Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
^ Playing a Childs sport and not investing for their own retirement well enough. I look at it probably from a totally different perspective in that I think of all the Firemen and Policemen who risk their lives everyday for pennies and see grown men playing a game risking their lives one day a week for millions of dollars who don't want to spend their money on retirement or health insurance but would rather the owner pay all that for them and still demand a larger portion of the revenue.
Maybe if the players had to pay for part of their own retirement and health insurance and maybe put some of their own money towards retired players. Don't get me wrong I do feel sorry for the retired players but I look at them like I look at smokers. They knew the risk, and could have taken insurance out on themselves. They also knew in advance that most players only last about 5 to 10 yrs. WTF was their plan for after football? Not to mention the guys who failed to finish college. If they knew they would only last 10 yrs tops then they should have had a plan for what they would do when they turned 30. I don't see how that should be the owners responsibilities. If the current players feel sorry for them then let the players support he older retired players.
On a last note, I'm not stupid enough to not believe the owners are not making more money every year but please don't make me out to be a fool and try to tell me that the owners don't have an increase in costs as well. How about the non players and their raises? Loss of revenue because of the economy and fans failing to renew their season tickets. Yes beer and food has gone up but let's not forget that the small business man who sells it to you also has had a rise in cost for delivery.
I think it was said somewhere that if just one team had to build a new stadium that alone would hurt the owners which is why they are asking for more of the revenue... guess what the Vikings need a new stadium.
But the poor millionaire's can't afford to let the owners keep more of the revenue. Maybe the players should also show their books to show how their portion is being distributed as well.
|
So if your boss walked in tomorrow and said to everyone "we're going to be taking a bigger portion of your paychecks", without explanation, and without proper cause, you wouldn't be upset?
You probably do plan for your retirement, and you probably pay some paycheck towards social security and towards health insurance. Likewise, the players are instructed to put money away for retirement, pay into a retirement fund through the union, and have to pay some portion of their health insurance as well.
It's not as if the owners are eating all the cost here. A majority of the players in the league
aren't millionaires. They lead middle-class to upper middle class lives. They still have to pay bills, pay for child care, and in some cases, have to pay for extended family as well. They're not exactly poor, but when you factor in all their cost, they're not the ballers that the guys who get the endorsement deals and the top tier athletes are.
All the players are asking is to be treated fairly. If the owners stepped forward and showed they had a realistic need for more money, this would be over by now.
But if my boss wants to take more money off the top of my paycheck, and then won't tell or explain to me why they need more money, and then decides to lock me out because I don't want to take the pay cut, that's not really fair.
If he explains why he needs to take more off the top, I'd be more inclined to at least hear him out and maybe negotiate. But it's hard to negotiate with someone who's not being honest with you.