Posted on 07/02/2007 11:15:25 AM PDT by JZelle
The NFL owes its old and broken-down players nothing.
That is just the way it is in business.
You negotiate your pension and medical benefits at the time of your employment.
You do not settle into retirement years later and cry, "No fair."
To be honest, you can cry all you like, but no one is apt to feel your pain.
Mike Ditka felt compelled to cry on Capitol Hill last week, when he voiced frustration with the system before a House subcommittee.
Give Ditka this. His motivations are altruistic. He is not concerned about his financial situation. He made a good chunk of change in coaching. His concern is with his fallen buddies from the '50s and '60s, when the NFL was something far less than the $6 billion-a-year industry it is today.
And that is the rub for those former players who have serious health and financial issues. They played in a more modest NFL. They played at time when baseball was the national pastime and boxing still mattered to a large segment of the American population. They played at a time when football players routinely held jobs in the offseason.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Voter approval of the politicians who support subsidized sports or referenda to fund stadiums does not justify the expenditure.
First, funding stadiums is NOT part of the legitimate role of government. It is not a power listed in any constitution. It is outside the bounds of the idea that government exists to protect our liberty. The fact that a majority can be mustered to vote for such a tax does not make it legitimate.
Second, sports teams fund expensive campaigns designed to sway gulible voters. Opponents of these grabs for taxpayers’ money are routinely outspent 100:1. The teams who expect multi-millions in profit can easily afford the investment in propaganda. In addition, the local media all line up in favor and provide millions of dollars in free campaign aid for the tax-funded stadiums.
Third, you have every right to spend your own money on sports. You have no right to vote to compel others to spend their money on it—even if you think sports are fun. Voting to compel others to finance your fun is theft—pure and simple.
I’m not against fun. The fair solution is for the team to sell shares to local fans in order to raise funds. I made this suggestion in a debate over stadium taxes. The reply was that the league preferred a “narrow ownership base.” Why should the league’s preference for a “millionaires only” ownership trump a more equitable solution? Well, grabbing taxpayer money means more profit for the millionaires. So, I can see why they are for it. But why should anyone who believes in limited government be for it?
If teams were owned by local shareholders they might be less apt to pick up and leave. Wouldn’t this be better for the community?
There is no need for or legitimacy to the process of tax-funded stadiums. It’s another part of the nanny state. Frankly, the left has a better case for government welfare programs than you have for subsidized stadiums. I am shocked and appalled that you would actually defend the practice on a forum such as this.
I don't oppose this solution, but my understanding is that current NFL rules prohibit this practice. Green Bay's franchise is grandfathered.
In the 50's and 60's, the players were paid very handsomely in comparison with average working person of that time. It's their fault for not doing something with their money other than spending it. As far as any players who lost their money to swindlers who got the best of them, welcome to the investment world of promised higher returns.
The problem isn’t in the businesses trying to take advantage of taxpayers. Business loyalty is to the owners. So, of course, they can say whatever they want and buy whatever influence they think will gain them profit. I’m just saying that those of us at Free Republic style ourselves as defenders of liberty. We ought not to be excusing this abuse of it.
The bigger problem is with government officials offering to carry the water for these private interests to the detriment of their duty to defend the people’s liberty.
As for the other services you mention, they ought to be funded by users. Highways mostly are via fuel taxes and tolls. They ought to be totally funded by such fees. Hospitals ought to be funded by fees, donations, and insurance. A case could be made for public health measures being funded by taxes to reduce the spread of disease. So, if these “hard cases” mostly don’t establish a need for tax-subsidies, there is no way that a sports stadium does.
Of course, the government has gone far beyond the bounds of its legitimate functions. However, I don’t think we want to use this reality to bolster a case for defending such expenditures. Even if stadiums are just one item on a lengthy list, we ought to be striving to shorten the list, not make excuses for preserving or augmenting it.
I have heard liberals argue that if we can justify subsidizing stadiums then how can we not justify funding Hillary-Care socialized medicine? So, let’s not give them any help with their rationale for bigger government by arguing in favor of tax-financed stadiums.
I guess not every player can end up like Roger Staubach, having a successful business career after the NFL.
Taxpayers don’t make investments. If they did, they would be pocketing a share of the profits. They don’t get a share, though. They are bilked for the benefit of the pro teams and businesses in the revived location. Calling this type of transaction an “investment” is pure liberal-speak. Liberals have polluted the language with this false use of the term and you have been seduced.
If it is true that building these stadiums is an economic winner for the affected area, then the funds should be obtained from the area. Businesses that think they will benefit could lend money to build the stadium and pay themselves back with their higher profits after the stadium opens.
There is no justification for taxing some in order to benefit others. This is Hillary’s “village” concept. Ultimately, it argues that everything really belongs to the “village.” If the “village” benefits in some aggregate way, the coercive power of taxation may be used. I don’t think we defenders of limited government want to get sucked into this line of argument—even if we enjoy sports.
Fair and sensible investment options exist for funding stadiums using money voluntarily obtained. These options won’t be used, though, as long as the local politicians are willing to collude with these businesses to rob taxpayers and persons like yourself are willing to say it’s okay.
Bull! These players back then didn't have access to fancy sports machines, physicians, or the latest technology that can sense a concussion as today's crybabies and spoiled muffins do now. These players MADE the NFL to what it is today, names like "Night Train" Lane, Riggins, Earl Campbell (cue John Fecenda's God-like voice from NFL films ROFL)... the least the NFL could do is give them a million dollar lump sum payment.
LOL! Actually, I remember football cards from the 1960s and 1970s where they listed the player's off-season occupation.
[Snicker.] I suppose it does, if such a thing is possible.
Back in the 60's and 70's, the Vikings has a place kicker by the name of Fred Cox. He was a dentist during the week and kicked field goals on Sundays. He was the best in the NFL before the sidewinders came along. I'm sure he's not hurting for money, but just like anyone, he could always use more if someone gave it to him.
‘Does society?’
Nope.
The league doesn’t owe them a thing.
Bull! These players back then didn’t have access to fancy sports machines, physicians, or the latest technology that can sense a concussion as today’s crybabies and spoiled muffins do now. These players MADE the NFL to what it is today, names like “Night Train” Lane, Riggins, Earl Campbell (cue John Fecenda’s God-like voice from NFL films ROFL)... the least the NFL could do is give them a million dollar lump sum payment.
Actually, you can make the case the last three commissioners ‘made the league’ what it is today.
Just as I don’t believe ‘healthcare’ is a Human Right, I don’t believe the NFL owes any player a thing decades after they’ve stopped playing.
Sorry, its the principal with me on this one.
I am not very informed on their retirement salaries, but I hope they get the medical care they need.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.