Jet Moses Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Wow, worse that I thought... Within two years of retirement, 78 percent of NFL players are bankrupt or in severe financial distress. Unlike Rocket Ismail, most of those players can't blame it on the negative karma associated with getting a bear hug from Michael Irvin. How is this possible? The minimum salary for rookies in 2009 is $310,000. That jumps to $460,000 for two year veterans. How can men who earn so much have so little after retirement? The Business Insider looked at that question today and listed 10 ways that sports stars destroy their finances. Most of the reasons fall under the umbrella of one of the ways, "Act Dumb". (These include "Do Drugs", "Fight Dogs" and "Have Too Many Children". Two outta three ain't bad, Michael Vick(notes).) Other paths to financial ruin like "Put Money in a Ponzi Scheme" or "Invest Too Much In Real Estate" can be more about bad luck than anything, but never underestimate the power of habitually poor judgment. (Or stupidity. Tomato/Tomahto.) Case in point, here's a blurb from the "Making Bad Investments" entry: Rocket Ismail also squandered a fortune funding an inspirational movie; the music label COZ Records; a cosmetics procedure whereby oxygen was absorbed into the skin; a plan to create nationwide phone-card dispensers; a Rock N' Roll Caf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 LOL well he can always sign autographs for $$$ like pete Rose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 It really isn't surprising. Many of the people who play in the NFL come from families that never had much experience with saving and investing most living paycheck to paycheck. Odds are you will find that is the biggest factor, if the NFL player came from a suburban family with parents who owned their own home had a 401k, IRA, stock investments, I am willing to bet most of them are not broke two years out. On the other hand kids from families that didn't have a checking account and lived paycheck to paycheck (or on welfare) coming from broken homes, I am willing to bet most of them are broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 [quote name='Blackout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 It really isn't surprising. Many of the people who play in the NFL come from families that never had much experience with saving and investing most living paycheck to paycheck. Odds are you will find that is the biggest factor, if the NFL player came from a suburban family with parents who owned their own home had a 401k, IRA, stock investments, I am willing to bet most of them are not broke two years out. On the other hand kids from families that didn't have a checking account and lived paycheck to paycheck (or on welfare) coming from broken homes, I am willing to bet most of them are broke. Oprah Winfrey aint broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Oprah Winfrey aint broke. Oprah Winfrey ain't retired. And it ain't gonna be 100%, so even if you find an example or two that doesn't prove me wrong, but I bet you would see a strong correlation, but yes, you will find exception on both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Oprah Winfrey ain't retired. And it ain't gonna be 100%, so even if you find an example or two that doesn't prove me wrong, but I bet you would see a strong correlation, but yes, you will find exception on both. Are you saying that if we were to give a few million dollars to every person on welfare, that within two years, they would be broke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Are you saying that if we were to give a few million dollars to every person on welfare, that within two years, they would be broke? Not each and every one, but the majority of them would be. Plus many of the ex-NFL players didn't make a couple of million. Some only made 300K for one year of service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Not each and every one, but the majority of them would be. Plus many of the ex-NFL players didn't make a couple of million. Some only made 300K for one year of service. OK, so if we give $300,000 to everybody on welfare, they are gonna go broke within two years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 OK, so if we give $300,000 to everybody on welfare, they are gonna go broke within two years? Majority...yes, but not each and everyone. Plus this isn't giving each person on welfare $300K. This is giving one kid $300K. All of his friends and family are still on welfare and asking for loans/gifts. Plus some of his new friends are making several million dollars a year and he want their same lifesytle. Plus he doesn't think he is only gonna make $300k. He figures he is gonna make it big and keep getting the checks and one day sign a contract like Eli Manning's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Majority...yes, but not each and everyone. Plus this isn't giving each person on welfare $300K. This is giving one kid $300K. All of his friends and family are still on welfare and asking for loans/gifts. Plus some of his new friends are making several million dollars a year and he want their same lifesytle. Plus he doesn't think he is only gonna make $300k. He figures he is gonna make it big and keep getting the checks and one day sign a contract like Eli Manning's. Isn't that the same thing as taking an 18 year old raised on welfare, and giving him a grant or a scholarship to go to college? You do see where I'm going with this, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Isn't that the same thing as taking an 18 year old raised on welfare, and giving him a grant or a scholarship to go to college? You do see where I'm going with this, right? Huge difference between handing an 18 year old $300K in cash and giving a kid on welfare a scholarship to college. When he graduates college he will have the skills to support himself through employement. And even if he doesn't immeadely master the idea of not living paycheck to paycheck and saving, as long as the skills he learns in college allows the paychecks to keep coming, living pay check to paycheck isn't the end of the world. (of course this assumes that the kids got into college cause he was smart and not cause of his ability to shoot a basket or tackle. And that he was required to attend classes and learn in college and didn't get a pass so he could focus on sports practice) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Majority...yes, but not each and everyone. Plus this isn't giving each person on welfare $300K. This is giving one kid $300K. All of his friends and family are still on welfare and asking for loans/gifts. Plus some of his new friends are making several million dollars a year and he want their same lifesytle. Plus he doesn't think he is only gonna make $300k. He figures he is gonna make it big and keep getting the checks and one day sign a contract like Eli Manning's. It sounds like the "kid" in your example is either incapable and or irresponsible to be be given an 6 figure salary. Am I reading you right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Huge difference between handing an 18 year old $300K in cash and giving a kid on welfare a scholarship to college. When he graduates college he will have the skills to support himself through employement. And even if he doesn't immeadely master the idea of not living paycheck to paycheck and saving, as long as the skills he learns in college allows the paychecks to keep coming, living pay check to paycheck isn't the end of the world. (of course this assumes that the kids got into college cause he was smart and not cause of his ability to shoot a basket or tackle. And that he was required to attend classes and learn in college and didn't get a pass so he could focus on sports practice) But the "kid" drafted into the NFL isn't 18 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Huge difference between handing an 18 year old $300K in cash and giving a kid on welfare a scholarship to college. When he graduates college he will have the skills to support himself through employement. Did Raghib Ismail graduate from college? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 It sounds like the "kid" in your example is either incapable and or irresponsible to be be given an 6 figure salary. Am I reading you right? Pretty much. I am saying that the majority of kids entering the NFL lack the money skills to managed their money and that the problem is worse for kids coming from families that live in poverty than it is for kids coming from middle class families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Pretty much. I am saying that the majority of kids entering the NFL lack the money skills to managed their money and that the problem is worse for kids coming from families that live in poverty than it is for kids coming from middle class families. So throwing money at the problem is not the solution, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Not for nothing, I wish I could have went to Notre Dame free of charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Did Raghib Ismail graduate from college? No idea. But Ismail falls into the example of the "(of course this assumes that the kids got into college cause he was smart and not cause of his ability to shoot a basket or tackle. And that he was required to attend classes and learn in college and didn't get a pass so he could focus on sports practice)" portion of my quote you edited out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 WTF.. HOW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 No idea. But Ismail falls into the example of the "(of course this assumes that the kids got into college cause he was smart and not cause of his ability to shoot a basket or tackle. And that he was required to attend classes and learn in college and didn't get a pass so he could focus on sports practice)" portion of my quote you edited out. Notre Dame did lower their standards when Ismail was recruited, so maybe he isn't a good example. Anyway my point is, based on empircal evidence, that money is not the cure for poverty. Somebody needs to tell the government that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 WTF.. HOW? It's shocking, aint it? I thought maybe half, never 78%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Notre Dame did lower their standards when Ismail was recruited, so maybe he isn't a good example. Anyway my point is, based on empircal evidence, that money is not the cure for poverty. Somebody needs to tell the government that. Giving away cash isn't. Training and schooling is (that cost money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Giving away cash isn't. Training and schooling is (that cost money). How? It's the same exact thing to the people who have to foot the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewilly Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 ho odie, nfl needs to do more for players after rather than before. rookie $$$ is gettin outta hand. as players get more insanely fast & strong, more injury ending careers as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 ho odie, nfl needs to do more for players after rather than before. rookie $$$ is gettin outta hand. as players get more insanely fast & strong, more injury ending careers as well That would be a good idea. In exchange for a lower rookie pool and slower growing team cap...a larger pension fund. That way retired players will be guarenteed a check every month they can live of after retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Giving away cash isn't. Training and schooling is (that cost money). That sounds nice. It really does. But I think you are doing what most people do--- recite a nice platitude and then continue to ignore the problem. For example, it costs taxpayers $24,600 dollars--- wait, let me say that again because it's important--- $24,600 per pupil to educate a student in a Washington DC public school. The dropout rate in a Washington DC public school is 52.2%. I'm sorry, but there is something DISGUSTINGLY wrong with this picture. Can we get down to brass tacks here, or are we going to continue to play the emporers new clothes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 OK! Nothing to see here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Jet Moses, I am not gonna get into a politics debate with you regarding solving poverty issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Moses Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Jet Moses, I am not gonna get into a politics debate with you regarding solving poverty issues. I hear ya. Thanks for being a gentlemen during our discussion. It's pretty sad that there were 30 posters online and only three responded. But hey, the point spread is pretty low tomorrow, don't you think? That's whats important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.