Though it is true that athletes are incredibly pampered these days, I think there are a couple of things Nolan overlooks.
1) NFL contracts are not guaranteed. Nolan gave the example of Testaverde being knocked down a peg in salary if he underperformed. You are damned right he could be, and he wouldn't even be able to negotiate. NFL players can be cut at any time and they get paid *nothing* on the rest of their "contract".
2) Every single person on this board (though there may be one or two extreme exceptions and I even doubt that) has the right to go to whatever job will pay them the most money. If you are the finest printer-repairman Hewlett-Packard has ever seen, you have every right to call up ol' Carly and tell her to double your salary if Lexmark calls you with a better offer.
Now, it is true that these athletes did sign legal contracts guaranteeing that they would play for a specified amount of money, but when did we forget the principles of negotiating in good faith? If an athlete is suddenly worth $8 million on the open market rather than $3 million, how just is it for a team to take a hard stance and refuse to re-negotiate? Also, it is clear that in many cases the player has the right to simply not play if they so choose. Galloway and Mike Peca were not forced to pay any damages for breach of contract whatsoever for the time that they refused to play for the contracts they signed. I know I am not privy to every detail of every athlete's contract so perhaps it is within their rights to refuse to play if they feel the contract is too low.
3) Most of all, remember that entertainment (and sports) is a star-driven industry. In most cases, stars, and the wins they produce, are what puts asses in seats. I don't feel sorry for owners in the least because A) they routinely lie and claim financial hardship to get stadium deals, better CBAs, and B) they are huge marks for starpower and winning.
If owners wanted to be fiscally responsible, we would have a world of Donald Sterlings. The Clippers have never lost money, they have never requested anything from the community and (not coincidentally) they have never put together a contender. Sterling is no mark for winning. He runs his team responsibly like a business. Ticket prices are kept low, the highest salary in team history is an astoundingly low $4 million per year and he has been perfectly happy to play in whatever arena the community and/or private sector has provided him. Yet, when fans think of the worst owners in sports history, Sterling tops almost every list.
We live in a capitalist society. The very foundation of that is you are supposed to strive to get paid whatever you are worth on the open market. Obviously there are flaws and exceptions to that but if you don't like it, there are plenty of places in this world to go to escape it. It is time to face the facts: If you want your community or team to win, they will have to pay dearly for it. If your ownership is unwilling or unable to pay a player what he can get elsewhere, either pass a sales tax add-on to pay athlete's salaries or let that player move on.
1) NFL contracts are not guaranteed. Nolan gave the example of Testaverde being knocked down a peg in salary if he underperformed. You are damned right he could be, and he wouldn't even be able to negotiate. NFL players can be cut at any time and they get paid *nothing* on the rest of their "contract".
2) Every single person on this board (though there may be one or two extreme exceptions and I even doubt that) has the right to go to whatever job will pay them the most money. If you are the finest printer-repairman Hewlett-Packard has ever seen, you have every right to call up ol' Carly and tell her to double your salary if Lexmark calls you with a better offer.
Now, it is true that these athletes did sign legal contracts guaranteeing that they would play for a specified amount of money, but when did we forget the principles of negotiating in good faith? If an athlete is suddenly worth $8 million on the open market rather than $3 million, how just is it for a team to take a hard stance and refuse to re-negotiate? Also, it is clear that in many cases the player has the right to simply not play if they so choose. Galloway and Mike Peca were not forced to pay any damages for breach of contract whatsoever for the time that they refused to play for the contracts they signed. I know I am not privy to every detail of every athlete's contract so perhaps it is within their rights to refuse to play if they feel the contract is too low.
3) Most of all, remember that entertainment (and sports) is a star-driven industry. In most cases, stars, and the wins they produce, are what puts asses in seats. I don't feel sorry for owners in the least because A) they routinely lie and claim financial hardship to get stadium deals, better CBAs, and B) they are huge marks for starpower and winning.
If owners wanted to be fiscally responsible, we would have a world of Donald Sterlings. The Clippers have never lost money, they have never requested anything from the community and (not coincidentally) they have never put together a contender. Sterling is no mark for winning. He runs his team responsibly like a business. Ticket prices are kept low, the highest salary in team history is an astoundingly low $4 million per year and he has been perfectly happy to play in whatever arena the community and/or private sector has provided him. Yet, when fans think of the worst owners in sports history, Sterling tops almost every list.
We live in a capitalist society. The very foundation of that is you are supposed to strive to get paid whatever you are worth on the open market. Obviously there are flaws and exceptions to that but if you don't like it, there are plenty of places in this world to go to escape it. It is time to face the facts: If you want your community or team to win, they will have to pay dearly for it. If your ownership is unwilling or unable to pay a player what he can get elsewhere, either pass a sales tax add-on to pay athlete's salaries or let that player move on.
