Should NFL Players get Paid More?
 

I was thinking about how little these guys make in comparison NBA and MLB and came across the below article. What do you guys think?


Giants receiver Odell Beckham thinks the $10.4 million he’s guaranteed over the first four years of his rookie contract is not enough.

“I think that we should make more money, personally,” Beckham told The Huffington Post when asked what he’d change about the NFL.

Beckham says NFL players should get paid more than baseball or basketball players because football is a more dangerous game.

“I understand that basketball plays 80-something games, baseball plays this many games, soccer plays that many games, but this is a sport where there’s more injuries. There’s more collisions. It’s not even a full-contact sport, I would call it a full-collision sport. You have people running who can run 20 miles per hour and they’re running downhill to hit you, and you’re running 18 miles per hour. That’s a car wreck. It’s just the career is shorter. There’s injuries that you have after you leave the game, brain injuries, whatever it is, nerve injuries.”

The truth, however, is that the danger inherent to a profession has little to do with the pay within that profession. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, logging is America’s most dangerous profession. If people were paid according to the risks associated with their jobs, lumberjacks would make more than NFL players. But that’s not how it works.

In reality, NFL players make less money than baseball and basketball players primarily because baseball and basketball have smaller rosters. The players’ percentage of the league’s revenue is similar in all three sports, but in the NFL that money is divided among a much larger pool of players — more than twice as many players as in Major League Baseball and more than four times as many players as in the National Basketball Association.

As a result, it’s unlikely that NFL players will ever make as much, on average, as MLB or NBA players. No matter how much Beckham thinks they should.

Relative to basketball and baseball and even hockey players, football players are underpaid. Would you rather stand in center field for 20 years and make $200 million, or get buried running up the middle by 1,500 pounds of steroid defenders, make $20 million, and retire when your knee starts bending the wrong way?

Having said that, football players are overpaid compared to other professions, but that's the perquisite of working in a field where you're essentially a national celebrity to some degree. When you think about most players, though, they're not even really national celebrities. I bet Marcus Peters or Jeremy Maclin or Alex Smith could visit 95 percent of the country in anonymity and they're among the bigger stars of the team.

They are making a living from doing something they supposedly love. Even if they have an average career-they could make more than most do in a life time.

If Odell wants more money-work harder until that next contract and cash in from a team that will over pay for your stats. It will come with a huge guaranteed amount and bonuses. This will at least put all the financial risk back on the owner. You are set for life if you are injured.

or

Retire now-don't risk your health. Take the money you have and invest it.

Excellent point. They also use that status to make millions from endorsements.

Now I'm wondering why non-stars are paid so much. I understand Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers making millions because they're the faces of the league. But why does a special teams linebacker make $300,000 a year, and a nickel back and a third-string guard? Why does a punter make $900,000 a year? Presumably they're making that money because they're on a national stage, but no one knows who they are off the field and they're wearing a helmet on the field.

Is it because a Super Bowl win is worth a lot of money to an owner, and therefore they're truly being paid based on talent? What's a Super Bowl win worth in the modern NFL, other than some t-shirt sales and slightly higher attendance? In 1950, winning probably carried a strong bottom-line benefit, but that's not the case any more.

Or is it because these supporting characters are necessary to protect the stars and make them look good? Maybe Tony Romo wouldn't be a celebrity if he didn't have a decent team around him, so they have to pay the supporting cast. Still, that seems like a lot of money.

Or maybe it's a long-term thing where the league knows that people will stop watching if the punts go 20 yards and the special teams linebackers can't tackle, so it's a long-term investment.

Or maybe it's a simple union thing. The NFL is so awash in money that it doesn't really matter what the non-stars get paid. If they're going to gripe, throw a few hundred thousand at them and make them happy.

Why do non-stars get paid so much?

It's relative. Like a CSR at Staples making $9/hr while the CEO makes millions. Even Tom Brady couldn't win a game if he was playing with JUCO players.

Why does Sam Bradford make so much?

Our last QB from N.E. signed a huge contract, never lived up to it-then has signed a couple of more based on What?

That is the loophole for the players- you can play the system and make a good living-without ever really doing anything. It is the Chase Daniel clause. Look like a football player, practice hard, make a couple of plays if you get a chance, hold that clip board and cash those checks.

He could if every team was playing with JUCO players, though. So it must be a talent war that's about winning. But does winning justify the high labor costs these days?

If the NFL starts thinking about it, we may start seeing them import cheap linemen from China and Latin America. Keep Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers for the fans, but go low-cost everywhere else.

Hell no. They make enough to be set if they are smart. They can easily my buy into successful franchises that don't fail. Even at the vet min they can do this and be set for life. If anything baseball and basketball get paid to much.

A few thoughts:

I don't think it's all to do with being a star. It's more about what you, your efforts, and contributions are worth to the team/league under the salary cap.

People make a big deal out of Goodell making $30-$40m every year, but consider that a commission on the Billions in Revenue the NFL produces every year... well, it's not as much as you'd expect at a typical sales job that's for sure.

I think the union needs to do a better job of getting these guys paid. NBA union is making the case for no salary cap, so guys like Lebron can collect their value. Where you at NFLPA!?

the good players get paid. 10 mill for a season? stfu odell. shoulda played qb or baseball if you want 25 a year

I think this is key when comparing the different leagues. The amount of money spent on players total per team is probably somewhat close but when you have so many more players to pay, they each will get less. Simple math at that point.

I don't think football with star qb, and a handful of random star position players infilled by JUCO talent would be fun to watch or effective.

I know this might now be a popular thing to say but when I see the contracts baseball players get I can understand where he is coming from.

Why should baseball players get more when football is by far the more popular and dangerous sport?

Most of these guys would be lucky to make it at a minimum wage job with out the sport *cough Talib cough*

Their pay is fine and in line with other "sports entertainment" like WWE