View Full Version : Is Football really a Team Sport? Let's start with the Steelers
04-16-2012, 12:05 PM
We've all seen the drama swirling around Peyton and Tebow. Free agency is a perfect example of the free market at work except with one caveat, the salary cap. The NFL has imposed an artificial cap on the amount a team can spend on salaries, reasoning it's best for competition because not all team markets are equal.
Where are the players's sense of fairness and altruism? Each player is out to make as much money as they can each season. Condemn the 6th round draft choice receiver that I got to throw to to league minimum as long as I get 20 million a year, appears to be the prevailing attitude. But you say, well that 6th rounder needs to prove himself. What about the $30 million dollar DeMarcus Ware's?
My point is that no team, not even the Steelers, have found an equitable way to divide the $120 million in salary cap per year.
There are huge disparities in pay. The idea is to reduce these disparities so that you can keep the team intact as long as possible to be as great as you can be and avoid these free agency merry go round. This concept never really gains any traction. If it ever did, then you could say that football is a team sport. )I know that some players re work their contracts, but they are rarely take a decrease in salary.)
It would be interesting to see a team come together and work out a more equitable pay scale. In this era of free agency and agents, I doubt that will ever happen.
04-16-2012, 12:49 PM
What is the saying " Something is worth what someone is willing to pay."
04-16-2012, 12:56 PM
Define equitable? Is Jerico Cotchery worth as much as Ben? Is Keenan Lewis worth as much as Woodly or Harrison?
They get paid based on their past (and projected) contributions. Woodly is projected to provide more value than Worlids or Sylvester, and hence he's paid more, and that's totally fair.
04-16-2012, 01:08 PM
Football is unique in that it requires 11 men to execute flawlessly as often as possible against 11 men trying do the same exact thing.
04-16-2012, 02:18 PM
Remember people get paid to be on The Team and some people are better than others. This isn't pop warner.
As far as Draft prospects, after a couple of years if they've proven themselves then they should get a new contract. Theirs a difference between some Steelers players and other teams.
Example Lamar Woodley had out played his contract yet never complained,never held out or said you need to pay me. He came in an did his job and got paid a nice new contract. Unlike Desean Jackson who whined,was a distraction,held out & didn't give his best effort on the field. This year it's Mike Wallace's turn to decide what type of person he is Woodley or Jackson? Others have reported what Wallace will or wont do but we haven't heard from him. We shall see.
04-18-2012, 04:15 PM
Sports players are always going to be overpaid. As long as the american public supports the sports franchises we'll continue to see grossly inflated contracts. I must say I do agree with the rookie salary cap, that was long overdue.
There's no player, anywhere in the world, in any sport that should get 100 million dollars to play a game, ever! The money is there though and if your team doesn't pay it, someone else will.
04-18-2012, 08:36 PM
The salary cap is cool. It keeps teams together.
The bonuses, front end loading and all the other angles makes it stupid.
Whatever the player gets paid that year goes against the cap. Simple.
The cap can be raised to say 200 million, but every penny spent on a player in that year will count against the cap.
04-19-2012, 02:13 PM
People get paid what others are willing to pay: If I don't like may salary, I have the option to shop myself around to the highest bidder. But if no wants to pay, what I think I'm worth, I then have choice is my to stay where I'm at and except what my current employer is willing to pay. More on....But I also know that the new employer will valves the service more than the existing employer.
I work for company "A" and it came time to yearly review: Company "A" would not increase their offer by $1.00 per/hour to keep me. So I went to work for company "B". When company "A" heir my replacement this person needed training to do the job well. One of the task of company "B" was to provide this training, so my new company sent me too my old company to train my replacement at a discount rate of $65.00 per hour with a minuim of 40 hours.
The new person left after 6 mounts for whatever reason so, company "A" hired someone else and that person need training, so company B" sent me again, to company "A" at a discount rate of $65.00 per hour with a minimum of 40 hours. This person was not as fast at this job as I was (or for that matter the person that replace me) so project need to get out of the door. So company "A" hired my to do overflow work. (off the books) So I charged them $45.00 per hour minimum four hours per task. Would pick up their work after leaving company "B" and return when done.
Company "A" spent almost $6000.00 for training in a year, plus whatever I was paid do to overflow work them (let's just say it was over $4000.00) for this example. That over $10,000.00 instead of paying $2080.00 more a year to keep me.
My point is often companies (teams) don't what it will cost them to replace you. Now the Steelers have a good track record of knowing when to cut-bait on player, but if they make a mistake, to correct it may take years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.