football players=slaves??

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by pantstickle:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
its a dumb thing to say, but i think its pretty obvious that he means "slavery" in that the players do "all" the work and have no control over the business (and are "owned" by a group of people who make all the decisions). He's not talking about working for nothing and being whipped and raped and forced to breed. Again, dumb thing to say, and not really the kind of thing that the players need at the moment, but I don't think there's any need to react emotionally to it.

Haha yeah. But, Americans love gotcha moments. I think it's also the fact that owners want players to play 18 games and it's obvious that will shortens careers (especially at RB) and he is tryin' to say that the owners don't care for the players health and only concerned with profits.

Of course, relating it to slavery is stupid, but I get what he is trying to say.

Thanks fellas! You saved me from having to write my postion.

This is one of the reasons we have so much political division in this country. Most people dont want to take the time ( or purposely misinterpet) to understand the point someone is trying to get across, even if it is a poor analogy. This happens on both sides. I'm so tired of meat heads....

I think it is on the person talking and that person needs to realize what he's saying. And he should also be responsible for clearing up anything that gets taken "the wrong way".

Or you could all just use a little perspective and figure it out.

4ML nailed it with "gotcha moments". People love to jump on people, especially if they already dislike them. (See: Obama and NCAA brackets).

I agree that isn't right, but there are also people who are extremely sensitive to some things and will shake their heads and think, "WTF did he just say?" This analogy is WAY off from their situation. People who say dumb things should be called out for it...




...unless you are Charles Barkley.

i just think its funny that, i this particular situation, the people who are most sensitive to it are by-and-large middle class white guys who have the luxury of being on the internet all day to argue about it.

Who's white? You're white?

Now imagine if Carson Palmer makes that same comment. I think people are just tired of the same analogy taken lightly in one sense but can be taken as racist in another sense. It's inconsistent and analogies that represent people actually dying, being killed, genocide, ...you name it, should not be used to complain about money by NFL players who make millions.

It just shows how ignorant or whatever the better word the person saying that is. My company didn't give me a raise last year...man, their treating me and my colleagues like slaves. I don't know if he meant "slave-driver" or something but saying something dumb shouldn't get a pass either.

he said "modern day slavery" not "n****rs." Its not nearly as offensive a term as some people are making it out to be. Was it an ignorant use of the term? Absolutely. Does everyone need to get so butthurt about it? No.

My point about "who is being sensitive" about this wasn't necessarily about race, and I'm sorry for any offense taken from it. It was mostly about how a bunch of people on the internet are getting upset about the use of a term as if it meant something personal to them, when it does not.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by pantstickle:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
its a dumb thing to say, but i think its pretty obvious that he means "slavery" in that the players do "all" the work and have no control over the business (and are "owned" by a group of people who make all the decisions). He's not talking about working for nothing and being whipped and raped and forced to breed. Again, dumb thing to say, and not really the kind of thing that the players need at the moment, but I don't think there's any need to react emotionally to it.

Haha yeah. But, Americans love gotcha moments. I think it's also the fact that owners want players to play 18 games and it's obvious that will shortens careers (especially at RB) and he is tryin' to say that the owners don't care for the players health and only concerned with profits.

Of course, relating it to slavery is stupid, but I get what he is trying to say.

Thanks fellas! You saved me from having to write my postion.

This is one of the reasons we have so much political division in this country. Most people dont want to take the time ( or purposely misinterpet) to understand the point someone is trying to get across, even if it is a poor analogy. This happens on both sides. I'm so tired of meat heads....

I think it is on the person talking and that person needs to realize what he's saying. And he should also be responsible for clearing up anything that gets taken "the wrong way".

Or you could all just use a little perspective and figure it out.

4ML nailed it with "gotcha moments". People love to jump on people, especially if they already dislike them. (See: Obama and NCAA brackets).

I agree that isn't right, but there are also people who are extremely sensitive to some things and will shake their heads and think, "WTF did he just say?" This analogy is WAY off from their situation. People who say dumb things should be called out for it...




...unless you are Charles Barkley.

i just think its funny that, i this particular situation, the people who are most sensitive to it are by-and-large middle class white guys who have the luxury of being on the internet all day to argue about it.

Who's white? You're white?

Now imagine if Carson Palmer makes that same comment. I think people are just tired of the same analogy taken lightly in one sense but can be taken as racist in another sense. It's inconsistent and analogies that represent people actually dying, being killed, genocide, ...you name it, should not be used to complain about money by NFL players who make millions.

It just shows how ignorant or whatever the better word the person saying that is. My company didn't give me a raise last year...man, their treating me and my colleagues like slaves. I don't know if he meant "slave-driver" or something but saying something dumb shouldn't get a pass either.

he said "modern day slavery" not "n****rs." Its not nearly as offensive a term as some people are making it out to be. Was it an ignorant use of the term? Absolutely. Does everyone need to get so butthurt about it? No.

My point about "who is being sensitive" about this wasn't necessarily about race, and I'm sorry for any offense taken from it. It was mostly about how a bunch of people on the internet are getting upset about the use of a term as if it meant something personal to them, when it does not.

You don't get to precede any term with "modern day" though. Some s**t you just don't get to redefine later on.

Wow, in Yemen today those snipers sure did pull a modern day holocaust huh?

People with common sense know when to just retire a word.

And there actually is modern day slavery happening, try south east asian and central european women who are forced into sex labor. Thats modern day slavery.

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by pantstickle:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
its a dumb thing to say, but i think its pretty obvious that he means "slavery" in that the players do "all" the work and have no control over the business (and are "owned" by a group of people who make all the decisions). He's not talking about working for nothing and being whipped and raped and forced to breed. Again, dumb thing to say, and not really the kind of thing that the players need at the moment, but I don't think there's any need to react emotionally to it.

Haha yeah. But, Americans love gotcha moments. I think it's also the fact that owners want players to play 18 games and it's obvious that will shortens careers (especially at RB) and he is tryin' to say that the owners don't care for the players health and only concerned with profits.

Of course, relating it to slavery is stupid, but I get what he is trying to say.

Thanks fellas! You saved me from having to write my postion.

This is one of the reasons we have so much political division in this country. Most people dont want to take the time ( or purposely misinterpet) to understand the point someone is trying to get across, even if it is a poor analogy. This happens on both sides. I'm so tired of meat heads....

I think it is on the person talking and that person needs to realize what he's saying. And he should also be responsible for clearing up anything that gets taken "the wrong way".

Or you could all just use a little perspective and figure it out.

4ML nailed it with "gotcha moments". People love to jump on people, especially if they already dislike them. (See: Obama and NCAA brackets).

I agree that isn't right, but there are also people who are extremely sensitive to some things and will shake their heads and think, "WTF did he just say?" This analogy is WAY off from their situation. People who say dumb things should be called out for it...




...unless you are Charles Barkley.

i just think its funny that, i this particular situation, the people who are most sensitive to it are by-and-large middle class white guys who have the luxury of being on the internet all day to argue about it.

Who's white? You're white?

Now imagine if Carson Palmer makes that same comment. I think people are just tired of the same analogy taken lightly in one sense but can be taken as racist in another sense. It's inconsistent and analogies that represent people actually dying, being killed, genocide, ...you name it, should not be used to complain about money by NFL players who make millions.

It just shows how ignorant or whatever the better word the person saying that is. My company didn't give me a raise last year...man, their treating me and my colleagues like slaves. I don't know if he meant "slave-driver" or something but saying something dumb shouldn't get a pass either.

he said "modern day slavery" not "n****rs." Its not nearly as offensive a term as some people are making it out to be. Was it an ignorant use of the term? Absolutely. Does everyone need to get so butthurt about it? No.

My point about "who is being sensitive" about this wasn't necessarily about race, and I'm sorry for any offense taken from it. It was mostly about how a bunch of people on the internet are getting upset about the use of a term as if it meant something personal to them, when it does not.

You don't get to precede any term with "modern day" though. Some s**t you just don't get to redefine later on.

Wow, in Yemen today those snipers sure did pull a modern day holocaust huh?

People with common sense know when to just retire a word.

And there actually is modern day slavery happening, try south east asian and central european women who are forced into sex labor. Thats modern day slavery.

i get it, I know, but if we're talking about the importance of words then we should be talking about the entire phrase that was used as it was used. I, for one, don't think we need to give words such solemn power that we have to retire them or avoid them. Language is not static. Its important to be intelligent about language, and to know--to really know--the words that we're using, their history, their connotations. We all agree on that. But its wrong to pretend that words don't also have elastic meaning and that the context of their use is unimportant.

Yes, slavery still exists in the "modern day" but isn't that different than "modern day slavery"? In the context of this particular use I would argue that yes, its a different thing: Peterson said "modern day slavery" with the implication that it differed from "slavery" as we understand it historically. Of course, now we're getting into the semantics of it which is really beside the point. We all agree that it was a dumb and somewhat ignorant thing to say. What we disagree on is how sensitive people should be about it.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by pantstickle:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
its a dumb thing to say, but i think its pretty obvious that he means "slavery" in that the players do "all" the work and have no control over the business (and are "owned" by a group of people who make all the decisions). He's not talking about working for nothing and being whipped and raped and forced to breed. Again, dumb thing to say, and not really the kind of thing that the players need at the moment, but I don't think there's any need to react emotionally to it.

Haha yeah. But, Americans love gotcha moments. I think it's also the fact that owners want players to play 18 games and it's obvious that will shortens careers (especially at RB) and he is tryin' to say that the owners don't care for the players health and only concerned with profits.

Of course, relating it to slavery is stupid, but I get what he is trying to say.

Thanks fellas! You saved me from having to write my postion.

This is one of the reasons we have so much political division in this country. Most people dont want to take the time ( or purposely misinterpet) to understand the point someone is trying to get across, even if it is a poor analogy. This happens on both sides. I'm so tired of meat heads....

I think it is on the person talking and that person needs to realize what he's saying. And he should also be responsible for clearing up anything that gets taken "the wrong way".

Or you could all just use a little perspective and figure it out.

4ML nailed it with "gotcha moments". People love to jump on people, especially if they already dislike them. (See: Obama and NCAA brackets).

I agree that isn't right, but there are also people who are extremely sensitive to some things and will shake their heads and think, "WTF did he just say?" This analogy is WAY off from their situation. People who say dumb things should be called out for it...




...unless you are Charles Barkley.

i just think its funny that, i this particular situation, the people who are most sensitive to it are by-and-large middle class white guys who have the luxury of being on the internet all day to argue about it.

Who's white? You're white?

Now imagine if Carson Palmer makes that same comment. I think people are just tired of the same analogy taken lightly in one sense but can be taken as racist in another sense. It's inconsistent and analogies that represent people actually dying, being killed, genocide, ...you name it, should not be used to complain about money by NFL players who make millions.

It just shows how ignorant or whatever the better word the person saying that is. My company didn't give me a raise last year...man, their treating me and my colleagues like slaves. I don't know if he meant "slave-driver" or something but saying something dumb shouldn't get a pass either.

he said "modern day slavery" not "n****rs." Its not nearly as offensive a term as some people are making it out to be. Was it an ignorant use of the term? Absolutely. Does everyone need to get so butthurt about it? No.

My point about "who is being sensitive" about this wasn't necessarily about race, and I'm sorry for any offense taken from it. It was mostly about how a bunch of people on the internet are getting upset about the use of a term as if it meant something personal to them, when it does not.

You don't get to precede any term with "modern day" though. Some s**t you just don't get to redefine later on.

Wow, in Yemen today those snipers sure did pull a modern day holocaust huh?

People with common sense know when to just retire a word.

And there actually is modern day slavery happening, try south east asian and central european women who are forced into sex labor. Thats modern day slavery.

i get it, I know, but if we're talking about the importance of words then we should be talking about the entire phrase that was used as it was used. I, for one, don't think we need to give words such solemn power that we have to retire them or avoid them. Language is not static. Its important to be intelligent about language, and to know--to really know--the words that we're using, their history, their connotations. We all agree on that. But its wrong to pretend that words don't also have elastic meaning and that the context of their use is unimportant.

Yes, slavery still exists in the "modern day" but isn't that different than "modern day slavery"? In the context of this particular use I would argue that yes, its a different thing: Peterson said "modern day slavery" with the implication that it differed from "slavery" as we understand it historically. Of course, now we're getting into the semantics of it which is really beside the point. We all agree that it was a dumb and somewhat ignorant thing to say. What we disagree on is how sensitive people should be about it.

good points

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by pantstickle:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
its a dumb thing to say, but i think its pretty obvious that he means "slavery" in that the players do "all" the work and have no control over the business (and are "owned" by a group of people who make all the decisions). He's not talking about working for nothing and being whipped and raped and forced to breed. Again, dumb thing to say, and not really the kind of thing that the players need at the moment, but I don't think there's any need to react emotionally to it.

Haha yeah. But, Americans love gotcha moments. I think it's also the fact that owners want players to play 18 games and it's obvious that will shortens careers (especially at RB) and he is tryin' to say that the owners don't care for the players health and only concerned with profits.

Of course, relating it to slavery is stupid, but I get what he is trying to say.

Thanks fellas! You saved me from having to write my postion.

This is one of the reasons we have so much political division in this country. Most people dont want to take the time ( or purposely misinterpet) to understand the point someone is trying to get across, even if it is a poor analogy. This happens on both sides. I'm so tired of meat heads....

I think it is on the person talking and that person needs to realize what he's saying. And he should also be responsible for clearing up anything that gets taken "the wrong way".

Or you could all just use a little perspective and figure it out.

4ML nailed it with "gotcha moments". People love to jump on people, especially if they already dislike them. (See: Obama and NCAA brackets).

I agree that isn't right, but there are also people who are extremely sensitive to some things and will shake their heads and think, "WTF did he just say?" This analogy is WAY off from their situation. People who say dumb things should be called out for it...




...unless you are Charles Barkley.

i just think its funny that, i this particular situation, the people who are most sensitive to it are by-and-large middle class white guys who have the luxury of being on the internet all day to argue about it.

Who's white? You're white?

Now imagine if Carson Palmer makes that same comment. I think people are just tired of the same analogy taken lightly in one sense but can be taken as racist in another sense. It's inconsistent and analogies that represent people actually dying, being killed, genocide, ...you name it, should not be used to complain about money by NFL players who make millions.

It just shows how ignorant or whatever the better word the person saying that is. My company didn't give me a raise last year...man, their treating me and my colleagues like slaves. I don't know if he meant "slave-driver" or something but saying something dumb shouldn't get a pass either.

he said "modern day slavery" not "n****rs." Its not nearly as offensive a term as some people are making it out to be. Was it an ignorant use of the term? Absolutely. Does everyone need to get so butthurt about it? No.

My point about "who is being sensitive" about this wasn't necessarily about race, and I'm sorry for any offense taken from it. It was mostly about how a bunch of people on the internet are getting upset about the use of a term as if it meant something personal to them, when it does not.

You don't get to precede any term with "modern day" though. Some s**t you just don't get to redefine later on.

Wow, in Yemen today those snipers sure did pull a modern day holocaust huh?

People with common sense know when to just retire a word.

And there actually is modern day slavery happening, try south east asian and central european women who are forced into sex labor. Thats modern day slavery.

i get it, I know, but if we're talking about the importance of words then we should be talking about the entire phrase that was used as it was used. I, for one, don't think we need to give words such solemn power that we have to retire them or avoid them. Language is not static. Its important to be intelligent about language, and to know--to really know--the words that we're using, their history, their connotations. We all agree on that. But its wrong to pretend that words don't also have elastic meaning and that the context of their use is unimportant.

Yes, slavery still exists in the "modern day" but isn't that different than "modern day slavery"? In the context of this particular use I would argue that yes, its a different thing: Peterson said "modern day slavery" with the implication that it differed from "slavery" as we understand it historically. Of course, now we're getting into the semantics of it which is really beside the point. We all agree that it was a dumb and somewhat ignorant thing to say. What we disagree on is how sensitive people should be about it.

What the hell is "modern day slavery?" is it actually defined? I think that's why it's stupid to even use. I'm not sensitive about what he said. I'm just saying that he better be able to clearly explain what he meant and also shouldn't be surprised if people call him someone who completely missed the comparison and should have used something else.

It's kind of like this, we all know what he's saying but to use that analogy is just dumb.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by pantstickle:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
its a dumb thing to say, but i think its pretty obvious that he means "slavery" in that the players do "all" the work and have no control over the business (and are "owned" by a group of people who make all the decisions). He's not talking about working for nothing and being whipped and raped and forced to breed. Again, dumb thing to say, and not really the kind of thing that the players need at the moment, but I don't think there's any need to react emotionally to it.

Haha yeah. But, Americans love gotcha moments. I think it's also the fact that owners want players to play 18 games and it's obvious that will shortens careers (especially at RB) and he is tryin' to say that the owners don't care for the players health and only concerned with profits.

Of course, relating it to slavery is stupid, but I get what he is trying to say.

Thanks fellas! You saved me from having to write my postion.

This is one of the reasons we have so much political division in this country. Most people dont want to take the time ( or purposely misinterpet) to understand the point someone is trying to get across, even if it is a poor analogy. This happens on both sides. I'm so tired of meat heads....

I think it is on the person talking and that person needs to realize what he's saying. And he should also be responsible for clearing up anything that gets taken "the wrong way".

Or you could all just use a little perspective and figure it out.

4ML nailed it with "gotcha moments". People love to jump on people, especially if they already dislike them. (See: Obama and NCAA brackets).

I agree that isn't right, but there are also people who are extremely sensitive to some things and will shake their heads and think, "WTF did he just say?" This analogy is WAY off from their situation. People who say dumb things should be called out for it...




...unless you are Charles Barkley.

i just think its funny that, i this particular situation, the people who are most sensitive to it are by-and-large middle class white guys who have the luxury of being on the internet all day to argue about it.

Who's white? You're white?

Now imagine if Carson Palmer makes that same comment. I think people are just tired of the same analogy taken lightly in one sense but can be taken as racist in another sense. It's inconsistent and analogies that represent people actually dying, being killed, genocide, ...you name it, should not be used to complain about money by NFL players who make millions.

It just shows how ignorant or whatever the better word the person saying that is. My company didn't give me a raise last year...man, their treating me and my colleagues like slaves. I don't know if he meant "slave-driver" or something but saying something dumb shouldn't get a pass either.

he said "modern day slavery" not "n****rs." Its not nearly as offensive a term as some people are making it out to be. Was it an ignorant use of the term? Absolutely. Does everyone need to get so butthurt about it? No.

My point about "who is being sensitive" about this wasn't necessarily about race, and I'm sorry for any offense taken from it. It was mostly about how a bunch of people on the internet are getting upset about the use of a term as if it meant something personal to them, when it does not.

You don't get to precede any term with "modern day" though. Some s**t you just don't get to redefine later on.

Wow, in Yemen today those snipers sure did pull a modern day holocaust huh?

People with common sense know when to just retire a word.

And there actually is modern day slavery happening, try south east asian and central european women who are forced into sex labor. Thats modern day slavery.

i get it, I know, but if we're talking about the importance of words then we should be talking about the entire phrase that was used as it was used. I, for one, don't think we need to give words such solemn power that we have to retire them or avoid them. Language is not static. Its important to be intelligent about language, and to know--to really know--the words that we're using, their history, their connotations. We all agree on that. But its wrong to pretend that words don't also have elastic meaning and that the context of their use is unimportant.

Yes, slavery still exists in the "modern day" but isn't that different than "modern day slavery"? In the context of this particular use I would argue that yes, its a different thing: Peterson said "modern day slavery" with the implication that it differed from "slavery" as we understand it historically. Of course, now we're getting into the semantics of it which is really beside the point. We all agree that it was a dumb and somewhat ignorant thing to say. What we disagree on is how sensitive people should be about it.

What the hell is "modern day slavery?" is it actually defined? I think that's why it's stupid to even use. I'm not sensitive about what he said. I'm just saying that he better be able to clearly explain what he meant and also shouldn't be surprised if people call him someone who completely missed the comparison and should have used something else.

It's kind of like this, we all know what he's saying but to use that analogy is just dumb.

i think, given the context of where this quote came from, the implications are clear. You don't have to agree with them, but if your gripe is that an athlete isn't giving a dissertation about the controversial thing he said, then I'm not sure how you'll be satisfied. At some point people need to do the heavy thinking for themselves.

That's not a swipe at you, its just that most people heard "Adrian Peterson says NFL players are slaves," and they thought, "No they aren't, what an idiot," and that's where the thinking stopped, and the entire argument about how stupid athletes are or how entitled they are or whether or not they are justified in this dispute with the league revolves around that single thought: "No they aren't, what an idiot." Too much is being given to a single phrase in an interview where AP even showed hesitation to say the controversial thing. I'm not saying that he is an articulate intelligent ambassador of the game, but lets have some perspective here.

[ Edited by HessianDud on Mar 18, 2011 at 17:46:03 ]

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by franklinfan:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by aclarke49:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Read this article - link posted on PFT - thought it was interesting.

To be an African American NFL player is to play in a league where 70% of the players are black and 100% of the owners are white. It’s a league where only 3 percent of head coaches were black until the famous (or infamous) lawyer Johnnie Cochran threatened a mass class-action lawsuit, saying he would “litigate if they do not integrate.” It’s a league where collegiate players hoping to be drafted show up to the NFL combine to be poked, prodded and have various body parts judged and measured. Teams basically do everything short of having someone run their finger along the players’ gums. If you are lucky enough to make the league, you will be blessed with a career that will, on average, last 3.4 years, and cursed with a life expectancy twenty-two years shorter than that of the typical American male. Your contract isn’t guaranteed, so if you do sustain some horrific injury, you are officially yesterday’s trash.

Link

“Learn to LISTEN before you pass judgment. Because speaking without knowledge of subject is truly ignorant,” Rashard Mendenhall wrote.

The median salary in the NFL in 2009 was roughly $770,000. In 2008 it was about $720,000.

Signing bonuses vary from $100k to $20 million.

There are 1,696 total players in the NFL. According the US Census 1860 there were aprox. four million slaves. Who had no rights, no money, no fame, no security.

NFL players get paid this to play a game. Yes, it's dangerous but so are many other professions that receive far less compensation.

They, unlike slaves, have the choice to find another profession. They, unlike slaves can earn a small fortune. They, unlike slaves have rights that protect and help them. They, unlike slaves earn fame and notoriety in our society.

They, unlike slaves, have really very little value to the survival of our society. However, the argument can be made that our nation was built, at least in part, upon the labor or slaves.

They, unlike slaves, have the opportunity for a very bright future for them and their children. Slaves did not have the same opportunities.

To say that NFL players are like slaves, is like spitting in the face of all of those who did endure and still endure true slavery.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_salary_of_an_NFL_football_player#ixzz1GtNRmj8R

I don't agree with what AD said, just posted an article which defended him and I thought the article had an interested take on it. Of course, slavery is a huge exaggeration, but I get what AD is trying to say.

Also, AD used the word "modern day slavery" if I remember correctly. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare it to what slavery was in 1800. Still, it's a huge exaggeration, but that's a little unfair comparison.

Even guys who make minimum NFL salary still make 8 times the amount that an average American worker makes. 3 year career. That's a million bucks earned by the age of 25-26. That's a pretty good head start for the rest of their life.

Slavery - modern day slavery doesn't matter it's a retarded statement. The worse players in the NFL still should be living real well.

minimun wage=320k +120 =440k 50% goes to fed+calif taxes =220k..2500 a month housing,sharing W/another player=15k +10k union dues,down to 190k..plus expenses.. food,flts,transportation,ect.down to.. 175k a yr.. times 3yrs..does not make a million..oh and add agent fees 2-3% ..most walk away after 3 yrs with less than 250k if they are lucky..no,not slaves,but not rich either.

We all pay rent, food, and taxes. If I subtract all the costs out of the average american income it's not going to average at 40 grand either. Anyway you look at it the worse players in the NFL are still cashing it in over most of the population.

But these guys dedicate their whole life to play in the NFL and have very few options once their career is over. That amount of money is peanuts for a career you worked your whole life for

That really isn't the league's problem. Not everyone who makes a NFL roster is entitled to a lifetime's worth of money. Just like not every actor is going to make it in Hollywood and not every band signed to a record company is going to cash it in. These guys we're talking about aren't the guys making money for the league. I've never watched a game to see brilliant special teams action. Or to watch Jason Hill.

If they played their cards right they would have used that education pretty much all of them had the oppurtunity to get. Otherwise they're living life just like the average American without a career path.

No it's not their problem, but they deserve every penny they get and we can agree it isn't that much. And these players make up a big portion of the NFL.

No we don't agree on that. For 3 years work it's very good money. They make 8x the average worker and by no standards is it chump change. Even after expenses they're still years ahead of most people 1-3 years out of college. Cry me a river that they have hold a different job the rest of their life.

As of right now players receive 60% of all revenue minus the 1st of 9 billion. I don't blame the union for wanting to keep that number to as close as possible. But that's a more than fair number, and this modern day slavery sh*t is as dumb as it gets. NFL players are well compensated and well represented. They don't do anything that's not collectively bargained over. Other than having to work for a white guy I see no comparision.

What's the point? Stop comparing these guys to "average" people, and goofy post-college grads. The amount of revenue that they generate is so above "average" it's hard to find words. Please tell me, when was the last time half of America tuned in on Sunday to watch you do anything? When was the last time a major network was able to charge fortune 500 companies a million dollars a minute to run adds in between segments of watching you sit on your couch? I would guess never? However, the next time you and your buddies are able to sell out a stadium of 60 thousand plus, I would be curious to know what you charged?


LOL...


P.S. If you want a better index of "average" when gaging what these guys should make, look at the Sienfield cast, or maybe Friends. I wonder how many of those actors will end up dead or disabled by 60?

1

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Mar 18, 2011 at 18:08:03 ]

Owners, managers and players have always made dumb statements from time to time, but that does not change the situation nor does is make every player quilty of stupidity. AD made a dumb statement that I'm sure he wishes he could take back but once it gets into the press...too late!

He isn't necessarily an idiot, just made an idiotic statement.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by franklinfan:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by aclarke49:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Read this article - link posted on PFT - thought it was interesting.

To be an African American NFL player is to play in a league where 70% of the players are black and 100% of the owners are white. It’s a league where only 3 percent of head coaches were black until the famous (or infamous) lawyer Johnnie Cochran threatened a mass class-action lawsuit, saying he would “litigate if they do not integrate.” It’s a league where collegiate players hoping to be drafted show up to the NFL combine to be poked, prodded and have various body parts judged and measured. Teams basically do everything short of having someone run their finger along the players’ gums. If you are lucky enough to make the league, you will be blessed with a career that will, on average, last 3.4 years, and cursed with a life expectancy twenty-two years shorter than that of the typical American male. Your contract isn’t guaranteed, so if you do sustain some horrific injury, you are officially yesterday’s trash.

Link

“Learn to LISTEN before you pass judgment. Because speaking without knowledge of subject is truly ignorant,” Rashard Mendenhall wrote.

The median salary in the NFL in 2009 was roughly $770,000. In 2008 it was about $720,000.

Signing bonuses vary from $100k to $20 million.

There are 1,696 total players in the NFL. According the US Census 1860 there were aprox. four million slaves. Who had no rights, no money, no fame, no security.

NFL players get paid this to play a game. Yes, it's dangerous but so are many other professions that receive far less compensation.

They, unlike slaves, have the choice to find another profession. They, unlike slaves can earn a small fortune. They, unlike slaves have rights that protect and help them. They, unlike slaves earn fame and notoriety in our society.

They, unlike slaves, have really very little value to the survival of our society. However, the argument can be made that our nation was built, at least in part, upon the labor or slaves.

They, unlike slaves, have the opportunity for a very bright future for them and their children. Slaves did not have the same opportunities.

To say that NFL players are like slaves, is like spitting in the face of all of those who did endure and still endure true slavery.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_salary_of_an_NFL_football_player#ixzz1GtNRmj8R

I don't agree with what AD said, just posted an article which defended him and I thought the article had an interested take on it. Of course, slavery is a huge exaggeration, but I get what AD is trying to say.

Also, AD used the word "modern day slavery" if I remember correctly. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare it to what slavery was in 1800. Still, it's a huge exaggeration, but that's a little unfair comparison.

Even guys who make minimum NFL salary still make 8 times the amount that an average American worker makes. 3 year career. That's a million bucks earned by the age of 25-26. That's a pretty good head start for the rest of their life.

Slavery - modern day slavery doesn't matter it's a retarded statement. The worse players in the NFL still should be living real well.

minimun wage=320k +120 =440k 50% goes to fed+calif taxes =220k..2500 a month housing,sharing W/another player=15k +10k union dues,down to 190k..plus expenses.. food,flts,transportation,ect.down to.. 175k a yr.. times 3yrs..does not make a million..oh and add agent fees 2-3% ..most walk away after 3 yrs with less than 250k if they are lucky..no,not slaves,but not rich either.

We all pay rent, food, and taxes. If I subtract all the costs out of the average american income it's not going to average at 40 grand either. Anyway you look at it the worse players in the NFL are still cashing it in over most of the population.

But these guys dedicate their whole life to play in the NFL and have very few options once their career is over. That amount of money is peanuts for a career you worked your whole life for

That really isn't the league's problem. Not everyone who makes a NFL roster is entitled to a lifetime's worth of money. Just like not every actor is going to make it in Hollywood and not every band signed to a record company is going to cash it in. These guys we're talking about aren't the guys making money for the league. I've never watched a game to see brilliant special teams action. Or to watch Jason Hill.

If they played their cards right they would have used that education pretty much all of them had the oppurtunity to get. Otherwise they're living life just like the average American without a career path.

No it's not their problem, but they deserve every penny they get and we can agree it isn't that much. And these players make up a big portion of the NFL.

No we don't agree on that. For 3 years work it's very good money. They make 8x the average worker and by no standards is it chump change. Even after expenses they're still years ahead of most people 1-3 years out of college. Cry me a river that they have hold a different job the rest of their life.

As of right now players receive 60% of all revenue minus the 1st of 9 billion. I don't blame the union for wanting to keep that number to as close as possible. But that's a more than fair number, and this modern day slavery sh*t is as dumb as it gets. NFL players are well compensated and well represented. They don't do anything that's not collectively bargained over. Other than having to work for a white guy I see no comparision.

What's the point? Stop comparing these guys to "average" people, and goofy post-college grads. The amount of revenue that they generate is so above "average" it's hard to find words. Please tell me, when was the last time half of America tuned in on Sunday to watch you do anything? When was the last time a major network was able to charge fortune 500 companies a million dollars a minute to run adds in between segments of watching you sit on your couch? I would guess never? However, the next time you and your buddies are able to sell out a stadium of 60 thousand plus, I would be curious to know what you charged?


LOL...


P.S. If you want a better index of "average" when gaging what these guys should make, look at the Sienfield cast, or maybe Friends. I wonder how many of those actors will end up dead or disabled by 60?

NFL players currently make 55% of all revenue coming into the league. Don't give me the they're not getting paid enough argument. I get it. They want to keep that number, and I don't blame them for that. So I'm not taking the owner's side in this lockout because I really don't care who comes out on top.

I'm criticizing AP's retarded comments. That's it. The players we're talking about here make the league very little money. How many guys with a 3 year career making league minimum can you tell me made the league money? I don't know about you but I've never watched a football game to see great special teams action or to watch Jason Hill's development. Sure stars come out of nowhere but they almost always get paid. The guys who are 3 years or less and done are guys who barely belonged. If somebody paid to watch them play it was because of their front of the uniform not the back.

We're not talking about Seinfeld, Kramer, Elaine, or Newman. We're talking about that guy who made an appearance on the show twice and is only known for saying "no soup for you". I can pretty much guarantee you he's not set for life because of that one appearance on Seinfeld.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Mar 18, 2011 at 18:12:04 ]

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by franklinfan:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by aclarke49:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Read this article - link posted on PFT - thought it was interesting.

To be an African American NFL player is to play in a league where 70% of the players are black and 100% of the owners are white. It’s a league where only 3 percent of head coaches were black until the famous (or infamous) lawyer Johnnie Cochran threatened a mass class-action lawsuit, saying he would “litigate if they do not integrate.” It’s a league where collegiate players hoping to be drafted show up to the NFL combine to be poked, prodded and have various body parts judged and measured. Teams basically do everything short of having someone run their finger along the players’ gums. If you are lucky enough to make the league, you will be blessed with a career that will, on average, last 3.4 years, and cursed with a life expectancy twenty-two years shorter than that of the typical American male. Your contract isn’t guaranteed, so if you do sustain some horrific injury, you are officially yesterday’s trash.

Link

“Learn to LISTEN before you pass judgment. Because speaking without knowledge of subject is truly ignorant,” Rashard Mendenhall wrote.

The median salary in the NFL in 2009 was roughly $770,000. In 2008 it was about $720,000.

Signing bonuses vary from $100k to $20 million.

There are 1,696 total players in the NFL. According the US Census 1860 there were aprox. four million slaves. Who had no rights, no money, no fame, no security.

NFL players get paid this to play a game. Yes, it's dangerous but so are many other professions that receive far less compensation.

They, unlike slaves, have the choice to find another profession. They, unlike slaves can earn a small fortune. They, unlike slaves have rights that protect and help them. They, unlike slaves earn fame and notoriety in our society.

They, unlike slaves, have really very little value to the survival of our society. However, the argument can be made that our nation was built, at least in part, upon the labor or slaves.

They, unlike slaves, have the opportunity for a very bright future for them and their children. Slaves did not have the same opportunities.

To say that NFL players are like slaves, is like spitting in the face of all of those who did endure and still endure true slavery.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_salary_of_an_NFL_football_player#ixzz1GtNRmj8R

I don't agree with what AD said, just posted an article which defended him and I thought the article had an interested take on it. Of course, slavery is a huge exaggeration, but I get what AD is trying to say.

Also, AD used the word "modern day slavery" if I remember correctly. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare it to what slavery was in 1800. Still, it's a huge exaggeration, but that's a little unfair comparison.

Even guys who make minimum NFL salary still make 8 times the amount that an average American worker makes. 3 year career. That's a million bucks earned by the age of 25-26. That's a pretty good head start for the rest of their life.

Slavery - modern day slavery doesn't matter it's a retarded statement. The worse players in the NFL still should be living real well.

minimun wage=320k +120 =440k 50% goes to fed+calif taxes =220k..2500 a month housing,sharing W/another player=15k +10k union dues,down to 190k..plus expenses.. food,flts,transportation,ect.down to.. 175k a yr.. times 3yrs..does not make a million..oh and add agent fees 2-3% ..most walk away after 3 yrs with less than 250k if they are lucky..no,not slaves,but not rich either.

We all pay rent, food, and taxes. If I subtract all the costs out of the average american income it's not going to average at 40 grand either. Anyway you look at it the worse players in the NFL are still cashing it in over most of the population.

But these guys dedicate their whole life to play in the NFL and have very few options once their career is over. That amount of money is peanuts for a career you worked your whole life for

That really isn't the league's problem. Not everyone who makes a NFL roster is entitled to a lifetime's worth of money. Just like not every actor is going to make it in Hollywood and not every band signed to a record company is going to cash it in. These guys we're talking about aren't the guys making money for the league. I've never watched a game to see brilliant special teams action. Or to watch Jason Hill.

If they played their cards right they would have used that education pretty much all of them had the oppurtunity to get. Otherwise they're living life just like the average American without a career path.

No it's not their problem, but they deserve every penny they get and we can agree it isn't that much. And these players make up a big portion of the NFL.

No we don't agree on that. For 3 years work it's very good money. They make 8x the average worker and by no standards is it chump change. Even after expenses they're still years ahead of most people 1-3 years out of college. Cry me a river that they have hold a different job the rest of their life.

As of right now players receive 60% of all revenue minus the 1st of 9 billion. I don't blame the union for wanting to keep that number to as close as possible. But that's a more than fair number, and this modern day slavery sh*t is as dumb as it gets. NFL players are well compensated and well represented. They don't do anything that's not collectively bargained over. Other than having to work for a white guy I see no comparision.

What's the point? Stop comparing these guys to "average" people, and goofy post-college grads. The amount of revenue that they generate is so above "average" it's hard to find words. Please tell me, when was the last time half of America tuned in on Sunday to watch you do anything? When was the last time a major network was able to charge fortune 500 companies a million dollars a minute to run adds in between segments of watching you sit on your couch? I would guess never? However, the next time you and your buddies are able to sell out a stadium of 60 thousand plus, I would be curious to know what you charged?


LOL...


P.S. If you want a better index of "average" when gaging what these guys should make, look at the Sienfield cast, or maybe Friends. I wonder how many of those actors will end up dead or disabled by 60?

NFL players currently make 55% of all revenue coming into the league. Don't give me the they're not getting paid enough argument. I get it. They want to keep that number, and I don't blame them for that. So I'm not taking the owner's side in this lockout because I really don't care who comes out on top.

I'm criticizing AP's retarded comments. That's it. The players we're talking about here make the league very little money. How many guys with a 3 year career making league minimum can you tell me made the league money? I don't know about you but I've never watched a football game to see great special teams action or to watch Jason Hill's development. Sure stars come out of nowhere but they almost always get paid. The guys who are 3 years or less and done are guys who barely belonged. If somebody paid to watch them play it was because of their front of the uniform not the back.

We're not talking about Seinfeld, Kramer, Elaine, or Newman. We're talking about that guy who made an appearance on the show twice and is only known for saying "no soup for you". I can pretty much guarantee you he's not set for life because of that one appearance on Seinfeld.

First off, let me apologize for the tone of my post. I realize I need to tone down my aggressive writing style, plus I was in a bad mood...

Anyway, I dont want to get into a deep debate about it, but i would argue that NFL "role players" are collectively just as important as the "superstars." To use your analogy, you can have a Seinfeld episode with out the "no soup for you" guy, but it would be pretty darn hard to have a football game with only a franchise QB and his star WR. Though superstars make 3rd stringers look like scrubs, those 3rd stringers are still increadibly gifted. There are a little over 1,600 players in the NFL (32 x 53) out of a population of 300 million. If your in, you're impressive.

P.S. It was a dumb statement by AP.

[ Edited by Oakland-Niner on Mar 18, 2011 at 18:40:10 ]

No Soup Nazi? Its just wouldnt work without him!