the disaster. That is simply a few.


This is where I am perhaps alone in my thinking. We look at Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and compare the rest of the players to them. A $300,000 base salary is BIG MONEY. Even if that is for just a few years, that should set you up to be financially secure for the rest of your life. Have the athletes take a Dave Ramsey class.

This is where perhaps you are showing a lack of understanding. For the sake of taxes, it is usually better to make $50,000 a year for 6 years then $300,000 for one year. You will get taxed less. Yes for the Mannings and Bradys out there, they will be set for life, however there is the risk that someone can make $1,000,000 in 3 years and never be able to walk again. How much is that million dollars going to last. What kind of return on your money must you have to be able to afford to live off that for the rest of your life? My financial planner would be skeptical of that. I am 30 years old. If I retire at age 70 and plan to live 20 more years, then our portfolio estimates that my wife and I would need nearly $275,000 a year (in year 2050 dollars) which translate to nearly $85,000 a year in today's money (this is for the state of California). Cost of living is only going up. This is why I say envy. Why would we put a cap on what players make? I think the NHL created a better system where there is both a salary cap for the maximum a player can make as well as a cap of how much the owners make. In other words, the NHL owners must spend a minimum percentage of their earnings on players salaries. What I think the fans should support is not so much the high salaries, but the fact that the players are opting for health security over financial security. My stepdad is a physical therapist and use to work with rehabbing players for the Raiders and Rams when they were in LA. He has told me stories of some of the retired players who would do rehab and even though they were in for a knee injury he could tell that some of them were already suffering from Parkinson's and dementia. He said it was the saddest thing he ever saw Men who were in better physical shape then most Americans who would forget where they were at or would need assistance because they could not look after themselves and they were in their 40s.

[David Morris]

He said it was the saddest thing he ever saw Men who were in better physical shape then most Americans who would forget where they were at or would need assistance because they could not look after themselves and they were in their 40s.

As the fan, is this our fault? Are we supporting a modern day coliseum?

And as a fan, again, I don't think it is about envy. I just wonder at what point you make a return to the fan instead of continuing to drive up ticket costs.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm having a tougher and tougher time watching football because of the way these guys come out physically. The average life expectancy for a professional football player is almost 30 years lower than the average American male.

I know they're being paid a lot of money and do the job willingly, but when does it become an ethical issue that we're sitting around watching men destroy each others' bodies for our enjoyment?

[Jim Poteet]

I'm having a tougher and tougher time watching football because of the way these guys come out physically. The average life expectancy for a professional football player is almost 30 years lower than the average American male.

I know they're being paid a lot of money and do the job willingly, but when does it become an ethical issue that we're sitting around watching men destroy each others' bodies for our enjoyment?

You are on point. I stopped watching the NFL in 1984. I could not tell you who won last year's Super Bowl. It is a brutal game.

Statistics tell us that an NFL player who plays 5 years in the league has a life expectancy of 53. I wouldn't want to trade 20+ years of life for a few years of being in the league.

[David Morris]

You are on point. I stopped watching the NFL in 1984. I could not tell you who won last year's Super Bowl. It is a brutal game.

Statistics tell us that an NFL player who plays 5 years in the league has a life expectancy of 53. I wouldn't want to trade 20+ years of life for a few years of being in the league.

It was the Saints, beating the Colts.

Wasn't aware of the life expectancy statistics. Scary stuff.

[Ryan Scott]

It was the Saints, beating the Colts.

Wasn't aware of the life expectancy statistics. Scary stuff.

There's also no health insurance after retirement. I was appalled (for a number of reasons) as Mark Schlereth outlined his experience with the NFL's disability policy this morning on ESPN radio. I can't imagine how bad it might be for someone who didn't make a ton of money and actually needed some physical mobility to earn a living afterwards.

[Steven Martinez]

You are on point. I stopped watching the NFL in 1984. I could not tell you who won last year's Super Bowl. It is a brutal game.

Statistics tell us that an NFL player who plays 5 years in the league has a life expectancy of 53. I wouldn't want to trade 20+ years of life for a few years of being in the league.

As Rutgers how the violent the college game is as well. To me the biggest hypocrisy is to claim this issue is merely an NFL issue. The overall game is getting more and more violent from Pop Warner all the way up.

[David Morris]

There's also no health insurance after retirement. I was appalled (for a number of reasons) as Mark Schlereth outlined his experience with the NFL's disability policy this morning on ESPN radio. I can't imagine how bad it might be for someone who didn't make a ton of money and actually needed some physical mobility to earn a living afterwards.


As Rutgers how the violent the college game is as well. To me the biggest hypocrisy is to claim this issue is merely an NFL issue. The overall game is getting more and more violent from Pop Warner all the way up.

So as fans, are we in the wrong?

[Shea Zellweger]

So as fans, are we in the wrong?

I'm gonna go on record as saying no. I am very grateful to be in an era of sports where these things are a concern. People talk about the "No Fun League," but every year there are new precautions being taken. Last year, concussions (thankfully) became a point of emphasis, and players who are concussed or have post-concussion syndrome are not permitted to play unless they can pass a concussion test. Just this past week, the Commissioner's office made it known that big hits would have strong repercussions- stronger for repeat offenders. The league is trying to address and correct the physical problems, and more players are starting to see the sense in the added precautions. Now, in 10-20 years, if we discover that all these added safety measures did nothing to improve the quality of life for players and former players, I will eat my words, but at present I am quite optimistic about the direction things are going.

[Ryan Scott]

So as fans, are we in the wrong?

I'm having a harder and hard time answering that question every year.

In a philosophical sense, the fact that people can make the kind of money they do in professional sports (owners, players, agents, vendors, etc) says something about our priorities as a society which are troubling at best.

[Jim Poteet]

I'm having a harder and hard time answering that question every year.

In a philosophical sense, the fact that people can make the kind of money they do in professional sports (owners, players, agents, vendors, etc) says something about our priorities as a society which are troubling at best.

I am in the process of reading a book just released - Good Game-Christianity and the Culture of Sports by Shirl James Hoffman. Dr. Hoffman is a professor of Kinesiology at University of North Carolina-Greensboro. It is a very good read and one chapter is written about how much our spectator sports are like the Roman empire and the brutality. The book is worth the read as Dr. Hoffman is a graduate of the Kings College which was a long time rival of ENC before closing.