Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master4Caster
Before saying what I would do, here's what I think I understand about this mess:
- Compared to other pro athletes in other sports, pro football players are way underpaid, especially considering their short careers and risk to health.
- As a result of the above, NFLPA is demanding a much higher percentage of the TV revenue and a percentage of a team's local revenue. As much as anyone, it's the player's association forcing the revenue sharing discussion! (The player's also want to cut agent commissions to 2%. That could be very shortsighted on their part) I don't blame NFLPA for advocating for players. It's their job. The issue is that small markets generate less local revenue to tap, so players on a small market team are at a financial disadvantage to players in a big market. Thus, the socialistic revenue sharing idea. (socialism bad; capitalism good; in capitalism man exploits man, but in socialism it's the other way around)
- The Redskins are a wealthy franchise because they own their stadium. If other teams want to gain, they should build and own their own stadium. Applies to the greedy major league baseball monopoly, too.
- Fedex is the largest stadium in the league and always sells out. Visiting teams get 40% of the gate, so it's a big payday when they come -- and everybody wants to come! To get my vote for sharing local revenue, I want to cut the visitors share of the gate to 30% to make up for the loss. (or some such formula)
|
the nflpa doesn't really consider its members underpaid per se (hockey and soccer players make less and basketball teams make less per team), but if the money is there and they help raise it, they want to take more of it home. its greed on both sides.
the other quick point is danny owns his stadium, but, of course, he owns the debt too, and no one is talking about how to pay that off. its not fair for the redskins stores to pay for the colts lease deal when only danny is left to pay off his debt.