Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
If there wasn't a rookie cap, rookies in the free market could negotiate a market wage. Because there's a cap, Eric Fisher gets comped at #1 the same as Andrew Luck would.
So yes, rookies are extremely underpaid. I get the reasons why they do it, but it doesn't take away from the fact that rookies get screwed.
But the heart of my response is responding to the dumb and overused idea that athletes should just find another job. Find another industry where owners collude with each other to underpay athletes. Most businesses pay a market wage. If it's too low, the jobseeker can find a job somewhere else. The NFL clearly does not do that. Overall payrolls would soar if they took away the salary cap. And if the players took another job, the NFL would tank. They are irreplaceable talent. Therefore, players are underpaid.
|
There's two sides to that argument. Yes, the athlete is a rare species of employee that carries extra leverage. But playing in the NFL is similarly a rare place of employment that affords it the same leverage. You think your pass catching skills make you a one in a million? Try finding another job that pays you that well to catch passes.
And as fans, we need to choose our sides wisely. The owners and players are both greedy. But at least the owners have a secondary goal of long term success of the league. Success that is fueled by pleasing the customer with things like competitive balance brought about by salary cap and free agency rules. So while there may be a degree of unfairness, it's in the name of keeping all of us happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk