Should NFL Players "Strike" Over Pay??

[chf]

When NFL player start playing 100+games in a year they can start bitching and whining. As it stands they only have 11 minutes of action per game for a 16 game season that's 176 minutes of action a year. Boo fucking hoo.

About the only athletes who stack up in terms of physical abuse are hockey enforcers, and they're an increasingly rare breed.

So for some of these players, the game is what'll eventually kill them.

 

[TP76]

They get what, 48.5% of the league-wide revenue under the current CBA? What will they hold out for, 51%?

 

[Guywithtoaster]

How about guaranteed NFL contracts but they can only be 1 or 2 years long max. Would make free agency interesting and create even more parity in the league.

 

[Manster7588]

About the only athletes who stack up in terms of physical abuse are hockey enforcers, and they're an increasingly rare breed.

So for some of these players, the game is what'll eventually kill them.

To the best of my knowledge no ones putting guns to their heads to play.

 

[Manster7588]

NBA season revenues 8B
MLB season revenues 10B
NFL season revenues 14B

Now account for roster size and you can see why NFL players make less.

Maybe the league could drop the Emmitt rule so the players could get more marketing deals.

 

[Manster7588]

How about guaranteed NFL contracts but they can only be 1 or 2 years long max. Would make free agency interesting and create even more parity in the league.

They way some fans are more player fans vs team fans, there would be a lot of confusion.

 

[Ricky Roma]

The current salary cap should be adjusted, as I don't believe it has to be a flat number right across the board for every team. I believe teams should have more flexibility in terms of resigning their own players, whom their own scouts and coaches and GM's brought in via the draft/undrafted. Perhaps under that kind of system, if a team spends more money on their own, their 'cap' would decrease when it comes to bringing in unlimted free agents.

 

[chf]

To the best of my knowledge no ones putting guns to their heads to play.

Never said they were.

Have you traced it back to my hatred of the Cowboys yet?

 

[knowyourenemy]

No...I'm stating that Sherman is speaking for 10% of the players while the other 90% will cross the line and go to work....which is why a strike won't work

Whatever the numbers, a simple way to get everyone else on board is to lump the salary changes in with something that benefits the average player as well.

 

[knowyourenemy]

They get what, 48.5% of the league-wide revenue under the current CBA? What will they hold out for, 51%?

They should probably be getting 60-70%. They're getting ripped off.

 

[Manster7588]

Never said they were.

Have you traced it back to my hatred of the Cowboys yet?

Why do you keep insisting Jerry would support the end of the cap. Hell you called it FACT, when facts are you're talking out of your ass. My calling you a Dallas hater is just my opinion, but that opinion is based on the fact the you continue to throw out complete BULLSHIT anti Cowboy rhetoric.
You can deny it all you want but the evidence supports my claim.

 

[chf]

Why do you keep insisting Jerry would support the end of the cap. Hell you called it FACT, when facts are you're talking out of your ass. My calling you a Dallas hater is just my opinion, but that opinion is based on the fact the you continue to throw out complete BULLSHIT anti Cowboy rhetoric.
You can deny it all you want but the evidence supports my claim.

Heh, I already came on upthread and admitted my error AND apologized for it.

You for some weird reason seem determined to be butthurt and assume the worst.

How'd Jerry get that * marketing deal only the Cowboys have? By suing the NFL. Is that anti-Cowboys 'rhetoric?'
In your mind yes.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

well I think when just talking about guaranteed contracts in the NFL, it would make sense & fair.
Why is it fair for a player to get cut after making a commitment to the team without the pay?
But with guaranteed contracts would mean players couldn't hold out either.

Dont think (Star) Players would like it in the end.
I would see 3 year contracts instead of 7 year with a ton of already guaranteed money.
Also why have signing bonuses when the whole contract is guaranteed, which that money is only for 3 years (or less) Where as right now the Stars signing bonuses are worth atleast the 3 year contract now without the salary. So this would be a losing situation. Now instead of already having the up front payday which all the stars want just in case of injury. If they get hurt in any of these 3 year (or so) contracts, they will never get that big payday all at once. Long term I think this would help the owners more than the players when it was all said & done.

Imagine Suh playing under this scenario. He would never get as rich as he is under the current rules.

As far as most of the non star players in the NFL. I think it could help their careers, but not as much as it could hurt the big stars money.

Think Sherman & those that agree with him, might be careful for what they wish for.

 

[fastforward]

The primary factors aren't games played and number of players, it's income generated and costs incurred.

The current gripe with the players getting less than they feel they deserve is a by-product of their stance in the CBA negotiations. The owners wanted a set-aside for costs, (stadium etc), with everything else being split by a set %. Obviously the owners would have gotten a lower %. The players wanted everything split by a set %. The players got what they wanted, but since NFL incomes are currently increasing faster than costs the owners are getting more money to cover the costs than they are incurring in costs. Thus, they are doing well at the players' expense. If NFL income slows or falls it would go the other way.

 

[Manster7588]

Heh, I already came on upthread and admitted my error AND apologized for it.

You for some weird reason seem determined to be butthurt and assume the worst.

How'd Jerry get that * marketing deal only the Cowboys have? By suing the NFL. Is that anti-Cowboys 'rhetoric?'
In your mind yes.

Hey, you're the one who wrongly chose ONE owner who didn't like the cap. That owner you chose is Jerry, who believes the cap is good for the league. So either you are a Dallas hater, or just plain clueless. So what is it?

 

[chf]

Hey, you're the one who wrongly chose ONE owner who didn't like the cap. That owner you chose is Jerry, who believes the cap is good for the league. So either you are a Dallas hater, or just plain clueless. So what is it?

Jerry puts his own * in his statements. And you know this. 'Hey we'd win like crazy (paraphrasing), with no cap, but it's better for the league to have the cap.'

You're a Dallas fan, YOU KNOW that even fucking Dallas fans have a love/hate relationship with Jerry Jones. They tend to like Jerry the owner, and they tend to not be so positive towards Jerry the football guy.

So it's out of bounds for me to have a shades of grey nuanced view of Jerry from afar?

Fuck that.

I'm not clueless, again I'VE ALREADY apologized for my error on merch (that irony of ironies, Jerruh got changed by suing the league) and I'm not a Cowboy hater.

Why the fuck are you (usually a pretty solid poster) so butthurt all the time lately?

 

[chf]

And btw, I didn't choose ONE owner who'd vote to lose the cap, I talked Jerry in a thread about the Cowboys. If we were talking Redskins, I'd have mentioned Dan Snyder.

Hmmm...

Ironically the two guys who were last fined by the NFL for getting cute with the cap.

Cue, it was an uncapped year! in 3, 2, 1...

 

[Oldschool739]

Richard Sherman fired a salvo across the bow of the NFL owners yesterday stating that Players in the NFL should strike for a better pay system. A pay system equal to what the better players in the NBA and MLB get in comparison to what the NFL players get.

It's sort of like comparing apples to bananas and apples to cucumbers.

The critical item is that NBA and MLB contracts are guaranteed. The reasons are that most players will play out their contracts. That's not always possible in the NFL.

NBA and NFL contracts are generally much longer and the money is generally evenly spread over that contract.

Generally the stars in all sports are the guys who get the money. The problem in the NFL is that every position has a different value. In basketball, you have 5 position and point guard might be more valuable to one team than a power forward or a center. On a different team, the center may be more critical. Overall, every position is a position of value. In baseball, every position is pretty much equal. A power hitting 1B who can steal bases and hit home runs is pretty much equal to a closer or a starter.

Then you have the number of games played. Regular season in the NFL is 16 games including the Bye. Basketball and baseball have 80-82 game seasons. Football is much more violent. Injuries often cut short a player's career in the NFL and more often than not, end a career. Basketball and baseball have their injuries also, but most players can return during the season, if not the following season.

As with any professional sport, you have the stars and the rest. If your not a star and are at the bottom of the payscale, do you strike for those stars to get a bigger payday, while yours might get a bit bigger, but most likely won't be significantly changed.

Sherman like others in the NFL are seeing the incredible contracts for the NBA free agents and are thinking that they'd like to get a 5 year $210M contract.

The NFL CBA is up in 2020. Think the NFL owners are going to change things drastically?? Think any of them will be willing to hand out a Curry contract to an offensive tackle or a defensive end? The only way I can see anything getting done is if the union and owners agree to pay substantial bonuses to every player who plays all 16 games, with no shenanigans like leaving a guy off the 46 man roster in week 16 who's played 15 previous games. Then....what's the bonus? Half a player's contract? What about a guy who comes off the practice squad in week 2 and plays the rest of the season??

I think the owners are just going to say......"You don't like the pay system in the NFL, then play basketball."

Any ideas??

I for one would love to see the league and or owners fire these big mouth grossly over paid greedy pieces of dog dung for stunts like this.....When I think of our soldiers, policemen, firemen, rescue teams who are paid peanuts compared to these bunch of jerks just because they can run and catch a ball....Maybe the league should strike on the players and make them go get a real job for a while and take a pay cut....
Think about it, some of these guys make more than the president of the USA in 1 year then he does in a 4 yr term.....It's preposterous, and I know the players argument but it's still outlandish to strike for more money when you already are overpaid by a landslide.....
Andy Reid sent T.O packing when he started that crap in Philly and T.O's career was over after that...
That's what coaches and owners need to do to these guys who think they are bigger than the game....

The Don says; Shermie,

 

[mrwallace2ku]

DO IT! WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A UNION TO BARGAIN FOR YOU...

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Not sure how the whole thing works, but I do like the fact that most rookies don't come in with these huge contracts anymore, so many never pan out and really don't earn those big contracts...