ChiefsPlanet - Chiefs Should NFL Players get Paid More?

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Should NFL Players get Paid More? (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=299683)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy (Post 12213681)

I know this might now be a popular thing to say but when I see the contracts baseball players get I can understand where he is coming from.

Why should baseball players get more when football is by far the more popular and dangerous sport?

I agree baseball salaries are crazy. But that doesn't affect football. I'd argue league minimum for FB is too low. Especially considering an agent's cut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy (Post 12213681)

Only the older players get paid more in Baseball. The younger guys I would hazard to say get paid less. Last year the slot 1/1 was something like 8 million bonus and are forced to play with that team for 6 years or more(depending on minor league time vs getting moved up quickly) before they hit free agency. The slot money goes down pretty quick if you are not the 1/1 pick. Just a few years ago the best player in baseball and MVP of the league was making less than a million a year.

I think I should get paid more.

See how that works Odell? Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 12213596)

Now I'm wondering why non-stars are paid so much. I understand Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers making millions because they're the faces of the league. But why does a special teams linebacker make $300,000 a year, and a nickel back and a third-string guard? Why does a punter make $900,000 a year? Presumably they're making that money because they're on a national stage, but no one knows who they are off the field and they're wearing a helmet on the field.

Is it because a Super Bowl win is worth a lot of money to an owner, and therefore they're truly being paid based on talent? What's a Super Bowl win worth in the modern NFL, other than some t-shirt sales and slightly higher attendance? In 1950, winning probably carried a strong bottom-line benefit, but that's not the case any more.

Or is it because these supporting characters are necessary to protect the stars and make them look good? Maybe Tony Romo wouldn't be a celebrity if he didn't have a decent team around him, so they have to pay the supporting cast. Still, that seems like a lot of money.

Or maybe it's a long-term thing where the league knows that people will stop watching if the punts go 20 yards and the special teams linebackers can't tackle, so it's a long-term investment.

Or maybe it's a simple union thing. The NFL is so awash in money that it doesn't really matter what the non-stars get paid. If they're going to gripe, throw a few hundred thousand at them and make them happy.

Why do non-stars get paid so much?

Primarily due to two factors -- the CBA and the fact that wins increase a franchise's value.

no. teachers should get paid more.

I will be lucky if I can hear in 10 years, if the stress does not kill me.

Bring that up with your union Odell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 12213570)

Relative to basketball and baseball and even hockey players, football players are underpaid. Would you rather stand in center field for 20 years and make $200 million, or get buried running up the middle by 1,500 pounds of steroid defenders, make $20 million, and retire when your knee starts bending the wrong way?

Having said that, football players are overpaid compared to other professions, but that's the perquisite of working in a field where you're essentially a national celebrity to some degree. When you think about most players, though, they're not even really national celebrities. I bet Marcus Peters or Jeremy Maclin or Alex Smith could visit 95 percent of the country in anonymity and they're among the bigger stars of the team.

But on the other hand NFL is a 16 game season. MLB is 162 . Look at Salvador Perez and tell me what kind of shape his knees are going to be in when he's 50. He'll be in a wheelchair.

Yes, they should.

The salary cap is set on a % of league income. It's growing quite steadily right now, should help.

Nope. They get paid less but have more employment opportunities. 22 starting positions (not including ST) is more than 4 times the size of basketball. If they don't like it, go try and play baseball or basketball instead.

They get paid more under the table like Brady anyway. Cap circumventing cheating eastwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by displacedinMN (Post 12213782)

no. teachers should get paid more.

I will be lucky if I can hear in 10 years, if the stress does not kill me.

Yes/No. Only less than 1% can play in a professional sport. A much higher percentage can manage to be a teacher. Now if they want more passionate and qualified teachers I wholly back increasing salaries of teachers. (No is to the possible thought they should make more than athletes)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball (Post 12213817)

They get paid more under the table like Brady anyway. Cap circumventing cheating eastwards.

An extremely small group of players get such so called treatment

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball (Post 12213817)

They get paid more under the table like Brady anyway. Cap circumventing cheating eastwards.

The cheating gets worse as you go eastward too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Couch-Potato (Post 12213560)

In reality, NFL players make less money than baseball and basketball players primarily because baseball and basketball have smaller rosters. The players’ percentage of the league’s revenue is similar in all three sports, but in the NFL that money is divided among a much larger pool of players — more than twice as many players as in Major League Baseball and more than four times as many players as in the National Basketball Association.

As a result, it’s unlikely that NFL players will ever make as much, on average, as MLB or NBA players. No matter how much Beckham thinks they should.

Interesting.. I have never thought of it this way before.

Hitting a baseball and pitching takes more skill than football. Playing basketball is more athletic and more skills than football. Football is more dangerous, but for the most part it doesn't take the skill as baseball and basketball.