Busting the whiny millionaire NFL players myth

Submitted by DesHow21 on

 

Time and again this tired argument is made that NFL players are just being crybaby millionaires that want to make 60 times what normal people (like teachers and coal miners) make as opposed to 50 times.

 

Here is my argument:

 

NFL'ers have a 4 year career on average . So at the median salary of $770k, they make 3 mill in a lifetime.

 

A UM grad has a career of roughly 30 years (say) at an avg salary of $70k. That adds up to 2.1 mill.

 

So there really isn't too much difference between an avg NFL'er (who by the way is at a  very very high percentile in terms of athletic talent every year just to even make it into the league) and a UM grad (who I am sure is also pretty darn high in terms in intellectual talent just to make it into UM ). 

 

Now if you compare NFL median salaries (and lifetime income) to a coal miner, I am going to stop you right there and say, the coal miner isnt making squat because that's just how much value our society puts for that labor. You could also argue that computer geeks pulling down $100k a year shouldnt get paid so much more than coal miners and teachers and firemen but that is a whole other argument. 

 

Note also that I am not even factoring the massive hazards of their "work" environment and the long-terms disabilities that they have to deal with after going through their NFL careers.

bigmc6000

March 4th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

See my other post - 3 million in 4 years is a HUGE difference than 2.1 across 30.

 

Oh, and it's not a tired argument, I also don't care about whiney actors who make sh!t tons of money.  When you're sitting on tons of gold and the rest of us are sitting on plastic you aren't going to get my sympathy...

bigmc6000

March 4th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^

It's just insanely rich people whining with insanely rich people and trying to say they *ONLY* make an average of 770k so they should get our sympathy.  To me at least they don't deserve it any more than the owners do.  When you're insanely rich and someone wants to pay you less I really don't care.  Maybe that's shallow of me or whatever but when 100's of millions of American and billions of people world wide would drop their jobs in a second to have yours I just can't imagine it's really that bad.

 

Yes, they have long term medical issues - who doesn't?  Isn't there a study that shows that in fact cheerleading is the most hazerdous sport?  What about the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders?  Do they have a union? Are they bitching at Jerry Jones and saying you make so much we should make more?

 

Once you've passed the 50x "living wage" threshold I just stop caring and I'm guessing I'm not alone on that one.

AAB

March 4th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^

like that is, I'm sorry, insanely fucking callous.  Players are literally killing themselves out there for our entertainment.  They're ruining their bodies and their brains, and it's all being dressed up in this macho toughness bullshit that makes everyone act like anyone unwilling to go out on the field when he can't even remember his damn name is a coward.  

Dave Duerson just killed himself.  Fred McNeill, who was a smart enough man to become a partner at a BigLaw firm, is 58 years old and can't remember his life anymore.  Autopsies of dead 40 year old football players are revealing that they have the brains of 80 year old men.  50 year old players who used to run 4.4 40s can't even fucking walk anymore because their knees and their hips are so torn and shattered from running into other men who also were 6'2 240 pounds and running as fast as they could.  it is HORRIFIC what happens to incredibly athletic people as a result of playing football.  

And the NFL has been pretending like it's no big deal, and the bullshit macho cutlure still persists, to the extent that a rule saying "hey, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to launch your head directly into another man's head" is greeted with derision and comments that we're "taking the football out of football."  

To act like they're no different from hedge fund managers or something is barbaric.  

GoBlueInNYC

March 4th, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^

Amen. The physical toll of playing in the NFL is vastly underestimated by easily 99% of the football-watching public. Not to mention the severe neurological damage they endure, leading to massive rates of various mental illnesses. (I remember seeing some statistic about the percentage of ex-NFLers who become homeless at some point after their career, and it was mind-blowing.)

I'm not following the NFL situation too closely, but from what I've gathered, it's a lot about the owners wanting to increase the burden of the players (e.g., lengthening the season) while also taking a larger chunk of the money. For that reason, I consider my(fairly uninformed)self on the side of the players. Not that my opinion matters in any practical way.

bigmc6000

March 4th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^

When a NASCAR driver gets in a wreck and breaks his leg he gets your sympathy? 

 

Do I feel bad for these guys? Absolutely, brain injuries are awful and it doesn't matter how much money you make it's still going to suck.

 

That being said - if, say, a professional eater got diagnosed with diabetes and other insane complications from, surprise, eating too much and were going to shorten his life would you have sympathy for him?  I'd feel bad for him but smypathetic? No, that's a risk he chose to take by doing what he does.  It's not even an issue of their risk outstripping their pay as pointed out that public servents don't get paid nearly as much for jobs that are far more dangerous.

 

This is an avoidable problem, 100% avoidable. If you don't want to play in the NFL - don't.  Ok, let's say you couldnt' get a job doing anything else, ok. Well why don't you wear that padded helmet that guy on the 49ers used to wear?  Why don't you wear thicker pads? There are plenty of things that can be done to make things safer and rather than asking the union to make it more safe if they are going to take a pay cut they only care about  the pay cut (don't start with the 18 game schedule thing - that's a tertiary argument).

yoopergoblue

March 4th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^

These former players who are having these health issues weren't making the millions of dollars todays players are.  I am all for giving these players good insurance when they are done playing because of the physicality of the game.  There is seriously something wrong with an NFL rookie making 45 million in guaranteed money without ever stepping on a professional field.  These athletes also need to learn how to manage their money better when they need to ask to borrow money from fellow players to get through a lockout year.

Yost Ghost

March 6th, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^

They aren't killing themselves for our entertainment they are killing themselves for a fat paycheck. No one held a gun to their head and told them they had to play football. Yes it sucks when you see a guy go down due to head/brain or spinal injuries. But the long term degenerative issues they face that are unavoidable due to their profession I'm not going to loose sleep over. They have, and should have, excellent medical insurance just for that reason. They get paid large because of the risks. Most of us weren't born with the God given talents to do what they do. If we could we would do it in a heart beat to make that kind of bank.

The reason this owner/player issue is even an issue is because they're all squabbling over money. How to divide up a very fat pie. The owners, who take all the risk and could be ruined if the franshice goes under, feel they should make more than the players and the players feel otherwise. I don'thave a lot of sympathy for either side but if it weren't for owners taking on the risk of ownership the players have no jobs.

MI Expat NY

March 4th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^

Again, so your sympathies lie with the billionaire owners?  Why should NFL players take less so that the owners can take more?  Because the players are already rich?  That makes sense...

The players aren't asking for more, they're simply asking to not make less at a time when the NFL continues to earn more and more money.  Look at the revenues that come into the leage, the TV package alone pays $9B.  That's $281M per team.  This doesn't include ticket sails, team paraphanalia, stadium advertisements, etc.  If an NFL owner isn't making serious profits every year, it's their own fault.  And of course, this is all on top of the value of the franchise which will never really go down because there's always some other billionaire out there that wants to own a glamour asset, and a stupid municipality willing to build the team a new stadium on the tax-payers dime.  

You absolutely can't blame the players in this conflict.  All they're doing is standing up and saying why should we take less just so you can add to your obscene profits?  

 

aaamichfan

March 4th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^

Personally, I'd like to see the NFL owners get a decent ROI. I'm not really interested in seeing the NFL resort to gimmicks and cheapening of the product like the NBA has done. Bob Kraft of the Patroits earns a lot of money, but all owners are not in the same boat.

I'm more interested in seeing the NFL remain a great product than I am with making sure the players have a six-figure pension plan until death. On a percentage basis, I'm not really sure you can say the owners' profits are "obscene".

Also, there absolutely needs to be a rookie salary cap. There is absolutely no reason for Vernon Gholston to have made $25M over the last couple years.

 

Zone Left

March 4th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^

Try Google for 30 seconds first: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

In 2007, the team with the highest revenue was the Redskins at $327 million (17% return). #2 was the Patriots with $282 million (14% return). That's not obscene at all--and a lot lower than a self-made billionaire is used to earning.

This is one of the worst threads (not posts) in blog history.

Yost Ghost

March 6th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

...the more accurate representation. Owners aren't just guys who make a couple of million dollars over a lifetime. Owners are the guys who ponied up the $1bil (which took years to amass) for the franchise, have revenues of $270mil, a payroll of $178mil, makes less than $75 mil after all is said and done and could lose their whole net worth depending on how the franchise fares.

Baldbill

March 4th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^

Through the power of compounded interest, if you simply set aside a decent amount for four years you can never work the rest of your life if you so choose. I am not particularly sypathetic to either side in this argument, but I think the players need to play, take the good money and settle down.

SpartanLove

March 4th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^

I would assume this guy isn't in accounting/finance.  The time value of money of over 3 million in 4 years compared to 2 million over 30 years is huge.  You can live a comfortable lifestyle off of pure interest on moderate investments.  This isn't even taking into account the immediate purchasing power of receiving that cash up front in that 4 year span.  Seems like an uninformed/illogical post.  

It's also not the fault of the owners that so many players are irresponsible with their money.  I don't have much sympathy for guys making 700K per year a few years after college while having 0 debt.  That's a huge leg up on the rest of the population and you can afford to be a bit risky with your investments at such a young age with that cash flow.  

MI Expat NY

March 4th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^

The counter argument is that football players have an entire lifetime to start a second career.

Generally, I agree with you though.  The players provide the entire service, their demands as to percentage of revenues going to player salaries are not unreasonable.

WolvinLA2

March 4th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^

Or how about a football coach?  A former NFL player would have a pretty easy time getting a job as a head coach of a major HS program or as an assistant at a small college, at least.  And that's to start.  No, you won't start off making 100k, but if you just made 770k for the last 4 years, you can probably handle making 30k a year to start since you won't need to worry about paying off debt, putting money into savings, or anything like that since you likely have a few hundred grand in the bank.  And if you don't, then I certainly don't have any sympathy for you. 

Maizeforlife

March 4th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^

The argument of relative income for their profession is much more valid than saying that they really aren't overpaid.  Like you said, they could always get a job afterward.  This whole potential lockout of which group of rich people will become even more rich is showing the country what these people really are: greedy. 

ChasingRabbits

March 4th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^

The "workers" at most compamnies make even less of a % than the football players of the total income that their companies bring in. Nothing about pro sports can be compared to real life.

And as for the original argument, add in present / future value of funds earned and see what you come up with.  Its not even close.  You can use league min. and go 4 years and you still won't be close.

MI Expat NY

March 4th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^

But in most companies, the "workers" aren't literally the product.  You're right, it's nothing like real life.  When you buy a shiny new Apple product, you're purchasing something into which has gone all sorts of value: the raw materials, the manufacturers man-power, the patent and trademark rights, the design teams efforts, Steve Jobs' "vision" ( /eyeroll), etc.  Now comparetthat to a football game.  You receive entertainment.  Forming over 90% of the basis of that entertainment is the players.  The two situations aren't comparable and I never tried to make the comparisson.  All I said was that the players demands are reasonable.  

DesHow21

March 4th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^

Let us not pretend that college FB is anything other a full-time job. Even clean proud academic schools like UM have told their athletes they should not expect to be able to graduate from the med school while playing college FB (the exeptions can be counted on one hand). 

The general studies degree only gets you so far. 

 

But wait, all the horrific injuries they go through makes the job of building a career even harder. Memory loss, severe disabilites etc are not something you overcome by taking a tylenol you know.

Mitch Cumstein

March 4th, 2011 at 2:57 PM ^

Your entire premise is based on the assumption that players are somehow forced into this profession with no other options.  They could always choose not to go pro and try to get another job.  Or they could choose majors which have actual career options afterward (Med school isn't the only education path that can find a job post football).  There are plenty of majors that can lead to potential employment (especially for well connected athletes) that are easy enough to maintain while on the team.  Further, what is preventing these NFL players from investing their earnings into their own education and going back to school after their pro careers to enhance their skill set to find a job?

You're also operating under the assumption that every former football player suffers from memory loss and chronic injuries that prevent them from getting a normal job.  I don't really think this is the case either. 

AAB

March 4th, 2011 at 3:01 PM ^

1. It's a mistake to act like incredibly impoverished kids from Pahokee have the same educational and professional opportunities as a kid from Royal Oak.

2. People, as an entire species, suffer from insane levels of optimism bias.  No 18 year old football player in the country thinks he's going to end up with dementia as a result of playing football.  

Mitch Cumstein

March 4th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^

I don't disagree, but I think there is a huge difference between saying "impoverished kids from Pahokee don't have the same educational and professional opportunities as a kid from Royal Oak" and saying "impoverished kids from Pahokee can't get a job after obtaining a degree from a 4 year college".

jmblue

March 4th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^

 It's a mistake to act like incredibly impoverished kids from Pahokee have the same educational and professional opportunities as a kid from Royal Oak.

Are we talking about athletes or non-athletes?  If it's athletes, those guys often get the opportunity to attend schools they could never dream of attending otherwise - schools that the Royal Oak kid may not be admitted to - and for free.  Whether Martavious Odoms received a quality K-12 education hardly matters at this point.  He's going to graduate from the University of Michigan, and will always have that on his résumé.  And regarding professional opportunities, if you're a former Michigan football player, you'll find an employer out there willing to hire you.  

Now, if we're talking about non-athletes from Pahokee, well, that's an entirely different story.  

 

MI Expat NY

March 4th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^

I agree with your general premise that the players aren't "whiny."  But from your example, a 4 year NFL player, they should be able to persue a career when their playing days are done.  Many do.  Some stay in football.  Others seek outside pursuits.  Yes, many have some sort of disabilities following football, but there are too many succesful former football players to pretend that all of their lives just stop at age 27.  Some players do struggle to do anything after their careers were done, but that's more on them rather than their decision to play football.  

Trying to make a general comparisson between the average NFL player and your average michigan graduate just doesn't work if you're going to pretend that there is no earning potential after the NFL.

On another note, so a "general studies degree only gets you so far," aren't there other ways to make money in life?  You know, like having nationwide connections through football?  Or being able to use some of your $3M in earnings to go back to school for a Masters Degree?  When did the options become Med School or pro football career?

Blue in Yarmouth

March 4th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^

That doesn't change the fact that they are given a free education. They may choose to do jack shit with it, but they have the opportunity to get a very useful degree if they so want.

Most owners of professional sports franchises have much more on the go than a sports team. They have been the ones taking the risk in the business world to make the franchise a success (if it in fact is a success) and deserve what they get for the risk they take.

Don't pretend every sporting franchise out there is a gold mine. Many don't make any money at all and in todays economic environment a decent business man would be crazy to not try an curtail the salaries of his employees, especially when they make what these guys do.

I used to think they were fairly compensated for what they did (pro athletes) until I went through 12 years of university and studied my ass of to become a cardiologist. On a fairly routine basis I save people's lives either directly or indirectly and get paid a fraction of what these guys do. I will say that I thnk they desrve to be paid far more than actors...Most grossly overpaid group of people on the planet in my opinion.

Oh, and lets not pretend that they are the only memebers of the working world who take on risk in their jobs...Give me a break! Firemen, policemen, armed forces, prison guards, etc etc etc. Your arguements are beyond ludicrous, though I have often found that with your posts so I shouldn't be surprised.

MI Expat NY

March 4th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^

Every sports franchise isn't a goldmine (I'm looking at you Phoenix Coyotes), but every NFL franchise pretty much is.  Why do you think the NFL refuses to open its books to the players?

Luckily, we don't need the NFL books to realize how much money the average NFL owner is taking in.  TV contracts are worth $9B and split almost completely equally.  So that's $281M/team.  Now lets say a team sells 60,000 tickets for 10 games at $50 a ticket, which I feel is an extremely conservative estimite.  That's another $30M.  Throw in parking, concessions, paraphanalia sales, in stadium marketing, naming rights, etc.  Has to be at least another $10M, again, a conservative figure.  So even the least revenue producing teams in the league make $320M in revenues a year.  If NFL owners aren't sitting on a goldmine, it's due to pure business ineptitude.  

Also, I'd argue very few of todays owners really did anything to make the league a success.  Yes, some of the original ownership families are still there, but the generation that made the NFL what it is are gone.  Today's owners have benefited from the structure decided on long ago and the boom in TV revenues for all sports.  They didn't create it, they're just benefitting.  

ESNY

March 4th, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^

What union of a non-public company gets to peruse the books of their employer?  

I certainly wouldn't give my books out to them, assuming I had a team.  So they could skew the results/numbers as they see fit?  Would you trust the union to keep the information confidential?  I wouldn't.    Not to mention, the union gets all sorts of financial data and getting the official books of any or all teams, wouldn't really give them much more information than they already have.

But since the GB Packers are a public company, their books are available and have been widely disseminated.  Yes they are still making a profit but its decreased each of the last 5 years as player salaries have escalated and they benefit from a rabid fan base, haven't built a new stadium in the recent past so they don't have any debt servicing (although i'm sure you can say they haven't maximized revenue without a new stadium)

jmblue

March 4th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^

The general studies degree only gets you so far.

Your academic major rarely ever matters when it comes to getting a job.  Where you went to school is generally a bigger deal - but even that isn't that crucial.  The most important thing is just having a college degree, which is a prerequisite for most decent jobs.  And these guys get one for free.  

bigmc6000

March 4th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^

What you're saying is these players get the same shit the rest of us get?  Sure, they have an increased chance of brain injuries but, seriously, what career field are you thinking about that you can't recover from a broken bone?  Depression? Shit, don't even start with that - something like 1/3 of american TEENS have depression.

 

I'll give you alzheimers and dementia but, again, these aren't things that other people don't experience and if you were smart with your money you'd certainly live a better life than average Joe Schmo who got it.  And, again, if it's really that big of a concern to you just stay in school and don't go to the NFL...  These guys know the risks and are willing to take it considering the cash, it's a choice they make and with the consumer driven nature of our country it's a decision most everyone else would make as well (let's just not even get into that...)

 

Doesn't everyone remember Magic Johnson - dude got HIV and as far as I can tell he's as healthy as can be yet all the people who get HIV and aren't rich end up dying much, much younger.  There's a reason South Park made an episode about it...

AAB

March 4th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^

of pro football players to the rates for the population at large, then come back and tell me it's "shit we all get." 

And no, I don't believe they know the risks, for the exact same reason that so many 16 year old kids drive like morons.  No one ever thinks it's going to be them.  Our brains are hardwired that way.

bigmc6000

March 4th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^

... doesn't negate the point that millions of people still get the same stuff.

 

I found your quote.

The Michigan researchers found that 6.1 percent of players age 50 and above reported that they had received a dementia-related diagnosis, five times higher than the cited national average, 1.2 percent.

 

Ok, fair enough, now let's look at other diseases.  Ya know, just for perspective...

12.64% of women will end up with breast cancer by age 95

16.67% of men will get prostate cancer with 2.8% dying from it

over 2% of the world population has down syndrome

Brain cancer: 6.3% of men and 3.2% of women

 

Is 6.1% getting a dementia diagnosis a lot? Yeah, it is but unlike all the rest of the stuff I listed it's avoidable... If you would rather be in the 1.2 than the 6.1 all you have to do is choose. 

 

Guys who work on oil rigs in some of the most dangerous places in the world make the same decision - safety vs money.  It's a risk and with higher risk comes higher pay but, uh, NFL players risks aren't anywhere close to the risks of, as others have pointed out, firefighters, police men, coal miners, oil riggers, etc etc and they don't get paid nearly as much and in the case of firefighters and police men they are actually risking their life to save others.  We won't even bother going into the military statistics...

 

well, screw that, I looked it up, 12.5% of troops coming back from Iraq/Afghanistan have PTSD. 

 

Point is - it's a risk they are willing to take and when you actually have a chance to protect yourself (wear that ugly-ass padded helmet for crying out loud) and you don't, well, as Forrest Gump said - stupid is as stupid does...

BlueCE

March 4th, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^

This makes no sense... sorry... So at age 27 (say after average 4 year career) you have $3MM to invest/start company/get another job... sounds like an AWESOME place to be in at 27 years old...  Your career is not just your first job... I am in my early 30s and I've worked at 5 different jobs in 4 different industries and each in different roles.

 

The question about the players salary is whether they are receiving what they are earning... with unions involved it is hard to know what is the right salary for players (are more tenured players bargaining for their advantage, are current players disregarding the need of players not yet in the league, etc).  The teams need the players and the players need the team (and the league).  Players risk their body at the chance to make millions, owners risk millions to make more millions... what is the right return/salary for each I do not know as I am not knowledgeable enough in the space.

Wolvercane

March 4th, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^

If you really wanted to make a point, you should also take into account the time value of money to figure out the NPV of the NFL vs a UofM grad career earnings (P.S. I am going to use a fairly conservative assumption of a 5% discount rate)

NFL Player:

(770K/5%)*(1-(1/(1.05^4)) = $3.1 Million

UofM Grad:

(70K/5%)*(1-(1/1.05^30)) = $2.1 Million

I would consider $1 to be fairly significant. But of course as Brandon Graham has shown us, Michigan Men are much better at managing their money then others. 

white_pony_rocks

March 4th, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^

the owners should not have to pay rookies as much as they do and the players should not have to play 18 games.  other than that both sides are just being greedy and whiny

bigmc6000

March 4th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^

You say there really isn't that much of a difference?  Let's check the

 

Chart?

 

Chart...

 

NFL Player Value Above UM Grad
1%  $      1,642,161.11
2%  $      2,506,907.34
3%  $      3,663,609.12

 

That's once a year compounding and associated interest rates.  If you want to look at how many more years it would take a UM grad you're looking at 18, 25 and 32 years.

 

I know people don't always invest and blah blah blah but, seriously, NFL players make more in 4 years than most any of us will make across their entire lifetimes and if they aren't completely retarded with their money those 4 years of work will double the 70k/year employee across those 30 years.  And that's also assuming they go on to sit on their asses for the next 26 years - really not all that likely IMO...

 

Yes, they are rich.  The issue isnt' relaly the whining as both sides whine it's that both sides are filthy rich and thus I just don't care.