Let's be open and brutally honest...

[ForeverRoyalKC]

Is there anyone...ANY one...who would stay with a winning team over more money?! I doubt anyone is going to believe anyone if they say yes, but I think to be on a winning team, playoffs constantly, going to Super Bowls and knowing you're a favorite every year would be worth more than the money. I know none of you will believe me, but I would WAY rather be a winner than more money. Sure, you have $ out the butt, but you sure can hold your chest out and say "Yeah, I'm a bizillionaire, and my teams were 2-15, 7-10, 5-12, 6-11 and we knew we'd stink every year!"

I guess this is why more people seems to be turning away from sports nowadays.

[Déjà Bru]

I'm not sure what you are arguing. Do you think that you are unique in prioritizing winning over money? Professionals value the money, of course, but even without any proof or data, I am reasonably sure that many of them feel the same as you do.

Of course, everything is relative. Would a guy sign with the ChiSox right now even if they could afford to pay him mega dollars? Yeah, probably, IF their offer was significantly better than any others. However, I believe he would sign elsewhere if any other offers were at least in the neighborhood.

Because, I hold this to be a truism: After a while, more and more money has less marginal value. After a while, enough is enough and other things matter more unless one is on an ego trip with his bankroll.

[BaseballMan]

I don't think thats the reason.
That stuff has been in sports for a very long time.
I think its more of how sports has become more engaged with politics.
Its ok to talk to your coworkers about politics if they want to talk about it but
i dont think most companies have rants about politics in their ads.
Sure they support politics with money but Microsoft or Apple doesn't do a convention and then rant about politics.
Looking at you Stephen A Smith.
I think people just want enjoy a game for which they paid for.

As for a player going to other teams.
Its not a long career.
A player may get injured and never get that big payday.
They may play the rest of their career knowing their financial ceiling is forever lowered.
Can a team guarantee that it will always make the right moves and the team won't have any injuries?
I know us fans like to believe some teams are an automatic playoff team.
But they simply are not. There is no guarantee.
Its a strong probability that a team like the Eagles will be back in the playoffs but there are also teams that fall apart.

As much as i would like a player to stay on a team, those pre free agency days are long gone. I can't really blame a player.

[LD84]

Depends on where I am in my career. If I am younger, I would go for the highest offer.

Once I am older and had accumulated most of my career earnings, I would be more picky in who I would sign for and want to try and go to winning situations or just better situations.

[low]

If we are talking the difference between 1 million and 5 million, I'm packing my bags.

If we are talking the difference between 25 million and 30 million, I'm not going anywhere if we're winning.

[pilight]

Depends on how much difference there is in the money and whether they give me a no trade clause.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoyalKC

Is there anyone...ANY one...who would stay with a winning team over more money?! I doubt anyone is going to believe anyone if they say yes, but I think to be on a winning team, playoffs constantly, going to Super Bowls and knowing you're a favorite every year would be worth more than the money. I know none of you will believe me, but I would WAY rather be a winner than more money. Sure, you have $ out the butt, but you sure can hold your chest out and say "Yeah, I'm a bizillionaire, and my teams were 2-15, 7-10, 5-12, 6-11 and we knew we'd stink every year!"

I guess this is why more people seems to be turning away from sports nowadays.

It depends on the situation. For me location would matter too. I'm not going from Florida to Minnesota or Buffalo for a few million more. Especially if it's a 3rd contract in the NFL. When we're talking million, the difference from 20m and 25m isn't as life changing as 50k to 100k.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Because, I hold this to be a truism: After a while, more and more money has less marginal value. After a while, enough is enough and other things matter more unless one is on an ego trip with his bankroll.

This is spot on IMO. Especially for multimillionaires. But even for regular people. If I'm not strapped for cash, and am doing well, other things matter more to me than extra money.

It's a similar concept. How much value would extra money be for me now if I'm going to be inconvenienced in a major way? Unless it's something ridiculous of course. I can't count the times I've seen people take promotions or go to locations that make them miserable for a little more money. Out of necessity, fine, otherwise, it's not for me.

[Syd Thrift]

I’d go to the winner or my hometown on my 2nd or 3rd big contract I guess… but, like, to go back to the original point though, most players don’t get to a 2nd or 3rd big payout. They get their rookie deal, that one big ticket, and that’s it, they’re either out of football or they’re not worth that kind of payout any longer.


With American football too I think there should be some special allowance given to these guys, even above and beyond the fact that all pro sports are meant for people at their physical peak in their 20s. American football is also brutal and the head trauma can make it hard for these players to find jobs after the game, period. Not in a “nothing will pay as well as football” sense - all sports are like that - I mean in a “before the pension plan former NFLers sometimes went homeless”. Even after pensions, stories like what happened to Mike Webster are just brutal.

You have to be big to play in the league but you also have to make a choice to pursue a career that might give you brain damage. That’s one huge reason why I can’t fault players too much for going after the bag when they’re well into their 30s (I mean, apart from the fact that this rarely happens).

[knightdreamer2k]

I find this topic interesting because I think of it the same way I would think of a regular 9-5 job.

Am I going to go to another job because it is ranked at better in the industry? I would think not unless it means more pay or better work conditions. Does location matter? To the common person definitely, but to a pro athlete I am sure less so.

It will vary person to person, but I do not buy that all these athletes care about winning like the fans do. I can see if the player is a perennial all-star that has made their money so they would prioritize winning more. A bench player probably just wants to stay a pro and keep earning.

Long story short, I am not moving to a different company unless I don't like my current situation, and/or there is more pay opportunity with another. My assumption is most pro athletes are going to be the same.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by knightdreamer2k

I find this topic interesting because I think of it the same way I would think of a regular 9-5 job.

It isn't the same. Normal people can't get traded to another company in another city without notice. Most 9-5 jobs don't force you to renegotiate a new contract every three years or so.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by knightdreamer2k

I find this topic interesting because I think of it the same way I would think of a regular 9-5 job.

Am I going to go to another job because it is ranked at better in the industry? I would think not unless it means more pay or better work conditions. Does location matter? To the common person definitely, but to a pro athlete I am sure less so.

It will vary person to person, but I do not buy that all these athletes care about winning like the fans do. I can see if the player is a perennial all-star that has made their money so they would prioritize winning more. A bench player probably just wants to stay a pro and keep earning.

Long story short, I am not moving to a different company unless I don't like my current situation, and/or there is more pay opportunity with another. My assumption is most pro athletes are going to be the same.

Does pay opportunity trump other inconveniences? I'm talking 9-5 here. I'll take a lesser paying job (provided it's not peanuts) if it means not having to sit in traffic for an hour to and from work. Drive two or three times the distance, or having to pay tolls to and from work every day.

I think pro athletes don't have as many situations outside of location.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by pilight

It isn't the same. Normal people can't get traded to another company in another city without notice. Most 9-5 jobs don't force you to renegotiate a new contract every three years or so.

The first part, absolutely. The second, well... that's kind of the way things work in the modern economy now. You just can't assume any job's going to be a 30-years-and-retire deal unless you work for the government.

[LD84]

Originally Posted by pilight

It isn't the same. Normal people can't get traded to another company in another city without notice. Most 9-5 jobs don't force you to renegotiate a new contract every three years or so.

And to add, most normal jobs, it is not like suddenly in your mid 30s you get worse at your job and by 40 most have to retire from that job.

Sports careers are very limited in their lifespans. As Syd pointed out. Most will not even see a second contract.
Only a small handful will be able to play into their 30s.

That is why you take what money you can make when you are young and then if you ever make it to that second or third contract, you begin to worry about things like winning and situation and chemistry with your teammates.

[LD84]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

unless you work for the government.

This will age very poorly

[Boomcoach]

I find it difficult to compare to a personal level because of the difference in earning potential.

If I am 30, and offered a raise, say an 15-20% raise that will require a move to an undesirable location, or onerous hours, I may well turn it down, choosing the better life choices. I also have another 35 years to work at roughly the same or better rate of pay.

If I am 30 year old professional athlete, near the top of my profession, say in that $25 million range, I only have a few more years of earning in that range, so a short term 15-20% raise is much more substantial that it is to workaday Boomcoach. Turning that down impacts my lifetime earnings substantially.

For the very few at the top, I recognize that earnings outside of the sport may well top what they make within it. Then they have more options, and in fact their outside earnings may depend on, to some extent, playing for a winner. That applies to very few in a any team sport, however.

[Cobra Mgr]

My 2 cents...............Any athlete that makes a free agency decision based on winning is stupid. Any athlete that makes a free agency decision based on money is stupid.

Wins don't bring happiness. Money doesn't bring happiness. What brings happiness is quality of life. Where can you play that will give you mental peace, your family can thrive, you will enjoy going to work, and you can provide financial security for you & yours. Basing your choice solely on the highest bidder or the most trophies is asinine.

That is why I admired Johnny Gaudreau. When a FA, he didn't choose Calgary cause he was familiar with them. He didn't chose the Rangers, Islanders & Devils cause he was from NJ. He didn't join a team poised to win the Cup. He went to Columbus for less $ because that was where he & his wife would be happy.

Johnny knew the deal.