Richard Sherman: Players need to be willing to strike

[ivotuk]

Guilty as accused. I must confess I was just responding to other posts without actually seeing the interview. But it's not an option for me at work. :embarassed:

 

[pmedic920]

I don't understand the vitriol for Sherman in here. What he said was 100% right on the money. The players in the NFL are widely considered the worst compensated of the major sports leagues. That, in a sport that has some of the shortest careers and most severe life threatening repercussions with CTE and brain damage. They are also in the healthiest and most profitable major sports league in the nation. They should be getting a bigger cut of the profits, no doubt, in my opinion.

This argument should have nothing to do with the pay of teachers, or police or anyone else. They are completely separate from one another. It's not as if NFL players demanding more money from the NFL is going to decrease a teachers wage...

This is a free market and the NFL has created a commodity that each one of us consumes in one way or another. It's pretty simple supply and demand. Why should I be mad at the players wanting more of the pot? It's not like the money is changing in any way. So in a sense people getting mad at the players for wanting more money are advocating for giving the Billionaire owners more money instead. Why the heck would you argue for more money for the Billionaire owners rather than wanting to see more of it go to the players that you actually root for (Again it's not like the overall money is changing, it's just being distributed different)?

I'm not trying to say they are the same, or they should be equal.

My point is, that they get no sympathy nor support from me when they claim there not making enough money.

They get support from me when they get on the court/field and play.

My opinion is, that's it's wrong for them to compare their money to the owners money. They shouldn't be basing their desired compensation on the profits of the NFL.

The RoughNeck that carries drill stem /sucker rod all day, and risks life/limb doesn't get to compare his 75k to the profit that Exon or Shell makes.

I don't expect to change anybody's mind, and nobody is changing mine on this.
I simply can't get behind any athlete that's already making big money (even the NFL minimums) complaining about their boss or the establishment making bigger money.

I'm a public servant, I knew going in what my earning potential was, I'm not complaining, I'm only voicing my opinion.

Already said it, I hope they all get as much as they can but the fact still remains, every Pro athlete on the face of the planet could go on strike, nobody would die or go hungry. Only the fans would be hurt. It's the fans that make the Pro athlete what he is.
Without the fans, he/she are nothing.

Sure, farmers, teachers, and cops are completely different from pro athletes but when I look at a topic like this, I can't help but to look at all of them in an order of importance to our society, especially when I try to assign a value to them.

Imagine for a minute, what if the people that handle our country's waste went on strike.
Just think what 30 days without them would be like for our nation. 6 months, a year?

I'm cool with them (pro athletes) making all they can get but when they start talking about going on strike they lose my support because they are only hurting the people that make their career possible.
The Fans.

 

[Seymour]

..... (even the NFL minimums)

Aaron and Olivia split up in April.

There will be no more NFL Mini Munns (unless he was friends with Tate). :twisted:

 

[ZagHawk]

2 things I'm fairly certain of on this.

1) There is some truth to what Sherman said.

2) Paul Allen is listening carefully, and taking notes.

I'm fairly certain that #2 is unlikely

 

[StoneCold]

I don't understand the vitriol for Sherman in here. What he said was 100% right on the money. The players in the NFL are widely considered the worst compensated of the major sports leagues. That, in a sport that has some of the shortest careers and most severe life threatening repercussions with CTE and brain damage. They are also in the healthiest and most profitable major sports league in the nation. They should be getting a bigger cut of the profits, no doubt, in my opinion.

This argument should have nothing to do with the pay of teachers, or police or anyone else. They are completely separate from one another. It's not as if NFL players demanding more money from the NFL is going to decrease a teachers wage...

This is a free market and the NFL has created a commodity that each one of us consumes in one way or another. It's pretty simple supply and demand. Why should I be mad at the players wanting more of the pot? It's not like the money is changing in any way. So in a sense people getting mad at the players for wanting more money are advocating for giving the Billionaire owners more money instead. Why the heck would you argue for more money for the Billionaire owners rather than wanting to see more of it go to the players that you actually root for (Again it's not like the overall money is changing, it's just being distributed different)?

I'm not trying to say they are the same, or they should be equal.

My point is, that they get no sympathy nor support from me when they claim there not making enough money.

They get support from me when they get on the court/field and play.

My opinion is, that's it's wrong for them to compare their money to the owners money. They shouldn't be basing their desired compensation on the profits of the NFL.

The RoughNeck that carries drill stem /sucker rod all day, and risks life/limb doesn't get to compare his 75k to the profit that Exon or Shell makes.

I don't expect to change anybody's mind, and nobody is changing mine on this.
I simply can't get behind any athlete that's already making big money (even the NFL minimums) complaining about their boss or the establishment making bigger money.

I'm a public servant, I knew going in what my earning potential was, I'm not complaining, I'm only voicing my opinion.

Already said it, I hope they all get as much as they can but the fact still remains, every Pro athlete on the face of the planet could go on strike, nobody would die or go hungry. Only the fans would be hurt. It's the fans that make the Pro athlete what he is.
Without the fans, he/she are nothing.

Sure, farmers, teachers, and cops are completely different from pro athletes but when I look at a topic like this, I can't help but to look at all of them in an order of importance to our society, especially when I try to assign a value to them.

Imagine for a minute, what if the people that handle our country's waste went on strike.
Just think what 30 days without them would be like for our nation. 6 months, a year?

I'm cool with them (pro athletes) making all they can get but when they start talking about going on strike they lose my support because they are only hurting the people that make their career possible.
The Fans.

Is anyone allowed to go on strike?

 

[c_hawkbob]

I agree that if players want change the only real way to bring it about is to strike.

But is change really necessary? The trend right now is already toward shorter contracts with greater guarantees, before long the average second contract a star player signs will be 3 years fully guaranteed anyway with or without a strike. What the players really need are agents that aren't looking for the longest term/highest dollar amount imaginary deal so they can tout their own success when trying to attract new clients, and that's on the players, not the owners.

The only thing really worth negotiating (other than operational details like OTA's and pensions and such) is the revenue split with the owners which is currently I believe 48.5 % of all revenue*. If they want more the only way they'll get it is to strike.The size of player salaries when compared to other sports is really not relevant because no matter how you want to word it, X % of the pie will be bigger for an 11 man basketball team than a 53 man football team.

* Before the current CBA 57 % was the number being thrown around but i don't believe the players lost that much of a percentage to the new CBA but rather to a redefining of "all revenues" ...

 

[HawkGA]

This is such a horrible take on so many different levels. :lol:

First of all the NFL made over $13 billion last year. It made over $12 billion in 2015. The NBA by comparison made $5.2 billion in 2015 and are expected to pull in around $8 billion this past year. MLB came in around $10 billion. The amount of players on each side is irrelevant. 3rd string OT's aren't going to suddenly make Derek Carr money in the same manner that the 14th guy on the Hornets roster isn't going to be paid like James Harden and that some fringe level talent won't be paid like Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw in MLB. The star players have VERY flimsy guarantees in their contract at BEST .. and the sport they play is infinitely more punishing on the body.

So lets break it down..

NFL players generated nearly 2.5x as much money in 2015 as NBA players.. made nearly 2x as money as NBA players in 2016 (with a new TV deal and a lot more spending money) .. made more money than MLB with 1/10 of the games. And again.. you can't reiterate this enough.. NBA and MLB contracts are fully guaranteed. NFL contracts are anything but that.

So how in the world is that fair for the players when they are playing a sport that can literally lead to your brain being damaged so badly that later in life you're barely able to function.

There's a lot of material in here so I hate to shortchange any of it, but how can you say the number of players doesn't matter? If the NFL makes twice as much money as the NBA but there are 10 times as many people to spread it amongst . . . um, yes, that matters.

 

[Rocket]

Sherman needs to shut the hell up.

I second that.

 

[fenderbender123]

Players only need to be paid whatever it takes for them to agree to do the job. It ain't complicated.

 

[LolaRox]

Sherman needs to shut the hell up. I'm getting sick and tired of his antics, and outspoken nature. I didn't mind it for the last few years, but now it seems like he has the need to make headlines every, single, week.

Wow. It's not like Sherman purchased airtime on Network TV to blast this opinion. The MLB, NFL, NBA salary differences has been a hot topic since NBA Free agency started and many athletes have been weighing in on it. Sherman attended the ESPYs last night and was asked a specific question about the topic and gave his opinion, I don't see how that is 'antics'

I don't understand the vitriol for Sherman in here. What he said was 100% right on the money. The players in the NFL are widely considered the worst compensated of the major sports leagues. That, in a sport that has some of the shortest careers and most severe life threatening repercussions with CTE and brain damage. They are also in the healthiest and most profitable major sports league in the nation. They should be getting a bigger cut of the profits, no doubt, in my opinion.

This argument should have nothing to do with the pay of teachers, or police or anyone else. They are completely separate from one another. It's not as if NFL players demanding more money from the NFL is going to decrease a teachers wage...

This is a free market and the NFL has created a commodity that each one of us consumes in one way or another. It's pretty simple supply and demand. Why should I be mad at the players wanting more of the pot? It's not like the money is changing in any way. So in a sense people getting mad at the players for wanting more money are advocating for giving the Billionaire owners more money instead. Why the heck would you argue for more money for the Billionaire owners rather than wanting to see more of it go to the players that you actually root for (Again it's not like the overall money is changing, it's just being distributed different)?

All of this.

I also agree with Sherman, if players want change they will have to strike, the owners are not just going to freely give them more.

In my opinion the players make all the sacrifices and take on all the risks (short & long term). If they want a bigger slice of the pie, I won't hold it against them. In fact, I'd be rooting for them to get it even if they strike to get it.

 

[brimsalabim]

The NFL players did get screwed this last contract but you they need to take that up with the union. Striking would work in negotiations. The owners have been making a killing and it hasn't flowed downhill as much as it should. The fact that the owners make so much money and force tax payers to finance the stadiums blows my mind.

Paying NFL players even more money will not help the tax payer in those stadium deals. I'm fine with players agreeing to pay their share though. Let the millionaires and billionaires shoulder the burden instead of the common working man who's already struggling to make ends meet.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

IDK.

I DO KNOW THIS.
The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

I get it, at least I think I do.
But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

Football players on strike, ok.

What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

What if our grocery workers went on strike?

It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

MLB
NFL
NBA
All went on strike and refused to play?

I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
Would yours?

You live in a country in which corporate interests are largely protected in the name of "free market". As such, NFL franchises charge what they do for tickets, television rights, merchandise, etc. based on what the market will bear with little interest in the affordability of the product to the rank-and-file consumer as long as sufficient numbers will still consume the product to achieve desired returns.

As such, you have an amount of money earned which is then distributed among the various parties that make up the league which includes the owners and players.

There is no relationship between those parties and the rank-and-file consumers with regard to compensation. It is not about what we make vs what they make. It is about how the overall revenue of the NFL is shared. What we make vs what they make is more about the total amount of revenue the NFL has to share. Once that figure is established, we no longer have any relationship to the division of the income.

We can say the players don't deserve to make so much but to do so assumes the owner deserves to make more, and all he does is sit around being rich. He has people to do the team management and coaches and hot dog vendors and all that to do all the work for him, but he's only going to pay them as much as they demand and no more, and those rates are somewhat set by what similar employees in similar capacities earn.

That is to say if the players make less, the owners make more. Not the hot dog vendors, not the security personnel, not the people who scrape up Tyler Lockett and put him on a stretcher. They all make the same regardless of total league revenue.

The salary cap this year is $167 million. If we argue the players should be making something closer to $150 million, then we argue the owner deserves to make $17 million more. If you think your salary pales in comparison to the average NFL player, can you conceive how paltry your salary looks to the owner of an NFL franchise? The total sum of money you will make in your entire is virtually meaningless to him. It's just a different world.

So the real argument is over who deserves the money that the league takes in - the person who owns the franchise or the players who *are* the franchise?

 

[NOLAHawk]

The NFL players did get screwed this last contract but you they need to take that up with the union. Striking would work in negotiations. The owners have been making a killing and it hasn't flowed downhill as much as it should. The fact that the owners make so much money and force tax payers to finance the stadiums blows my mind.

B'S. If it's a killing they are making return it to the fans. Less ads, more tailgates. I pay enough

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[Josea16]

Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

IDK.

I DO KNOW THIS.
The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

I get it, at least I think I do.
But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

Football players on strike, ok.

What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

What if our grocery workers went on strike?

It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

MLB
NFL
NBA
All went on strike and refused to play?

I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
Would yours?

You live in a country in which corporate interests are largely protected in the name of "free market". As such, NFL franchises charge what they do for tickets, television rights, merchandise, etc. based on what the market will bear with little interest in the affordability of the product to the rank-and-file consumer as long as sufficient numbers will still consume the product to achieve desired returns.

As such, you have an amount of money earned which is then distributed among the various parties that make up the league which includes the owners and players.

There is no relationship between those parties and the rank-and-file consumers with regard to compensation. It is not about what we make vs what they make. It is about how the overall revenue of the NFL is shared. What we make vs what they make is more about the total amount of revenue the NFL has to share. Once that figure is established, we no longer have any relationship to the division of the income.

We can say the players don't deserve to make so much but to do so assumes the owner deserves to make more, and all he does is sit around being rich. He has people to do the team management and coaches and hot dog vendors and all that to do all the work for him, but he's only going to pay them as much as they demand and no more, and those rates are somewhat set by what similar employees in similar capacities earn.

That is to say if the players make less, the owners make more. Not the hot dog vendors, not the security personnel, not the people who scrape up Tyler Lockett and put him on a stretcher. They all make the same regardless of total league revenue.

The salary cap this year is $167 million. If we argue the players should be making something closer to $150 million, then we argue the owner deserves to make $17 million more. If you think your salary pales in comparison to the average NFL player, can you conceive how paltry your salary looks to the owner of an NFL franchise? The total sum of money you will make in your entire is virtually meaningless to him. It's just a different world.

So the real argument is over who deserves the money that the league takes in - the person who owns the franchise or the players who *are* the franchise?

Spot on.

 

[KiwiHawk]

It's important to recall, that the rookie pay scale was somewhat popular among the veteran players in 2011, because it was sold to them at the time, that with capped rookie pay -- the rank and file veteran players would reap the benefits and contracts previously paid to unproven rookies.

But that didn't happen at all. Instead rank and file veterans became expendable in lieu of cheaper rookies who were significantly cheaper if somewhat less skilled. The theoretical benefits/windfall that was supposed to reallocate salary to veterans never happened.

Instead, it simply created a star dominated/top heavy salary distribution where you have maybe 5-6 star contracts, a dozen vet minimum deals and around 20-25 rookie deal players. With a very small handful of "Tony McDaniel" type contracts that were above the minimum. The league will not be able to slip the same falsehood by the players.

This was a case where the players' greed bit them in the ass.

The owners wanted less risk because rookie salaries were getting out of control. Rookies were cashing big signing bonuses and flaming out, leaving them cap-strapped and out of pocket for nothing. So they sold the vets the idea of paying the rookies less - the implication being the vets could make more.

Of course none of the players doing the negotiating would fall under the new rookie rules, so why not take some of that pie on top of the increased cap? Not like the lowered rookie scales would bother them any - that was for future guys to deal with.

What is really needed is better distribution of the total pool among the players. If a guy makes 25 million over his career instead of 30 million (maybe add a zero for a QB), his life is not affected in any appreciable way. He will either invest wisely and retire rich, or he'll blow the money or be scammed for it and he'll end up broke. If he keeps it all and retires rich, the difference is just a number on a piece of paper.

On the other end of the scale, the difference between a $500,000 career and a $2,000,000 career is massive for a guy who blew out a knee before he ever got to sign for the big money.

That's the issue the players need to look into.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

In my opinion the players make all the sacrifices and take on all the risks (short & long term). If they want a bigger slice of the pie, I won't hold it against them. In fact, I'd be rooting for them to get it even if they strike to get it.

Bottom of the chain is the consumer...the paying fan. I have my doubts if fans will pay $200 a game to sit in the nose bleed section( Row GG) of the #300 section.....but what do I know....a fool and his money are easily separated.

 

[KiwiHawk]

In my opinion the players make all the sacrifices and take on all the risks (short & long term). If they want a bigger slice of the pie, I won't hold it against them. In fact, I'd be rooting for them to get it even if they strike to get it.

Bottom of the chain is the consumer...the paying fan. I have my doubts if fans will pay $200 a game to sit in the nose bleed section( Row GG) of the #300 section.....but what do I know....a fool and his money are easily separated.

That has nothing to do with player salaries, or how much of the pie players get.

Price is ALWAYS about how much the consumer will pay for a commodity, whether it's an NFL ticket or a Slurpee(tm). In the case of an NFL ticket, supply is limited to the number of seats, and demand for Seahawks tickets is higher than the supply of seats.

Profit margin only determines whether or not it is viable to sell a product, not what the product is sold for. If you can sell it for more than it costs, and if that margin is worth the hassle of selling it, then you sell it. If not then you don't. If you can sell it for a massive margin, then you don't lower the price; you just make more money.

 

[chris98251]

Problem is your comparing things to the NBA, an unbalanced league that has shown it's inability to manage itself well, game is in the crapper at the Professional level. If you like One on One basketball yeah it may look good, no defense etc, watch the game in the 70's and early 80's it had it all, the team play, defense, and athletes, before was a lot of team play and defense but limited athletes.

 

[Popeyejones]

Lots of good posts in here, but we can dispel the notion that Sherman is wrong to complain with just four simple numbers:

Share of MLB revenue that goes to players: 57.5%

Share of NBA revenue that goes to players: 51%

Share of NHL revenue that goes to players: 50%

Share of NFL revenue that goes to players: 47%

People are free to argue that ALL of these are too low, or too high if they want, but it's basically impossible to argue that in comparison to all the other major sports NFL players aren't getting screwed.

You don't need to talk about roster size, non-guaranteed contracts, etc., etc. to do that. It just takes those four numbers.

I think anybody will have a CONSIDERABLY uphill battle arguing that the league that makes far and away the most revenue should have the worst split between owners and players (when there's simply more money flowing around there's no way to justify shortchanging people).

Good on Sherman.

Also, anyone saying the players shouldn't strike also needs to account for the fact that the lockout WAS the owner's equivalent of a strike last time around.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I don't understand the vitriol for Sherman in here. What he said was 100% right on the money. The players in the NFL are widely considered the worst compensated of the major sports leagues. That, in a sport that has some of the shortest careers and most severe life threatening repercussions with CTE and brain damage. They are also in the healthiest and most profitable major sports league in the nation. They should be getting a bigger cut of the profits, no doubt, in my opinion.

This argument should have nothing to do with the pay of teachers, or police or anyone else. They are completely separate from one another. It's not as if NFL players demanding more money from the NFL is going to decrease a teachers wage...

This is a free market and the NFL has created a commodity that each one of us consumes in one way or another. It's pretty simple supply and demand. Why should I be mad at the players wanting more of the pot? It's not like the money is changing in any way. So in a sense people getting mad at the players for wanting more money are advocating for giving the Billionaire owners more money instead. Why the heck would you argue for more money for the Billionaire owners rather than wanting to see more of it go to the players that you actually root for (Again it's not like the overall money is changing, it's just being distributed different)?

A lot of the vitriol towards Sherm are from fanboys of the OC, and they are still pissed he called the OC out.

On the strike thing, like it or not Sherm is telling the truth. Anyone that has any idea of how collective bargaining works will tell you the same thing.