52 replies to this topic

[Bugg]

He's top man for a multi-billion dollar enterprise that is as successful (an enterprise) as it has ever been.

 

His employers (the only opinion that counts) felt his service warranted this compensation.

 

Since people brought it up, a few points:

 

-It is not the Commissioner's Job to do the Union's Job for them.  Things like retirement benefits, pesions, those are items the Players Union is responsible for negotiating to get if they want them.  It's not the Commishioners job to simply have them out.  He is not the U.S. Government. he does not run a players charity when he's running the NFL itself.  It's a business.

 

-Speaking of the Government, you'd have to be willfully not looking to see what Goddell is doing what he's doing on the concussion issue.  He must be seen to be addressing "workplace safety" of the Federal Government WILL address it for him, and their interests are not the league/fan's interests.  Want flag football, do nothing and wait....the Government will make it happen.  Think "steroid hearings".   The NFL is a business, and Congress can (and will) regulate it.

 

-It's irrelevant if you (or I) think he's doing a bad job, or is an idiot.  We do not employ him, nor are we judging on the criteria his employers do (i.e. labor agreement/peace, profitabillity, rating, public relations, corporate relations, ad. revenue, etc).  A single Fan's view is as meaningless as it comes.

 

Him being paid more than players is no different that a CEO being paid more than his firm's best salesman.  Thats to be expected, honestly. 

 

Really, it's odd that anyone cares what he makes.  I'm at a loss as to how it affects us, or matters to us, and has any relation to us fans what he's paid. 

When a business as a matter of course  grinds up the health fo it's employees so much that it's a given they will be crippled later in life, it's incumbent to do their level best to seethey have excellent health care as they get older. Otherwise you have HoFers like Mike Webster living in fridge boxes under highway overpasses, or Earl Cambpell stuck in a wheelchair popping pills, or Dave Duerson and Junior Seau committing suicide, or Harry Crason saying he wished he never played football given how it's compromised his health . The fact that their union is run stupidly is irrelevant. And when the NFL babbles about 'safety" and runs that idiotic tackling-free and blocking-free ad(Goodell's "vision") even the Commissioner knows it.

[Churchill]

When a business as a matter of course  grinds up the health fo it's employees so much that it's a given they will be crippled later in life, it's incumbent to do their level best to seethey have excellent health care as they get older. Otherwise you have HoFers like Mike Webster living in fridge boxes under highway overpasses, or Earl Cambpell stuck in a wheelchair popping pills, or Dave Duerson and Junior Seau committing suicide, or Harry Crason saying he wished he never played football given how it's compromised his health . The fact that their union is run stupidly is irrelevant. And when the NFL babbles about 'safety" and runs that idiotic tackling-free and blocking-free ad(Goodell's "vision") even the Commissioner knows it.

 

1. It is not "a given" that playing in the NFL leads to permanent life-long disabillity.  The vast majority do not suffer such an outcome.

 

2. It is neither a "matter of course" nor "incumbent" for a business to give away benefits to it's employees that it's employees own representation didn't prioritize nor demand.

 

3. Post-Career Healthcare and Pension is a negotiated benefit, a rather uncommon and exceptional one at that.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Ask your own employer (assuming private business) if they'll give you free lifelong healthcare, and a pension, without you giving up something for it.

 

4. The players themselves, who have been paid well in excess of the average American for decades and decades, bears the sole responsabillity for their own fiscal and health planning for their post-career life.  Same as anyone else.  If they wind up homeless and poor, it's because they mismanaged their money, and poorly prioritized their future.  And be sure, these are the minority.  Most NFL players can (and do) work a job post-career if needed.  If they play 20 years, and cash all those checks, but wind up disabled, that too is on them.  No one forced them to play that long or cash those checks.

 

Again, it's all irrelevant.  You cannot simply dismiss the Unions direct and complete responsabillity for representing the interests of their members.  If post-career healthcare and retirement money was a priority, players would have it today.  The players (as a whole) themselves did not prioritize it, they prioritized top-end contracts for their elite players and other (it could be argued less important) things instead.

 

All of which is irrelevant to Godell, who does not bear responsabillity for previous generations of labor/management agreements.  His job is to reach a labor agreement, and to improve the business of the NFL, whilst managing the varied views and pinions of the 32 billionaires he works for.   Apparently the owners feel very differently than you do.

 

And frankly, if you felt as strongly about this as you seem to, you wouldn't continue to watch eveyr minute of every game of a sport you find morally detestable and exploitive of it's players, would you?

[Bugg]

1. It is not "a given" that playing in the NFL leads to permanent life-long disabillity.  The vast majority do not suffer such an outcome.

 

2. It is neither a "matter of course" nor "incumbent" for a business to give away benefits to it's employees that it's employees own representation didn't prioritize nor demand.

 

3. Post-Career Healthcare and Pension is a negotiated benefit, a rather uncommon and exceptional one at that.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Ask your own employer (assuming private business) if they'll give you free lifelong healthcare, and a pension, without you giving up something for it.

 

4. The players themselves, who have been paid well in excess of the average American for decades and decades, bears the sole responsabillity for their own fiscal and health planning for their post-career life.  Same as anyone else.  If they wind up homeless and poor, it's because they mismanaged their money, and poorly prioritized their future.  And be sure, these are the minority.  Most NFL players can (and do) work a job post-career if needed.  If they play 20 years, and cash all those checks, but wind up disabled, that too is on them.  No one forced them to play that long or cash those checks.

 

Again, it's all irrelevant.  You cannot simply dismiss the Unions direct and complete responsabillity for representing the interests of their members.  If post-career healthcare and retirement money was a priority, players would have it today.  The players (as a whole) themselves did not prioritize it, they prioritized top-end contracts for their elite players and other (it could be argued less important) things instead.

 

All of which is irrelevant to Godell, who does not bear responsabillity for previous generations of labor/management agreements.  His job is to reach a labor agreement, and to improve the business of the NFL, whilst managing the varied views and pinions of the 32 billionaires he works for.   Apparently the owners feel very differently than you do.

 

And frankly, if you felt as strongly about this as you seem to, you wouldn't continue to watch eveyr minute of every game of a sport you find morally detestable and exploitive of it's players, would you?

Basically Goodell is Emperor Commodius, the players are the gladiators, the union a joke.

 

There are simple things Goodell can do to mitigate the later in life health issues.The idea there is no longterm health consequences to playing NFL football is not even disputed by the NFL, which is why they are running ads like the "timeline" and babbling about "saftey" evern 10 minutes. Goodell concedes it.The biggest thing he could do unilaterally  is a decent healthcare plan.  Because Damaurice Smith is a short-sighted a$$hole is not a good reason for the retirees to have a crappy health plan. And the spectre of Mike Ditka, Dick Butkus and Harry Carson begging for that is really bad for business. If Goodell improved that instead of running insipid ads hit would be a PR coup and a very good thing. To not do so is bad for business.

[bitonti]

There are simple things Goodell can do to mitigate the later in life health issues. 

 

other than banning all collisions and turning it into flag football im not sure what these simple things are... Goodell doesn't have to fix the problem he just has to look like he's fixing it. Eventually the litigation will come in like a tidal wave. 

[Churchill]

Basically Goodell is Emperor Commodius, the players are the gladiators, the union a joke.

 

A colorful, if irrelevant, metaphor.

 

 

There are simple things Goodell can do to mitigate the later in life health issues.The idea there is no longterm health consequences to playing NFL football is not even disputed by the NFL, which is why they are running ads like the "timeline" and babbling about "saftey" evern 10 minutes. Goodell concedes it.The biggest thing he could do unilaterally is a decent healthcare plan. Because Damaurice Smith is a short-sighted a$$hole is not a good reason for the retirees to have a crappy health plan. And the spectre of Mike Ditka, Dick Butkus and Harry Carson begging for that is really bad for business. If Goodell improved that instead of running insipid ads hit would be a PR coup and a very good thing. To not do so is bad for business.

 

There are no "simple things" that will eliminate the risk of possible health damage in a violent collision sport.  Better equipment and rules changes are the only real mechanics available, and the players and their union (and many fans) fight such changes tooth and nail at every single step along the way.  For example, mandatory benchings for possible concussions/injuries is exceedingly unpopular with the players. 

 

And while you can say "it isn't the Unions fault, and the league should simply give things away" that is, with respect, not how the world, or business, operates.  It's very easy to be humanitarian and morally outraged with someone elses billions of dollars.  The Union represents the players.  Healthcare and Pension requests are their responsabillity to demand as a priority.  As stated, if you were so offended by this, then and now, you would not follow the sport.  Yet you do.

 

With respect, your argument is purely one of emotion, not fact or business reality.  You feel for famous players now sadly in a bad place, and ignore their own responsabillity, that of their union, and their own fiscal wastefulness, and instead blame the big bad business of the NFL.  I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect.

 

Unless the NFL hid evidence of harm (a la the cigarette industry) or forced player X to watse all his money, there is no debt owned by the league to the players.  I'm all for players (retired and current) getting healthcare, but in the real world that means their Union needs to demand it, and the players need to give something up to get it. 

 

Thats what collective bargaining is.  Players lose a year of free agency, and get healthcare for life.  Two less preseason, two more regular season, and players gain a pension.  Etc.

 

But ti starts and ends with the players themselves and their Union.  Not Godell, whose been here for about a week in the grand scheme, and is not liable for whay Westley Walker is where he is today health wise. 

[Bugg]

A colorful, if irrelevant, metaphor.

 

 

 

There are no "simple things" that will eliminate the risk of possible health damage in a violent collision sport.  Better equipment and rules changes are the only real mechanics available, and the players and their union (and many fans) fight such changes tooth and nail at every single step along the way.  For example, mandatory benchings for possible concussions/injuries is exceedingly unpopular with the players. 

 

And while you can say "it isn't the Unions fault, and the league should simply give things away" that is, with respect, not how the world, or business, operates.  It's very easy to be humanitarian and morally outraged with someone elses billions of dollars.  The Union represents the players.  Healthcare and Pension requests are their responsabillity to demand as a priority.  As stated, if you were so offended by this, then and now, you would not follow the sport.  Yet you do.

 

With respect, your argument is purely one of emotion, not fact or business reality.  You feel for famous players now sadly in a bad place, and ignore their own responsabillity, that of their union, and their own fiscal wastefulness, and instead blame the big bad business of the NFL.  I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect.

 

Unless the NFL hid evidence of harm (a la the cigarette industry) or forced player X to watse all his money, there is no debt owned by the league to the players.  I'm all for players (retired and current) getting healthcare, but in the real world that means their Union needs to demand it, and the players need to give something up to get it. 

 

Thats what collective bargaining is.  Players lose a year of free agency, and get healthcare for life.  Two less preseason, two more regular season, and players gain a pension.  Etc.

 

But ti starts and ends with the players themselves and their Union.  Not Godell, whose been here for about a week in the grand scheme, and is not liable for whay Westley Walker is where he is today health wise. 

Having retired players shoot themselves is bad for business. You probably can never make football safe. But you can at a minimum give retired a better chance at a decent old age if you take some of the billions and get them a decent medical plan. I'm probably the most right wing nutball libertarian here, and I think it's disgraceful this is even a discussion with the level of income the NFL generates.

[Churchill]

Having retired players shoot themselves is bad for business. You probably can never make football safe. But you can at a minimum give retired a better chance at a decent old age if you take some of the billions and get them a decent medical plan. I'm probably the most right wing nutball libertarian here, and I think it's disgraceful this is even a discussion with the level of income the NFL generates.

 

There will always be retired players who commit suicide.  There will always be retired players who are destitute.  These facts will not result in a single net-loss of ticket sales or merch sales or TV revenue.  It's not a "good/bad for business" issue.

 

if the Union (i.e. the Players as a whole) want retirement healthcare and a pension, they can get it, rather easily.

 

They simply don't want to give up the Millions available now, nor do they give a rats ass about the players who came before themselves.

 

We don't disagree at the core.  We agree players should get retired benefits.  We simply disagree on who is responsible for why they don't have them, and how the process goes to get them.

Edited by Churchill, 19 February 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[Bergen Jet]

far be it for me to defend Roger Goodell but the NFL is a 11 figure business (tens of BILLIONs with a capital b  . Guys who run those types of organizations get paid that and way more than Roger. Hundreds of Mil isn't unheard of... It's a conversation about CEO pay when you get right down to it. Whether it's Roger or whoever, that's what the head of the a business that size gets paid. 

 

 

He made the same amount as Jamie Dimon, CEO of CitiGroup who runs an empire worth hundreds of billions.  It is also substantially more than Steve Ballmer gets from Microsoft who hasn't gotten any stock options lately (BTW, I just remember the numbers of both of these guys...  I am sure a quick web search can find a boat load of major company CEOs that make less than Goodell, the same way you can find a bunch that make more).

[flgreen]

He made the same amount as Jamie Dimon, CEO of CitiGroup who runs an empire worth hundreds of billions.  It is also substantially more than Steve Ballmer gets from Microsoft who hasn't gotten any stock options lately (BTW, I just remember the numbers of both of these guys...  I am sure a quick web search can find a boat load of major company CEOs that make less than Goodell, the same way you can find a bunch that make more).

The bottom like is, the 32 billionaires who sign his check don’t seem to have a problem with it.

Why should we?

[jgb]

He doesn't "run" the enterprise.  The owners do, and rake in billions for it.  He's just a figurehead who is given power by those owners.  If they really wanted to, they could eliminate his position and run things themselves. 

Yes but you're acting like Goodell is the CEO of the NFL and he is not.  What justification is there for tripling his salary?  Because just saying he "runs a multi-billion dollar industry" is incorrect and doesn't contribute to the discussion.
 
 

 
That's fine and good.  But why does this particular commissioner deserve special treatment?  The NBA has had tremendous success, but you never saw David Stern paid like this even when he's a much bigger reason than Goodell for his sports' wealth.

Not sure exactly what you're arguing here... That the nfl should be capped at what it can pay its commissioner??? Your opinion of worth means approximately as much as mine does. The guys with the money write the checks and the market determines compensation.

[Bergen Jet]

The bottom like is, the 32 billionaires who sign his check don’t seem to have a problem with it.

Why should we?

I don't.  I was responding to Bit 

[TiaPreece]

Yea, this is crazy he made so much! Why not lower ticket prices for everyone and cut his salary? 

 

Here is a blog on this topic too! http://tinyurl.com/an4ya74

[flgreen]

I don't.  I was responding to Bit 

LOL

 

That's fair