I realize I didn't explain my point very well, if he wants to win SO BAD, why doesn't he play for peanuts so his team has more room under the salary cap to get upgrades, $8million a year buys some damn good talent. You really couldn't say this for all of the top guys because all of them are the breadwinners and it would be more of a financial hit, albeit relatively of course, but for these two it is a very manageable. All other top guys make 99% of their household income, he makes less than half.
Someone did briefly address if they thought anything would happen if he did play for the league minimum, is there anything that could stop him from doing it?
Because when you belong to a Union you have an obligation to your fellow members to not destroy the bargaining that has lead to the point that commands a certain pay scale for performance and tenure..
ya can't have Brady or likes dragging the pay scale back down to $$ figures ..
It destroy labor unions..
yes Brady can defer the money ..and yes Manning can takes a little less..IE the 4 million he is will to lower to this year..But at the same time those dollars are mixed into a performance clause and he need not lose any salary..
Ya just can't have superstars whose pay scale for them sets their price and for those below them playing for peanuts .
think of it this way...
Brady gets say 22 million..of course now Manning and Breeze get right around the same amount..Tier payment...Now there is an established salary for those a tier below them..These guys get around 12-17 million..around there using close numbers..now the tier below then gets x amount of millions just below them
ya can't have the top of your labor group accepting peanuts..it upsets the whole balance of pay scale..
The unions will have none of that horseshit..