True but the mechanics of baseball vis a vis football dictate a LOT more exposure to star players than football. The lack of a helmets, the smaller number of players, the continous, unending focus on individual batter v. pitcher matchups - it's a sport that is far more geared towards building recognition and making individual stars than a blob of 22 guys on screen in uniforms and helmets smashing into each other simultaneously. Put it this way, I follow neither the Yankees nor the Giants (in fact I try to avoid the Yankees) but I can probably name 2/3 of the Yankees lineup and coud identify most of their players on sight if I saw them in person or their picture. The giants? Outside of maybe Eli Manning and Brandon Jacobs (who I saw in person once) I couldn't identify any of them.
But that's not an issue of power of the union - that's simply a matter of internal union priorities. The league doesn't care if it's paying players in cash or in health care. The goal of the union is to extract as much money as they can out of the owners, and the NFL players have done a fantastic job at getting a high % of league revenues in a very healthy and rich league. If they chose to distribute that to players instead of setting up long term pensions or whatever, that's just a matter of their priorities.
The goal of the union should be looking out for its current members not potential members. One of the problems is rookies get ridiculous contracts and guys who bleed for their team get cut. The union might getting the most percentage, but if you poll current players I am sure they would be the least satisfied of the major unions. You think MLBPA would ever allow roger to get away with any of what he currently gets away with? I remember seeing real sports on how screwed ex-nfl guys get. I wonder how gene upshaw kept his job.
But again, that's not a issue of union weakness. The NFL would be happy to lower rookie pay and raise pay for other players. It's not like it's Goodell that's pushing that on the union - that's an internal union matter.
oh right, I was thinking of the veteran minimum, which is twice as high as the rookie/non vet minimum.
With the exception of top projected rookies earning all that money before playing a single down of football, I really like the way the NFL is set up. As a fan, I love that my team has an equal chance at being successful. Parity is awesome! Plus, franchises can still achieve the glory of building an empire. It just has to be done with great scouting and wise distrubution of the $. Here is to the texans in 2009! (raises cup of water) * I do think that the pensions for retired players should increase way more than it is now.
The non-guaranteed contracts are the reason why I never trip off a player who holds out on a contract. You have these media personalities who complains and says honor your contract when franchisees never honor theirs.
Signing bonuses balances out the non-guarantee on contracts. Player benefits and pensions are a hell of alot better than they used to be. Even a 2-3 year player gets taken care of these days. But the pioneers of the game are screwed. Today's players are taken care of and honestly the deal today is pretty good and fair. If you are a marginal player and perform, you get a new contract for more money. If you don't perform, you get cut and have to find a job. If you get hurt, the NFL takes care of you. But as I said before the older player do get screwed.
I think it's that NFL players wear helmets so they're not as recognizable as other sport stars and also the NFL isn't as stat driven a league as the NBA or MLB. There aren't many numbers that explain the quality of one offensive lineman as opposed to another or one fullback to another, etc. A team can cut a really good lineman and replace him with a journeyman and most fans won't be able to tell the difference unless that journeyman gives up a ton of sacks.
The last thing pro football needs is a stronger player's union, and the thought of agents controlling the NFL like they do MLB makes me nauseous. The league does need to do more in the area of helping ex players, who have disabilities, but that can be addressed without giving players more power. As for guaranteed contracts, they've almost ruined the NBA and MLB, and they would do the same thing to the NFL.
I remember seeing a Real Sports segment that featured a former Jacksonville Jaguar offensive linemman who was not being taken care of.
A good job? Like what, keeping testing out of the sport? Or forcing the hands of the league every time they don't get their way? I agree with Raven on this one. Yes, the issues with long term or career ending injuries and pensions is a fair one, and they should be brought to task, and it seems like it's headed that direction, but to think that a fan would want the player's union to be more like Baseball's is disturbing. That union nearly brought the entire sport to its knees, and the blacklash created more than a decade of ridiculous events that have soured my passion as a baseball fan, at the hands of players, owners and 'commissioner' alike. I'm all for the league's and player's unions playing fair, but I can't get with where the MLB union has been for the past 15 years.
I'm going to have to disagree. While franchises do "define the league," it's still a star driven sport. If suddenly we got rid of all the star players and had a bunch of scabs playing baseball who were mediocre at everything, fans wouldn't want to go see the games anymore. They like to see dominant pitchers who throw hard and dominant hitters who hit 50 bombs. If baseball played a season with scabs that threw in the mid 80s and hitters who had no bat speed to drive the ball, they'd really, REALLY struggle to draw fans.
I will always be a player advocate. To me it is crazy that anyone would think players shouldn't be able to get guaranteed contracts. Teams make enormous profits off of these guys, and I personally think that players should be able to get every possible cent of that money.
and if the NFL lost ALL it's pro bowl caliber players, people would still pack stadiums?? revenues would remain constant?? come on, that's a bit of a strawman. of course if any of the major pro sports leagues lost all their all stars in a common bass-fishing accident, it would be devastating.
Yes it would, but the NFL is better suited to survive losing star players than the other major sports. While they have stars, they are less driven by them. Fans know fewer players on the teams, players have short careers to begin with, etc. We are message board type fans so we know the guys on the teams we root for, but there are two guys in my office with season tickets and they can only name 2 players on the Texans.
football is definitely much more of a special event. only 8 home games...the fact that they're all on weekends, for the most part. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying MLB is to that level....but far more so than the NBA with respect to why fans care. i THINK (could just be my perception) there is greater assocation with franchises in MLB among fans than there is among NBA fans. i don't perceive a lot of, "he's my favorite player, so no matter where he gets traded, that's the team i'll root for" sorta deal in MLB like I do with the NBA.
