In conversing with quite a few people, as well as hearing a fair amount of commentary about the potential NFL lock out for next season, I have some thoughts. The consensus, of what I’ve heard seems to be that the players are selfish, overpaid, and should take less money to have the regular season start on time next year. Am I the only one who sees that this position as driven in a large part by race?
In order to examine this issue we should not ignore the fact that of active NFL players, almost 65% are black. This is widely disproportionate to the general population in which approximately 13% are back. Of the owners of the 32 NFL teams, 100% of them are white. So, we should note in this labor/owner dispute in this situation, it has white dominated owner represenatation, and a predominantly black labor population.
The most common argument I hear is that NFL players are overpaid. While my inclination is to agree with that presumption, shouldn’t the free market dictate the amount of compensation one receives based on their skill level, and desire of that skill in a free market? If we look at NFL salaries from the free market perspective, then perhaps players are not overpaid. I don’t believe NFL players are anymore “overpaid” than a stock trader, or a financial investor who makes a comparable salary. I don’t believe the skill level of some schmuck who works at Goldman Sachs to be more inherently more valuable than the skill set of an NFL player. After all, NFL players are the best at what they do in a highly desired marketplace. As an aside, is there anyone who makes more than a million dollars a year who is not “overpaid?”
If ticket prices, and the general revenue received by the NFL remain constant, I would prefer to see the players get a fair slice of that revenue pie. NFL owners have very little risk and skill in what they do relative to their workforce. There really is no risk of investment for an NFL owner. Think about it, 100 plus million people watched the Super Bowl! If you had the money and owner rights to a team, continuing to invest in a team, seems to be little risk given the immense popularity of the NFL. The players are the ones training, and risking permanent injury to play. By contrast, the owners watch the games from a box, literally. The owner essentially writes a check, and counts the money he makes from the labor of the players.
It seems to me, that the outcry against the player’s salaries may play into an underlying presumption, that a black labor force, where education and advantage is not the driving skill, should not be entitled to make millions of dollars. But, if we as consumers are willing to pay the price we do to watch the games, shouldn’t the people who put in the real work be compensated to an amount comparable to the profit of the league? We pay to see certain players when we watch a professional game, we don’t care who cuts their paychecks. We go to see Umenyiora slam a quarterback, not watch the rich white owner cut his check. So, we should give a decent percentage to Umenyiora.
If you proclaim that players are replaceable, and is you think replacement players would do little to impact the product of the NFL, trying going to a Nets game. Surprisingly people are able to sniff out an inferior product when it comes to sports. If watching a Nets game is not proof enough and you still think players are easily replaceable, watch a MLS game and then watch an English Premier game. It’s almost a totally different sport! And if you don’t think that’s proof enough, have fun watching Arena football. Also, if there is a lockout, think about the popularity of MLB following the lockout season of 1994 or NBA popularity following the 1999 lockout.
It seems to me that the owners should be willing to pay a fair share of their profit, back to the people who made them that money. Players need owners, but owners need players as well, and any old player will not due if the league is to maintain its popularity. Let’s not undervalue the labor that entertains us, even if they primarily have a different skin color than the people who are entertained by them. And, if we are willing to pay a ridiculous price to go see a game, let’s give the labor their fair share of that. If race doesn’t play a part of most people’s inclination to side with management in this labor dispute, than I don’t know what does.
In order to examine this issue we should not ignore the fact that of active NFL players, almost 65% are black. This is widely disproportionate to the general population in which approximately 13% are back. Of the owners of the 32 NFL teams, 100% of them are white. So, we should note in this labor/owner dispute in this situation, it has white dominated owner represenatation, and a predominantly black labor population.
The most common argument I hear is that NFL players are overpaid. While my inclination is to agree with that presumption, shouldn’t the free market dictate the amount of compensation one receives based on their skill level, and desire of that skill in a free market? If we look at NFL salaries from the free market perspective, then perhaps players are not overpaid. I don’t believe NFL players are anymore “overpaid” than a stock trader, or a financial investor who makes a comparable salary. I don’t believe the skill level of some schmuck who works at Goldman Sachs to be more inherently more valuable than the skill set of an NFL player. After all, NFL players are the best at what they do in a highly desired marketplace. As an aside, is there anyone who makes more than a million dollars a year who is not “overpaid?”
If ticket prices, and the general revenue received by the NFL remain constant, I would prefer to see the players get a fair slice of that revenue pie. NFL owners have very little risk and skill in what they do relative to their workforce. There really is no risk of investment for an NFL owner. Think about it, 100 plus million people watched the Super Bowl! If you had the money and owner rights to a team, continuing to invest in a team, seems to be little risk given the immense popularity of the NFL. The players are the ones training, and risking permanent injury to play. By contrast, the owners watch the games from a box, literally. The owner essentially writes a check, and counts the money he makes from the labor of the players.
It seems to me, that the outcry against the player’s salaries may play into an underlying presumption, that a black labor force, where education and advantage is not the driving skill, should not be entitled to make millions of dollars. But, if we as consumers are willing to pay the price we do to watch the games, shouldn’t the people who put in the real work be compensated to an amount comparable to the profit of the league? We pay to see certain players when we watch a professional game, we don’t care who cuts their paychecks. We go to see Umenyiora slam a quarterback, not watch the rich white owner cut his check. So, we should give a decent percentage to Umenyiora.
If you proclaim that players are replaceable, and is you think replacement players would do little to impact the product of the NFL, trying going to a Nets game. Surprisingly people are able to sniff out an inferior product when it comes to sports. If watching a Nets game is not proof enough and you still think players are easily replaceable, watch a MLS game and then watch an English Premier game. It’s almost a totally different sport! And if you don’t think that’s proof enough, have fun watching Arena football. Also, if there is a lockout, think about the popularity of MLB following the lockout season of 1994 or NBA popularity following the 1999 lockout.
It seems to me that the owners should be willing to pay a fair share of their profit, back to the people who made them that money. Players need owners, but owners need players as well, and any old player will not due if the league is to maintain its popularity. Let’s not undervalue the labor that entertains us, even if they primarily have a different skin color than the people who are entertained by them. And, if we are willing to pay a ridiculous price to go see a game, let’s give the labor their fair share of that. If race doesn’t play a part of most people’s inclination to side with management in this labor dispute, than I don’t know what does.
3 comments:
I don't think race has much, if anything, to do with it at all. I don't think NFL players are "overpaid" - as you said, the free market dictates their salaries, and all the people who go to games, watch them on TV, and buy the gear are the ones who essentially pay their salaries.
I don't think the consensus is that the players are at fault - I haven't heard anybody talking this way.
So, in short, I respectfully disagree. The race card is a red herring for people who, in my opinion, are upset that their heroes care more about themselves and their long-term health than entertaining the fans, regardless of race.
Here are just a few, I could provide many more if you want:
http://1045theteam.com/owners-vs-nfl-players/
http://ewallstreeter.com/blog/21441/nfl-owners-vs-nfl-players-2011-the-owners-will-win#
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/612307-nfl-fans-time-to-pick-your-side-who-do-you-support-nfl-or-nflpa
A couple things. Relative to MLB and the NBA, football players are underpaid.
The rosters are so big on football teams that most gies get paid very little. Out of 53 gies, 30 of them aren't exactly tearing the world up.
Secondly, since their contracts are not guaranteed, they can be cut at any time. A high paid player who starts to suck will be cut rather than paid. It happens all the time. (Wish we could have done that with Eddy Curry.)
Third, I'm definitely siding with the players on this one. 53 gies times 30 teams is 1,560 people asking for 50% of the money from 30 owners.
You can make arguments that it's more complex than than, but it really isn't.
Post a Comment