Adrian Peterson: NFL is like "modern-day slavery"

[ABearWithFurniture]

Who cares though, he sure can run.

 

+1

[WaterMan]

Can you see why the correlation between the institution of slavery and a profession where the minimum salary is more than most people make in 5 years is patently absurd?

 

Oh wait, I forgot you just vomit one-liners and links without engaging in debate.

 

Here's another one.

 

Am I being paid per letter to type on this website?\

 

I just posted the article. People do come to this site to read articles. I am not defending Peterson's comment.

Edited March 19, 2011 by WaterMan

[buddahj]

A couple of players disagree with AP's comments Edited March 20, 2011 by buddahj

[osu1322]

A couple of players disagree with AP's comments

 

I'm glad some players are willing to stand up and say "hey AP ur out of line".

 

I'm not 100% on either side but what I don't like about the owners is they aren't willing to share records... I mean they keep telling everyone "we are losing money, everything is expensive." and all the NFLPA wants is proof of the that. I personally think the owners don't want to hand over the records cause it will show they aren't losing as much as they say they are and it will give the NFLPA something to bargain with.

[Bronco Billy]

I'm glad some players are willing to stand up and say "hey AP ur out of line".

 

I'm not 100% on either side but what I don't like about the owners is they aren't willing to share records... I mean they keep telling everyone "we are losing money, everything is expensive." and all the NFLPA wants is proof of the that. I personally think the owners don't want to hand over the records cause it will show they aren't losing as much as they say they are and it will give the NFLPA something to bargain with.

 

The league handed over records. It handed over the audited league finances, and it was done a while ago. The players want individual audited records from each team - 10 years worth in fact, or they simply will not participate. That's irrelevant to the negotiations. The union's contract is with the NFL, not with each team. It's pretty obvious why they want individual team records - not for the negotiations but in order to embarrass the few indiscreet owners who spent some of their money in less than savory or sensible ways, or if one believes more Machevellian motives to blackmail those indiscreet owners.

[flemingd]

in order to embarrass the few indiscreet owners who spent some of their money in less than savory or sensible ways, or if one believes more Machevellian motives to blackmail those indiscreet owners.

This is why this will never happen. No way the owners are going to allow NFLPA to see that they are paying their niece's husband 200k to rake leaves, or paying their worthless-ass GM 2 mil, or that they provide oriental massages to all front office personnel. It's simply none of the players' business. It would also open a pandora's box of sorts, as we'd see just how much some are bypassing cap limits with other types of spending.

 

I heard a great point by Brian Billick on NFL Sirius last week - if the owners need to open their books, so should the players. "you want a huge raise? Let me see your spending, and teach you how to spend and invest wisely" or something to that effect. That, also, would never happen.

[Bronco Billy]

This is why this will never happen. No way the owners are going to allow NFLPA to see that they are paying their niece's husband 200k to rake leaves, or paying their worthless-ass GM 2 mil, or that they provide oriental massages to all front office personnel. It's simply none of the players' business. It would also open a pandora's box of sorts, as we'd see just how much some are bypassing cap limits with other types of spending.

 

I heard a great point by Brian Billick on NFL Sirius last week - if the owners need to open their books, so should the players. "you want a huge raise? Let me see your spending, and teach you how to spend and invest wisely" or something to that effect. That, also, would never happen.

 

Agreed, though if the owners choose to use their share of their portion of the revenue to pay a niece's husband $200K to rake leaves, that's their perrogative.

 

But what you are saying is right on target, which is why the players' demand to see individual owners' books is why the agreement is likely to be stalemated for so long. This is a point that apparently neither side will relent on even though it is irrelevant to the negotiations. It's a tactic by the NFLPA and De Smith that is not well thought out because of its lack of basis and will ultimately lead to the players getting stuck with a lesser deal unless another body (courts) intervene.

[Ursa Majoris]

Agreed, though if the owners choose to use their share of their portion of the revenue to pay a niece's husband $200K to rake leaves, that's their perrogative.

 

But what you are saying is right on target, which is why the players' demand to see individual owners' books is why the agreement is likely to be stalemated for so long. This is a point that apparently neither side will relent on even though it is irrelevant to the negotiations. It's a tactic by the NFLPA and De Smith that is not well thought out because of its lack of basis and will ultimately lead to the players getting stuck with a lesser deal unless another body (courts) intervene.

My impression is that the owners are likely willing to take the whole "open the books" issue to the Supreme Court if necessary.

[detlef]

Not that AP's words weren't completely and totally inane, as so often happens, there's a needless correction to the other side.

 

That being that "Oh those poor players, they don't get to decide which team is going to pay them mad jack". Then they go on to explain that it is just like trying to get hired by a company with many branches throughout the country and the only one who needs what you've got is in another state. I mean, that's a fine analogy, but for the fact that is far too simple.

 

The NFL is not one big company with a bunch of branches. It is more like a bunch of competitors who agree upon a somewhat socialist union when it comes to some of the finances. Each team is not run the same way. Nowhere near the same as different branches of the same company. And the biggest difference comes down to the players.

 

Quite simply, there are certain players who will thrive for one team but not on another. There are schemes, prejudices against certain types of players, all sorts of things. Now, while this doesn't come up so much for highly drafted picks (and the contracts that they get sure soften the blow of being put in the wrong place), it would seem very likely that being picked by the wrong team could cripple the chances of a later pick making a team. And that's a guy who doesn't have a big pot of money to rely on him or help him bide the time until he finds a better situation.

 

So, it is massively different than IBM saying, "We need a guy with your skill set, but we need him in Omaha". It's more like branch manager in Omaha calling dibs on you because they think there's some chance they might want you and not allowing you to talk to anyone else for whom you think you might have a better chance of succeeding until both the guy in Omaha has realized you're not his guy and all the other places you might have worked have already hired everyone they're going to. Now you've got no money and are on the outside, looking in. Trying to stay sharp and in shape and hoping to catch on, provided the right team all of a sudden has an unexpected opening. Meanwhile, you've been encouraged to eat and breathe football and only football for the last 10 years.

 

It's no mystery, really, why they say that it is often better to get completely passed up by the draft rather than go in the last few rounds. And this is precisely that reason. In fact, I would love to see the respective % of un-drafted FAs making teams compared to guys taken in the 6th and 7th rounds. Especially considering that, theoretically, the FAs are considered by the league as a whole to be inferior prospects or they would have been drafted. I mean, sucks to be you when some team grabs you with their last pick because of your scout ratings even though you're really not their kind of guy. You were 30 minutes away from being able to audition for whomever you and your agent thought you'd have the best chance of actually playing.

 

So, while it is certainly easy to get on board with, "Poor AP, he was stuck getting paid $8 million a year by Minnesota rather than play for the team of his choice." that ignores a very real issue for a big percentage of players.

 

Again, this does not excuse AP stupidly comparing them to slaves (as many players have pointed out), but it doesn't also mean that the also inane opposite side of that argument is valid.

[tazinib1]

Not that AP's words weren't completely and totally inane, as so often happens, there's a needless correction to the other side.

 

That being that "Oh those poor players, they don't get to decide which team is going to pay them mad jack". Then they go on to explain that it is just like trying to get hired by a company with many branches throughout the country and the only one who needs what you've got is in another state. I mean, that's a fine analogy, but for the fact that is far too simple.

 

The NFL is not one big company with a bunch of branches. It is more like a bunch of competitors who agree upon a somewhat socialist union when it comes to some of the finances. Each team is not run the same way. Nowhere near the same as different branches of the same company. And the biggest difference comes down to the players.

 

Quite simply, there are certain players who will thrive for one team but not on another. There are schemes, prejudices against certain types of players, all sorts of things. Now, while this doesn't come up so much for highly drafted picks (and the contracts that they get sure soften the blow of being put in the wrong place), it would seem very likely that being picked by the wrong team could cripple the chances of a later pick making a team. And that's a guy who doesn't have a big pot of money to rely on him or help him bide the time until he finds a better situation.

 

So, it is massively different than IBM saying, "We need a guy with your skill set, but we need him in Omaha". It's more like branch manager in Omaha calling dibs on you because they think there's some chance they might want you and not allowing you to talk to anyone else for whom you think you might have a better chance of succeeding until both the guy in Omaha has realized you're not his guy and all the other places you might have worked have already hired everyone they're going to. Now you've got no money and are on the outside, looking in. Trying to stay sharp and in shape and hoping to catch on, provided the right team all of a sudden has an unexpected opening. Meanwhile, you've been encouraged to eat and breathe football and only football for the last 10 years.

 

It's no mystery, really, why they say that it is often better to get completely passed up by the draft rather than go in the last few rounds. And this is precisely that reason. In fact, I would love to see the respective % of un-drafted FAs making teams compared to guys taken in the 6th and 7th rounds. Especially considering that, theoretically, the FAs are considered by the league as a whole to be inferior prospects or they would have been drafted. I mean, sucks to be you when some team grabs you with their last pick because of your scout ratings even though you're really not their kind of guy. You were 30 minutes away from being able to audition for whomever you and your agent thought you'd have the best chance of actually playing.

 

So, while it is certainly easy to get on board with, "Poor AP, he was stuck getting paid $8 million a year by Minnesota rather than play for the team of his choice." that ignores a very real issue for a big percentage of players.

 

Again, this does not excuse AP stupidly comparing them to slaves (as many players have pointed out), but it doesn't also mean that the also inane opposite side of that argument is valid.

 

 

Sorry Detlef, I respect your opinion on certain things and you always seem to present a valid counter argument, but yes, its inane. Totally inane. Comparing playing football in the NFL to perhaps the biggest black eye in American history is nothing short of idiotic, no matter how you spin it.

Edited March 31, 2011 by tazinib1

[detlef]

Sorry Detlef, I respect your opinion on certain things and you always seem to present a valid counter argument, but yes, its inane. Totally inane. Comparing playing football in the NFL to perhaps the biggest black eye in American history is nothing short of idiotic, no matter how you spin it.

Dude, I specifically said it was inane twice in that post. My argument is with those who go too far in the other direction and claim that they have nothing what-so-ever to complain about in terms of the draft and further that it is "just like having to move to take a job".

[tazinib1]

Dude, I specifically said it was inane twice in that post. My argument is with those who go too far in the other direction and claim that they have nothing what-so-ever to complain about in terms of the draft and further that it is "just like having to move to take a job".

 

 

 

It's early. Oh BTW: "PLAY BALL!!"