Cooley not happy with the way Rookies are paid...

[spudstr04]

The ey Zone: NFL needs to change how rookies are paid
By Chris ey

Rookies in the NFL make too much money. As a player I should be excited for anyone making a big contract. Good for them, right? For the top 20 draft picks it sounds great to sign a larger contract than guys that have played in the league for 10 years -- larger contracts than players that have been in the Pro Bowl at the same position. What's more is they don't have to lace up a cleat in the NFL and they are already getting guaranteed bonuses of $15, $20, even $30 million. Right, Rosenhaus?




It's amazing that in such a lucrative business the owners are willing to pay so much for potential. The average guaranteed bonus of the first 32 picks of 2007 was $10.86 million. Of course, some of the players getting paid are going to become great football players, but what becomes the biggest concern year in and year out is how many players really do become great, and how soon.

"It's crazy to guarantee money to people who have never played a down in the NFL," says Todd Yoder (pictured), my teammate and eight-year veteran. "That's the way the system has gotten. If someone has potential to become an elite player you're gonna get more in the first contract than the average Joe Schmoe makes in his entire career."

Potential is where this all begins. Can someone jump a 40-inch vertical, or how many times can they push a bench press? A 4.4 40 can elevate the draft status of someone maybe in the second or third round straight to the top 20 picks. But can it translate to millions of dollars of value on the field?

The NFL Combine is comparable to a strip club with owners and coaches for customers. The better the man looks running around in his spandex the more dollar bills end up on his stage. The funny thing is the onlookers at the combine are probably more excited than the creepy old man in the corner at the strip bar.

I mean, can anyone honestly explain how Vernon Davis adds more value to a football team than Jeremy Shockey or Antonio Gates? His contract certainly says that he does, because he is averaging more money than both of them every year. If Davis can continue becoming a better football player then it might be agreed that he was worth the money.

In Jason Witten's second year he caught 87 balls for 980 yards. Davis caught 52 balls for 509 yards. Both are good stats for a tight end, but Davis is currently making $500,000 more a year than Witten. Even better, Davis made close to $4 million more in his second year than Witten did. A player making that kind of money should be a Pro Bowl-type player.

I fell in the same boat as Witten with my rookie contract -- $600,000 signing bonus and the league minimum for three years. It took me those three years to establish myself as a solid football player in the NFL. Not until then did I receive a large contract -- six years, $30 million. So when someone can jump into the league and earn more than that without playing a single down, it’s hard to stomach.

The point here is that if a rookie in any other profession could step on the scene and make more than someone with a proven track record, the business would turn upside down. Imagine a first year staff accountant making more money than a senior partner simply because his 10 key skills were top in his class. This is basically what's happening in the NFL. Players are making money simply based on the number they were taken. Something with this system needs to change.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-Cooley-Zone-NFL-needs-to-change-how-rookies;_ylt=AhRvwrnWWGOaHIUAYoJt3gc5nYcB?urn=nfl,79933

[skinsfan#33]

ey is right on the money! And to think Vernan Davis, a good TE, can make more than ey in his second contract as a probowl TE is just not right!

[HardDawg]

Nice.....the NFL needs to get behind this movement...

[skinsfan#33]

I tell you what. If you were a junior this year and might have been a first round selection, even if it was only a slim chance, I think you might have cost yourself a lot of money by not coming out. The reason I say this is because I do think the NFL owners and player association will make this happen and it may be before next year's draft.

It is going to be hard for those new rookies to look at the draft the year before and see how much money they lost.

[Countertrey]

I tell you what. If you were a junior this year and might have been a first round selection, even if it was only a slim chance, I think you might have cost yourself a lot of money by not coming out. The reason I say this is because I do think the NFL owners and player association will make this happen and it may be before next year's draft.

It is going to be hard for those new rookies to look at the draft the year before and see how much money they lost.

All true... and also likely to trigger tort actions claiming antitrust violations. It will be a pain, will end up in court, but it must be done.

The poor agents... they may actually have to earn their money.

[riggofan]

Great post from ey. It seems like players and owners are in agreement on this issue, so hopefully something can be done. To me the biggest negative is not the money these unproven rookies are getting, its the effect their contracts have on the veterans.

Somebody just mentioned lawsuits though if the NFL were to make any changes. Can you explain the anti-trust complaint somebody might be able to bring? Just curious about it.

[tribeofjudah]

Where the heck is Jerry Macguire...........???

[Fios]

Where the heck is Jerry Macguire...........???

We had to fire him ... went a little batty on us

[Countertrey]

Somebody just mentioned lawsuits though if the NFL were to make any changes. Can you explain the anti-trust complaint somebody might be able to bring? Just curious about it.

I'm no lawyer, but I'll take a shot. First, we must assume that the owners will vacate the current labor agreement later this year. They will then attempt to re-negotiate an agreement with the Players Association. Currently, the leadership of that organization is not inclined to concede a rookie salary cap. It's likely that this will not be in place for the next draft.

The owners will then unilaterally impose a rookie cap, without the concurrence (and, therefore, the legal cover of a labor agreement). This may or may not fall under protections currently in effect which provide considerable exemptions from antitrust laws for the NFL.

Regardless, this will cost the rooks multiple millions of dollars. The rooks and the agents won't be happy. Attempts will be made to allege a conspiracy among owners to fix prices they are willing to pay to rooks, which in other industries would probably constitute violations of antitrust laws. Whether a court is willing to hear this determines what happens from there... This is, however, the type of high-profile, high-stakes case that can grow legs, even without adequate legal standing.

The bottom line, however, is this will cost rookies big bucks... and when people loose big bucks, it almost always ends up in court...

How'd I do, lawyers?

[GSPODS]

Somebody just mentioned lawsuits though if the NFL were to make any changes. Can you explain the anti-trust complaint somebody might be able to bring? Just curious about it.

I'm no lawyer, but I'll take a shot. First, we must assume that the owners will vacate the current labor agreement later this year. They will then attempt to re-negotiate an agreement with the Players Association. Currently, the leadership of that organization is not inclined to concede a rookie salary cap. It's likely that this will not be in place for the next draft.

The owners will then unilaterally impose a rookie cap, without the concurrence (and, therefore, the legal cover of a labor agreement). This may or may not fall under protections currently in effect which provide considerable exemptions from antitrust laws for the NFL.

Regardless, this will cost the rooks multiple millions of dollars. The rooks and the agents won't be happy. Attempts will be made to allege a conspiracy among owners to fix prices they are willing to pay to rooks, which in other industries would probably constitute violations of antitrust laws. Whether a court is willing to hear this determines what happens from there... This is, however, the type of high-profile, high-stakes case that can grow legs, even without adequate legal standing.

The bottom line, however, is this will cost rookies big bucks... and when people loose big bucks, it almost always ends up in court...

How'd I do, lawyers?

Quite well. The only other possibility is the existence of a mandatory arbitration agreement in the CBA. In that case, a thrid party arbitrator would come in to mediate between the parties just as in any other arbitration case. And the case would never make it to court on the grounds of anti-trust claims if arbitration is mandatory. I have no idea what the CBA actually says but I also have no doubt the owners do not want an uncapped NFL.

[John Manfreda]

I don't see a problem with this. Rookies like Mcfadden, Long, and Chris. The reason they get paid that much is because they make that money for the team. How, jersey sales, people come to see them at least during their first year, team merchendise, draft day coverage on ESPN, team's draft day parties. This is a buisness, if u make a lot of money for the team u should get paid a lot. Its not fair that coaches who never coached a single game get paid big bucks aka Steve Spurrier, Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban, its not fair owners are making money, while fielding crappy teams year in and year out. Bengals, to some extent Snyder, but we did make the playoffs two out of the last three years though. I say if the owner can make money by fielding a crappy team, than let the players get it, I would rather see them get it than the owner. To be honest I think its less fair for these rookies to make league minimums, while the owner is making millions of dollars off his name. If ur gonna limit rookie salaries than you should limit how much money an owner can make off that players name. Its a complete injuistice to give a player the minimum, while the owner and the NFL is making crap loads of money off players like Long (both), Mcfadden (sorry if I mispelled it), and Ryan. Even if they haven't played a down in the NFL, the team should pay him a lot because he made the NFL and his team a lot of money through his performance in college.

[dmwc]

The owners need to all be with this to work. These kids dont want to play in Canada or AFL. When they are drafted they should get a 100K sign bonus and a 2 yr deal with 200K. After that they can get a huge deal. I would have never signed JaMarcus Russell, but I would have to so that another team doesnt get my # 1.

I am with ya CC

[GSPODS]

I don't see a problem with this. Rookies like Mcfadden, Long, and Chris. The reason they get paid that much is because they make that money for the team. How, jersey sales, people come to see them at least during their first year, team merchendise, draft day coverage on ESPN, team's draft day parties. This is a buisness, if u make a lot of money for the team u should get paid a lot. Its not fair that coaches who never coached a single game get paid big bucks aka Steve Spurrier, Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban, its not fair owners are making money, while fielding crappy teams year in and year out. Bengals, to some extent Snyder, but we did make the playoffs two out of the last three years though. I say if the owner can make money by fielding a crappy team, than let the players get it, I would rather see them get it than the owner. To be honest I think its less fair for these rookies to make league minimums, while the owner is making millions of dollars off his name. If ur gonna limit rookie salaries than you should limit how much money an owner can make off that players name. Its a complete injuistice to give a player the minimum, while the owner and the NFL is making crap loads of money off players like Long (both), Mcfadden (sorry if I mispelled it), and Ryan. Even if they haven't played a down in the NFL, the team should pay him a lot because he made the NFL and his team a lot of money through his performance in college.

Jake Long - 5 Year Contract for $57.5 Million w/ $30 Million Guaranteed.
Let's only look at the guaranteed money. $6 Million per year.
$6,000,000.00 divided by 8 home games. $750,000.00 per game.
Ticket sales would have to increase by 750 $1000 tickets, or by 1500 $500 tickets, or by 3000 $250 tickets, or by 6000 $125 tickets per game to break even.

Now let's look at the actual contract. $11.5 Million per year.
$11,500,000.00 divided by eight home games. $1,437,500.00 per game.
Ticket sales would have to increase by 1438 $1000 tickets, or 2876 $500 tickets, or 5752 $250 tickets, or 11,504 $125 tickets per game to break even.

Wait. The NFL receives a cut of ticket sales. The above numbers just went up. Is it really necessary to go into how many NFL licensed jerseys a lineman is likely to sell? Or the fact that those also come with an NFL license, which means that a team owner is not seeing 100% of the revenue from merchandise sales.

The last sentence of your post is so ridiculous I can't even begin to explain it. That would be like me walking straight from graduation day with a four year economics degree and no practical job experience to Capitol Hill and being named the Fed Chairman just because I had a 4.0 GPA. By your logic, I should get paid a fortune just because I have the degree. Would you really want a completely unproven person controlling the country's finances? I doubt NFL owners and NFL veterans want completely unproven people controlling their finances either.

Even if Jake Long blows his knee out on week one, and never plays another down of football, his contract still affects every future NFL contract negotiation. If a rookie is worth $11.5 Mil, a vet has to be worth more, right? And so does the next #1 offensive lineman, right? And QB's and RB's are worth more than linemen, right? This trend will eventually price the league right out of business. Or as another poster pointed out, the league will be down to four teams whose owners can afford these salaries.

Name any business with more than 10 employees that can afford to pay a single employee, not an executive mind you, but an employee more than 10% of their operating budget. Then further name a business that can afford to guarantee 10% or more of their operating budget to a single employee, regardless of actual job performance. If one exists, post it here, because several of us are interested.

I'd love to continue this but I have to rush out and buy my authentic Jake Long and Vernon Davis jerseys now. I'm sure the line will be at least as long as it was for the Sean Taylor and Chris ey ProBowl jerseys and I don't want to be left out.

[LOSTHOG]

Its a complete injuistice to give a player the minimum,

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all rookies get league minimum. I'm sure the top draft picks will get compensated fairly. $3omil guaranteed is not fairly.

[riggofan]

The owners need to all be with this to work. These kids dont want to play in Canada or AFL. When they are drafted they should get a 100K sign bonus and a 2 yr deal with 200K.

Not sure I agree with the actual figures you're putting out here, but I do like the idea. It seems like this might also encourage underclassmen to finish school before coming out in the draft.

btw Thanks for the explanations about the potential lawsuits. Legal stuff hurts my head.

One more question though: why wouldn't the NFLPA be in favor of these changes to how rookies are paid? (Or are they?) It seems like this kind of change would really benefit veteran players - all of whom make up the NFLPA, right? Teams would be less pressed to push out older players in favor of high priced, young draft picks. More money would be available to reward proven veterans. etc; etc;

[Fios]

One more question though: why wouldn't the NFLPA be in favor of these changes to how rookies are paid? (Or are they?) It seems like this kind of change would really benefit veteran players - all of whom make up the NFLPA, right? Teams would be less pressed to push out older players in favor of high priced, young draft picks. More money would be available to reward proven veterans. etc; etc;

I don't know what the NFLPA's official stance is but I read some speculation that Goodell plans on using that very pitch (helps veterans) to push for this cap.

[aswas71788]

Football players come under the same heading as actors, corporate CEO's, Doctors and celebrities. They negotiate a salary based on thier preceived value.

There is a limitation currently in place, the salary cap. The salary cap limits how much each team can spend on player salaries. How they choose to spend it is strictly up to the team.

[Fios]

Football players come under the same heading as actors, corporate CEO's, Doctors and celebrities. They negotiate a salary based on thier preceived value.

There is a limitation currently in place, the salary cap. The salary cap limits how much each team can spend on player salaries. How they choose to spend it is strictly up to the team.

Save that in each of those fields, a lack of experience does not translate into a big payday. They are paid well, yes, but as the ads say, salary is commensurate with experience. A first-year doctor isn't making more than an experienced physician.

[GSPODS]

Football players come under the same heading as actors, corporate CEO's, Doctors and celebrities. They negotiate a salary based on thier preceived value.

There is a limitation currently in place, the salary cap. The salary cap limits how much each team can spend on player salaries. How they choose to spend it is strictly up to the team.

That analogy makes no sense. I can hire anyone I choose as an actor, as C.E.O., a doctor, or a celebrity. I can hire the experienced, grizzled veteran, or I can hire the rookie in any of those fields. And I can either agree to pay, or disagree to pay the negotiated price. If I disagree, I can move on to another option.

If the NFL draft, you can only hire the rookie. A team can't say they don't want the rookie and trade their draft pick for a veteran, unless another team agrees to make the deal. And a team can't waive their right to draft a player, although the league can waive that right for them, i.e. New England. A team can forfeit their pick in several ways, but that is a different issue.

If an NFL team had the option of saying, "We have the number one pick but we are going to select a seventh rounder and pay him like a seventh rounder", then your analogy would make sense. But if a team has the first pick in the draft, it doesn't matter who they select. Whoever the team selects as the #1 pick is getting number 1 pick money.

It is not analogous to open, equal opportunity hiring, where a team can interview everyone they choose from rookies to seasoned veterans and then hire the person they best feel meets their needs. That can be done in every other business, and in every other phase of the NFL except the draft.

[yupchagee]

The owners need to all be with this to work. These kids dont want to play in Canada or AFL. When they are drafted they should get a 100K sign bonus and a 2 yr deal with 200K. After that they can get a huge deal. I would have never signed JaMarcus Russell, but I would have to so that another team doesnt get my # 1.

I am with ya CC

I think that would be conspiracy in restraint of trade.

[John Manfreda]

I don't see a problem with this. Rookies like Mcfadden, Long, and Chris. The reason they get paid that much is because they make that money for the team. How, jersey sales, people come to see them at least during their first year, team merchendise, draft day coverage on ESPN, team's draft day parties. This is a buisness, if u make a lot of money for the team u should get paid a lot. Its not fair that coaches who never coached a single game get paid big bucks aka Steve Spurrier, Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban, its not fair owners are making money, while fielding crappy teams year in and year out. Bengals, to some extent Snyder, but we did make the playoffs two out of the last three years though. I say if the owner can make money by fielding a crappy team, than let the players get it, I would rather see them get it than the owner. To be honest I think its less fair for these rookies to make league minimums, while the owner is making millions of dollars off his name. If ur gonna limit rookie salaries than you should limit how much money an owner can make off that players name. Its a complete injuistice to give a player the minimum, while the owner and the NFL is making crap loads of money off players like Long (both), Mcfadden (sorry if I mispelled it), and Ryan. Even if they haven't played a down in the NFL, the team should pay him a lot because he made the NFL and his team a lot of money through his performance in college.

Jake Long - 5 Year Contract for $57.5 Million w/ $30 Million Guaranteed.
Let's only look at the guaranteed money. $6 Million per year.
$6,000,000.00 divided by 8 home games. $750,000.00 per game.
Ticket sales would have to increase by 750 $1000 tickets, or by 1500 $500 tickets, or by 3000 $250 tickets, or by 6000 $125 tickets per game to break even.

Now let's look at the actual contract. $11.5 Million per year.
$11,500,000.00 divided by eight home games. $1,437,500.00 per game.
Ticket sales would have to increase by 1438 $1000 tickets, or 2876 $500 tickets, or 5752 $250 tickets, or 11,504 $125 tickets per game to break even.

Wait. The NFL receives a cut of ticket sales. The above numbers just went up. Is it really necessary to go into how many NFL licensed jerseys a lineman is likely to sell? Or the fact that those also come with an NFL license, which means that a team owner is not seeing 100% of the revenue from merchandise sales.

The last sentence of your post is so ridiculous I can't even begin to explain it. That would be like me walking straight from graduation day with a four year economics degree and no practical job experience to Capitol Hill and being named the Fed Chairman just because I had a 4.0 GPA. By your logic, I should get paid a fortune just because I have the degree. Would you really want a completely unproven person controlling the country's finances? I doubt NFL owners and NFL veterans want completely unproven people controlling their finances either.

Even if Jake Long blows his knee out on week one, and never plays another down of football, his contract still affects every future NFL contract negotiation. If a rookie is worth $11.5 Mil, a vet has to be worth more, right? And so does the next #1 offensive lineman, right? And QB's and RB's are worth more than linemen, right? This trend will eventually price the league right out of business. Or as another poster pointed out, the league will be down to four teams whose owners can afford these salaries.

Name any business with more than 10 employees that can afford to pay a single employee, not an executive mind you, but an employee more than 10% of their operating budget. Then further name a business that can afford to guarantee 10% or more of their operating budget to a single employee, regardless of actual job performance. If one exists, post it here, because several of us are interested.

I'd love to continue this but I have to rush out and buy my authentic Jake Long and Vernon Davis jerseys now. I'm sure the line will be at least as long as it was for the Sean Taylor and Chris ey ProBowl jerseys and I don't want to be left out.

Your right the NFL gets a cut, as I said the the league and the owner are making money off his name. Generally the top pick generates more money than anyone on the team. No people don't come to see the veterans because when ur picking high they are generally not good and the rookie is the main money maker on that team, so yes he should get paid more the anyone on the team. If that guy with a 4.0 gpa is the main money maker in the buisness he should get paid the most, about that analgy were not talking about positions they all have the same position, its called a football player, so ur analagy is completely wrong. Ur right the line for Jake Long and Vernon Davis jersey's won't be as long in Washington as the line for Taylor and ey, but outside of DC it would probably be longer (for Jake Long at least)in cities like Miami and San Francisco, oh yeah and Ann Arbor college fans will buy jersey's of its former players (didn't know about market? it does exist, know all ur facts). People in San Francisco still buy Vernon Davis jersey's, well according to my friend that lives there. When Vernon was a rookie I guarante you more people brought his jersey than ey. To be honest I think the only way it could be fair is if they get two year deals guaranted, can have a cap on that, than they would be free agents and teams aren't allowed to franchise them, transition them, and stuff like that when there free agents. Entertainment, yes actors can get paid more than most of the supporting cast for the same reason. Even if there movie sucks.

[GSPODS]

I don't see a problem with this. Rookies like Mcfadden, Long, and Chris. The reason they get paid that much is because they make that money for the team. How, jersey sales, people come to see them at least during their first year, team merchendise, draft day coverage on ESPN, team's draft day parties. This is a buisness, if u make a lot of money for the team u should get paid a lot. Its not fair that coaches who never coached a single game get paid big bucks aka Steve Spurrier, Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban, its not fair owners are making money, while fielding crappy teams year in and year out. Bengals, to some extent Snyder, but we did make the playoffs two out of the last three years though. I say if the owner can make money by fielding a crappy team, than let the players get it, I would rather see them get it than the owner. To be honest I think its less fair for these rookies to make league minimums, while the owner is making millions of dollars off his name. If ur gonna limit rookie salaries than you should limit how much money an owner can make off that players name. Its a complete injuistice to give a player the minimum, while the owner and the NFL is making crap loads of money off players like Long (both), Mcfadden (sorry if I mispelled it), and Ryan. Even if they haven't played a down in the NFL, the team should pay him a lot because he made the NFL and his team a lot of money through his performance in college.

Jake Long - 5 Year Contract for $57.5 Million w/ $30 Million Guaranteed.
Let's only look at the guaranteed money. $6 Million per year.
$6,000,000.00 divided by 8 home games. $750,000.00 per game.
Ticket sales would have to increase by 750 $1000 tickets, or by 1500 $500 tickets, or by 3000 $250 tickets, or by 6000 $125 tickets per game to break even.

Now let's look at the actual contract. $11.5 Million per year.
$11,500,000.00 divided by eight home games. $1,437,500.00 per game.
Ticket sales would have to increase by 1438 $1000 tickets, or 2876 $500 tickets, or 5752 $250 tickets, or 11,504 $125 tickets per game to break even.

Wait. The NFL receives a cut of ticket sales. The above numbers just went up. Is it really necessary to go into how many NFL licensed jerseys a lineman is likely to sell? Or the fact that those also come with an NFL license, which means that a team owner is not seeing 100% of the revenue from merchandise sales.

The last sentence of your post is so ridiculous I can't even begin to explain it. That would be like me walking straight from graduation day with a four year economics degree and no practical job experience to Capitol Hill and being named the Fed Chairman just because I had a 4.0 GPA. By your logic, I should get paid a fortune just because I have the degree. Would you really want a completely unproven person controlling the country's finances? I doubt NFL owners and NFL veterans want completely unproven people controlling their finances either.

Even if Jake Long blows his knee out on week one, and never plays another down of football, his contract still affects every future NFL contract negotiation. If a rookie is worth $11.5 Mil, a vet has to be worth more, right? And so does the next #1 offensive lineman, right? And QB's and RB's are worth more than linemen, right? This trend will eventually price the league right out of business. Or as another poster pointed out, the league will be down to four teams whose owners can afford these salaries.

Name any business with more than 10 employees that can afford to pay a single employee, not an executive mind you, but an employee more than 10% of their operating budget. Then further name a business that can afford to guarantee 10% or more of their operating budget to a single employee, regardless of actual job performance. If one exists, post it here, because several of us are interested.

I'd love to continue this but I have to rush out and buy my authentic Jake Long and Vernon Davis jerseys now. I'm sure the line will be at least as long as it was for the Sean Taylor and Chris ey ProBowl jerseys and I don't want to be left out.

Your right the NFL gets a cut, as I said the the league and the owner are making money off his name. Generally the top pick generates more money than anyone on the team. No people don't come to see the veterans because when ur picking high because they are generally not good and the rookie is the main money maker on that team, so yes he should get paid more the anyone on the team. If that guy with a 4.0 gpa is the main money maker in the buisness he should get paid the most. Ur right the line for Jake Long and Vernon Davis jersey's won't be as long in Washington as the line for Taylor and ey, but outside of DC it would probably be longer for Jake Long at least, cities like Miami and San Francisco, oh yeah and Ann Arbor college fans will buy jersey's of its former players (didn't know about market it does exist, know all ur facts). People in San Francisco still buy Vernon Davis jersey's, well according to my friend that lives there. When Vernon was a rookie I guarante you more people brought his jerseys than ey. To be honest I think the only way it could be fair is if they get two year deals guaranted, can have a cap on that, than they would be free agents and teams aren't allowed to franchise them, transition them, and stuff like that when there free agents.

My last word on this:
Jake Long is not going to increase Miami's home attendance by over 11,000 seats per game for all eight home games. By the time the Dolphins are halfway through the season and well out of playoff contention, Miami fans will be discussing who they are going to draft next season.

The NFL owners and the NFLPA will have to come to some reasonable agreement on this issue because the veteran NFL players aren't simply going to accept that rookie draft picks are worth more than they are. And when those veterans become free agents, they are going to negotiate based upon what the top players at their position are making. If rookie Jake Long is worth $6 Million a season then a seasoned ProBowl veteran like Chris Samuels is worth $12 Million a season.

[aswas71788]

A first year doctor who is a surgeon gets paid much, much more than an experienced GP. A new neurosurgron will get much, much, much more than either of the above. A specialty for Dr's is the same difference as being a lineman vs a running back or quarterback.

Football players come under the same heading as actors, corporate CEO's, Doctors and celebrities. They negotiate a salary based on thier preceived value.

There is a limitation currently in place, the salary cap. The salary cap limits how much each team can spend on player salaries. How they choose to spend it is strictly up to the team.

Save that in each of those fields, a lack of experience does not translate into a big payday. They are paid well, yes, but as the ads say, salary is commensurate with experience. A first-year doctor isn't making more than an experienced physician.

[Fios]

A first year doctor who is a surgeon gets paid much, much more than an experienced GP. A new neurosurgron will get much, much, much more than either of the above. A specialty for Dr's is the same difference as being a lineman vs a running back or quarterback.

Football players come under the same heading as actors, corporate CEO's, Doctors and celebrities. They negotiate a salary based on thier preceived value.

There is a limitation currently in place, the salary cap. The salary cap limits how much each team can spend on player salaries. How they choose to spend it is strictly up to the team.

Save that in each of those fields, a lack of experience does not translate into a big payday. They are paid well, yes, but as the ads say, salary is commensurate with experience. A first-year doctor isn't making more than an experienced physician.

That's apples to oranges. An experienced neurosurgeon makes much more than a second-year neurosurgeon. A star with a track record of successful films makes more than an actor in his second flick. The question never was one of specialty, it's a question of experience.

[John Manfreda]

A first year doctor who is a surgeon gets paid much, much more than an experienced GP. A new neurosurgron will get much, much, much more than either of the above. A specialty for Dr's is the same difference as being a lineman vs a running back or quarterback.

Football players come under the same heading as actors, corporate CEO's, Doctors and celebrities. They negotiate a salary based on thier preceived value.

There is a limitation currently in place, the salary cap. The salary cap limits how much each team can spend on player salaries. How they choose to spend it is strictly up to the team.

Save that in each of those fields, a lack of experience does not translate into a big payday. They are paid well, yes, but as the ads say, salary is commensurate with experience. A first-year doctor isn't making more than an experienced physician.

That's apples to oranges. An experienced neurosurgeon makes much more than a second-year neurosurgeon. A star with a track record of successful films makes more than an actor in his second flick. The question never was one of specialty, it's a question of experience.

What about the Kids from the movie Friday Night Lights they didn't have experience, here's another one Rugby, another Baseball, those Draft picks can make crap loads of money before they even step on the field in the minor leagues. Sports is diffrent from buisness, sports u can't do it for a long time, being young is a benifit in sports as in the real world experience is the benifactor, because u can be a surgen for a long time. U can't be a lineman or a Rb, even a Qb for twenty years. Rugby they will pay a boat load for young players that haven't played professionally, why because there young, in sports teams one would rather have youth than age. In sports you pay for youth in buisness you pay for experience, youth in sports is the equivialent to experience in law, medicine, buisness. In sports u pay big bucks for potential. U don't pay a lot of money for a 33 year old with lots of experience in sports because he won't be able to do it much longer.