your argument falls flat on your final assertion that they won't be getting paid -- the players will be getting paid, just the system will not provide the room for as much money. not to mention you want to make an example using basic economics with CEO's as an example, but ignore the very basic economic facts that lead to your conclusion. you should actually think about the factors you are discussing before coming to a conclusion rather than coming to a conclusion first, you would avoid your obviously incorrect economic argument. a corporate CEO doesn't have to stick to one job because he has numerous options of other companies that he can go to that will pay him. but if the NFL doesn't pay these players as much as they would like, they have no other options other than not play football. the players have no economic leverage like a CEO, unless you are claiming the players will simply stop playing football because they make 10 or 15% less, despite the fact most couldn't make comparable money in any other profession. the economic factors that you are ignoring reveal why the players will have to play just as hard to maximize their income, even if it is less. you absolutely can because the argument was that players won't play hard if they aren't making as much money, and historical examples reveal that players who want to play football for a living will play hard no matter how much they make, and would simply prefer to play hard. how much money the league makes is irrelevant.
Here's a little tip - if you want to respond to a post that in turn is in response to a previous post, you might read that previous post. It provides context. The context here is that I WAS NOT talking about a case where theoretically the players make ten or fifteen percent less. I was referring to Tommy's hypo that they would play equally hard if they made 35k a year. You should think about that before coming to your conclusion. It is also incorrect that the players have no options. I would agree that as a group many of them have fewer options than some CEO's do, no doubt. But that is only true when one concedes the legality of hte NFL as a monopoly. Without a CBA, the NFL is exposed to antitrust liability, despite this nonsense about Norris LaGuardia not allowing the players to present them after decertifying and then pursuing an antitrust claim. In fact your argument that the players have NO options (which I do not agree with, while conceding their options are limited) is very much an argument that antitrust principles should be invoked against the league's position.
There's also the long term future of the game. Most young football players are just straight out good athletes - many play basketball and baseball to a very high standard, and at some point have to make a choice to commit to a particular sport. If football gains a perception of being a sport where players risk far more physically, have a much shorter career, and get less in return, then many are going to make the decision to focus on the alternatives. That will lead to a lower overall standard of player and potentially create a downward curve in League incomes. This whole thing should never have been allowed to become so adversarial; they're eating from both sides of the same trough. If one side eats considerably more than the other then the trough will fall over, and I'm astonished that they have allowed it to go as far as they have.
yes, in the extremely unlikely scenario that salaries get reduced to $35k per year, I'll concede you will probably see a lack of interest in playing by the players. but in the more realistic scenario that the players make less than they do now, but still make an upper class salary, you will not see a mass exodus of desire by the players. they will still have the same motivation to play hard and succeed -- make more money on a new contract. making less money does not equate to less desire for a player, or else you would never see a player take less money to sign with a team, unless you think Braylon Edwards is going to take less money to stay with the Jets but in turn won't play as hard because the Jets offered him less money than another team but chose to stay with the Jets. and, you're right, the players do have other options; they can play Arena Football or the CFL, so they don't have to accept the NFL's offer. the problem is they will make more in the NFL than either of those, so even if salaries do get reduced they have an inherent interest in remaining in the NFL and playing as hard as possible -- it is still their best option. so the reason I don't give a shit if they make less money is because it won't affect the quality of the sport on bit because the players still have the same motivation to succeed.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I can't read your position without thinking you somehow have concluded you know for certain that while beyond a certain point reducing player income will affect performance, up until that point it won't. How do you know that? But more to the point is what is the upside in reducing player income? Do you think we as fans will benefit? How?
empirical evidence of player salaries have never shown that a player plays harder if they make more money. the league was built on the 100% maximum effort of guys who made very little money, so there is no evidence that supports that it determines how hard guys play. are you saying Tom Brady plays harder now that he makes $20 million than when he was first drafted? he is better now, but I am certain he doesn't give more effort. but there are plenty of examples of players who when they get their big payday stop giving an effort, so your position is easily refuted by those examples that show that players will play harder when they make less money in the hopes of making more money, and when they do their effort declines once they achieve their payday. people work as hard as they can based on motivation. if they want to make more money, they will perform at a level that they believe will accomplish such. reducing the salary cap doesn't mean all players will make less money, the top players will still have value and will negotiate as much money as they can. this provides all players the ability to continue to maximize their value, and thus doesn't create a scenario where players will cease to be motivated to make more money, it will simply continue the same dynamic where players who want to increase their salary will play hard so they can renegotiate their contract or earn more in free agency. I've made my mind up because there is no evidence or hypothetical scenario you can create that will fit into the actual dynamics that will occur in the case that the league achieves a lower salary cap. not to mention the basic motivational factors that lead to effort. I've seen bus boys bust their ass for minimum wage, so clearly how much someone makes doesn't dictate how much effort they will give; there are other factors at play that you have to ignore to conclude such. I've stated the factors I believe dispute your position. as far as how we benefit as fans? we benefit by an agreement being reached and football being played. I don't care who wins, because the game isn't going to suffer either way whether the players get paid more or less. the players who want to make more money will play hard no matter what, the Albert Haynesworthe's that make a ton of money but don't give an effort once they are paid will continue to phone it in, the players who aren't dedicated and are content with their current earnings will still be content, and the very few players who are so angry and bitter and stupid that you believe exist that will phone it in and reduce their future earnings to spite the league, but only spite themselves, i suppose will remain stupid, angry and bitter and shoot themselves in the foot.
nothing about the strike has anything to do with the fan benefit. the only benefit a fan has is watching the games played, which was my point to begin with -- I don't care who wins as long as there is a season, because no matter who wins nothing will change in regards to the quality of the game. your attempt to claim that the fans benefit by the player's winning has no merit. it may be my opinion, but it is an opinion based on reason and evidence.
Well Demaurice Smith is not doing any NFL work today. He is the main commencement speaker at my Graduation. Should be interesting
You are misquoting me. That is not what i said. In fact I have to say your tone is getting obnoxious. I am sure you will respond as you always do, but I see little point in continuing this discussion. I have already pointed out you have nothing but your opinion to support the notion that the game will not suffer if the owners get their way. We haven't even talked about their proposal for an 18 game season, for example. Again, we will have to agree to disagree on your position. What I have said is that the owners' position and strategy is to use the lockout to break the players. Whether it is actually the case that the owners literally need to have a new formula for dividing the pie in order to protect the long term health of the game, I can't say. But I am skeptical. What I do know and think should be clear to everyone, including yourself, is that the owners' winning in court makes the prospects for a normal season this year more unlikely than if the players were winning. If the players win, the lockout ends, quite simply. If the courts allow the owners to continue their lockout, it will continue indefinitely. Three general scenarios are most reaonable in how that would end. One is that the players break. I think that is unlikely in the near term. After that, it might be, but imo not before some chunk of the regular pre-season and probably regular season is harmed. The second is that some agreement is reached to settle the dispute. I think that will not likely happen in the short term, either, unless the owners lose a significant court ruling. That follows because the owners will continue to have a lockout as long as they can. The third is there is some change of strategy by the owners. Again, not likely in the near term without a change in the legal situation. Least likely is the third scenario, but imo the other two are not likely, either. The parties seem too far apart for the second, and I again don't see the players significantly breaking before the scheduled opening day. That suggests the season is very much in jeopardy, and likely will not proceed without disruption and I would say at this point a close to even chance that most or all of it will be lost. Thank you, Eighth Circuit dickheads.
The only thing I disagree with is that if the owners win that will mean that the players will have to concede to all of their demands. It will simply mean they had more leverage in the negotiations and were able to get more than they concede, not that they won't have to concede on some issues, like an 18 game season, to ensure football is played. my position on the matter is I don't care who wins as long as football is played this year, and if a resolution is met, regardless of who wins, the quality of the game and the effort given by the players won't change.
Matt Bowen's take on the Player Organized Workouts ht tp: //ww w. nationalfootballpost. c om/Why-player-organized-workouts-are-overhyped.html (Copy, paste in address line, and don't forget to remove spaces) I agree with him. It is nice to see the players demonstrating initiative and leadership, but not much will be accomplished with them. Also, if an injury occurs, then that player is screwed. Here's another article about what is being lost in the lockout hiatus: ht tp: //ww w. nationalfootballpost .c om/What-is-really-being-lost-in-the-NFL-lockout.html Even if there is football this year, it will be drastically different in quality. Teams will be slow out of the gate, rookie play will be attrocious, and many veterans will show up out of shape. 2 to 1 odds that Joe McKnight has another forgetable year and we are looking for a new scatback next draft. Why did we trade Leon Washington and cut Danny Woodhead?
Changes needed to be made to football to make the quality of the product better. Concussions, Long term health insurance/care, rookie salaries, and HGH testing need to be addressed. It is crazy that the players are not required to wear the most protective gear available, but the league continues to make stupid rules to protect defenseless players. It is insane that retired players do not have better post-career care, but rookie first rounders become millionaires before playing a down. The NFL needs competition for players and fans to keep this kind of greed from happening. If they had another league to choose then it would be difficult for the owners to make monetary demands. Right now, the owners think that the players and fans will flock to their league and that nothing could kill the goose which lays the golden egg. I got news for the owners. There are other leagues, they just play other sports. Players can make significant money in the MLB and NBA. A lot of college athletes are multisport phenoms and will look else where. Many fans watch multiple sports and will drop interest in the NFL if the quality is weakened. The lockout was the worse thing for the owners to do. A lockout screwed the NHL. The NHL was at its peak and expanding before the lockout. Now most teams are losing money. I was an avid hockey fan, but unless a hockey team comes to Baltimore (closest city to me), then I'll never follow hockey like I did then. With ESPN3, I'm watching more international rugby, a sport that is growing in popularity in the US. If their coverage continues to improve, then I could very easily move away from being an avid NFL , and be a casual NFL fan, maybe still an avid Jets fan. Rugby World Cup 2011 starts in October. I know my NFL-fandom hangs in the balance with the lockout... does yours?
