Salaries: Basketball vs. Football--The Insanity of it All

The following article from Fox Sports highlights the disparity between basketball and football salaries that only serves to show just how completely ridiculous the salaries of both sports have become--and they'll only get worse! Following the article is my response.

The Reasons Why NFL Players Make Less Than Their NBA Counterparts

"Thanks to new, extremely lucrative television deals, the NBA essentially handed out $24 million to every team in the league to spend on free agents this summer.
The way that money is being used has many in and around the NFL irked.
NFL players are complaining, claiming they picked the wrong sport. Football-leaning media members are bewildered at the value of the deals being tossed around. People are really mad all around the internet.
It's hard to blame anyone for being up in arms about the NBA's spending. Matthew Dellavedova is set to sign a four-year, $38 million deal, and Timofey Mozgov is poised to put pen to paper on a fouryear deal worth $64 million. Neither soon-to-be former member of the champion Cavs played a minute in Game 7 of the NBA Finals.
But you can't fault any player for taking a big ol' contract if it's offered, and if a general manager and owner want to spend $64 million on a frequently injured, not-exactly-versatile center who was relegated to the bench for the second half of last season, that's their prerogative.
That kind of stuff happens in the NFL too, lest we forget.
So NFL players and media members complaining about the NBA's spending spree should channel their frustrations and bewilderment into fixing a problem that has been exposed instead.
Yes, NFL players are underpaid. But that's their fault.
The NBA's salary cap was $70 million last season. It will go to $94 million next season, and will likely level off at to $107 million for the 2017-18 campaign. The NBA is a closed economy — increasing the available money by 50 percent over a short span (three years) while maintaining the same supply (players, 15 on each of the static 30 teams) is a textbook definition of inflation. Contract values were going to go up dramatically; there was no way around it.
The NBA didn't want it to be this way. They wanted to spread out the increase in the cap over five — or, better yet, 10 — years. The NBA Players Association pushed back.
"[The dramatic salary cap increase] is not something that we modeled for," NBA commissioner Adam Silver said at February's All-Star Game. "There will be unintended consequences from all this additional cap room this summer. I just don't know what those consequences will be."
The NBAPA got what it wanted. But ultimately, it will have to face internal political backlash, as the short-term increases in the cap threaten to disproportionally aid those on the free agent market this summer. Spreading out the windfall could have prevented a situation where Mike Conley receives the largest contract in NBA history.
The most expensive NBA contracts are done by percentage of the salary cap — a "max" deal is worth between 25 and 35 percent of the salary cap, depending on how long the player has been in the league. On top of that, the league has a "soft" salary cap, where teams are allowed to go over the cap to re-sign their own players.
These two factors are huge positives for players: It puts more money in their pockets, and it came about through tough negotiations over the league's collective bargaining agreement.
NFL players could also have salary-cap percentage deals — and a soft cap, too — but they'd have to fight for them in their collective bargaining agreement.
CBAs are incredibly complicated, but their most critical component is the divvying up of league's revenue pie. The money all goes into the owners' pockets to start. And they give the players their slice of the pie, mostly through player salaries.
That's why when the NBA signed a nine-year, $24 billion (with a "b") television deal, the salary cap spiked. The revenue pie became much larger and the players negotiated to receive roughly 50 percent of that pie.
NFL revenue doubles the NBA, even with the hoopers' new TV money. The NFL salary cap is $155 million — 60 percent higher than the NBA's.
But considering that NFL rosters are 3.5 larger than NBA rosters (53 to 15), that 60 percent difference is paltry.
If you cut up the NBA salary cap 15 ways on all 30 teams, each player would make $6.25 million. Next year, that number will go above $7 million.
If you split up the NFL's salary threshold equally — $155 million, 53 ways — you get an "average" salary of $2.9 million. You can do the math — that's less than half the NBA's number.
NHL "average" salaries exceed the NFL's, too. Split up the NHL and every player gets $3.17 million. The last time the "average" NBA salary was less than $3 million was 2005.
So absolutely, NFL players are underpaid. But that's in large part because of the deal they signed.
NFL players get — at most — 48.5 percent of the league's revenue, as agreed upon in the 2011 collective bargaining agreement. In 2016, the player percentage is 47.2. But not all of that $6 billion-plus is translated into the salary cap. The players have to use a good chunk of that money to pay for pension and health costs, as outlined in Article 12 of the CBA. The remaining sum is more or less (it's some complicated stuff in that 301-page document) split up 32 ways to determine the salary cap.
Even if NFL players had a 50 percent cut, they'd only be seeing a 3 percent increase in pay. The NFL would have to double its revenue to pay players as much as the NBA pays theirs.
That, or the NBA could double the amount of players in the league.
Neither seems likely.
The NFL's CBA runs until 2020, and there are no opt-out clauses for either side included in it. This is the deal the NFL players signed.
And while it's highly unlikely that "average" NFL player salaries will be able to match NBA player salaries in 2020, there are things that the NFL Players Association should be looking to have included in the next treaty that NBA players have.
Things like guaranteed contracts for players who have been in the league for a few years. Currently, NFL players can have their contracts canceled at any time, for any reason.
Things like a soft salary cap. A hard cap artificially limits player salaries and hampers earning potentials — that's why the NBA owners wanted to implement one in 2011.
NBA players fought for both guaranteed contracts and a soft salary cap and won, and now they're reaping the benefits.
NFL players might have fought the same battles, but they clearly lost, and now they're only left to complain. They'll have a chance to actually something about it in 2020.
Until then, they need to remember what then NBA commissioner David Stern said during his league's lockout in 2011: "From where we sit, we are looking at a league [the NFL] that was the most profitable in sports, that became more profitable by virtue of concessions from their players."

My Response:

Wealthy players whining about not being wealthier for a sport that has 16 games per year (+ playoffs, if they are lucky, and for which they receive additional pay above their contracts), as well as official practice times (OTA’s, Training camp, etc).

When is the money ever enough for these guys?

I absolutely detest the money these athletes are making; especially in football.  If anyone deserves more money in sports, it is baseball players. They play 162 games per year (10 times as many as football, and twice as much as basketball!), plus nearly two months of training camp that features an additional twenty five games, or so,  yet they make a per game average that is a fraction of what football and basketball players make.

I remember when Dale Murphy of the Atlanta Braves became the first athlete to get a $1M per year contract. Everyone thought it was too much. Compared to the demands of the athletes these days, Murphy’s contract was a steal.


It used to be that only top tier athletes received the big monies. Now, you have bench players making huge amounts, and superstars earning hundreds of millions.

I ask again… When is the money ever enough for these guys?

Hillary Clinton as Possible President

An article from 'The Hill,' an online blog that focuses on issues in Washington D.C., today focused on the interview Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic Nominee for President, had with an FBI investigative team that was looking into serious charges against Clinton regarding her personal (and illegal) email account and server that she used while Secretary of State. As usual, the Clinton team spun the interview as "Voluntary." Yet, the investigation is a criminal probe. Just how such an interview is "Voluntary" rather than compulsory, I just don't understand.
Anyhow, the comments that followed the article were either slamming or supporting Hillary, while totally ignoring what she re[presents if elected. I wrote the following response:

And her followers blindly accept every word, every excuse as truth. I am an Independent. I vote for whomever I believe to be best suited for the job instead of blindly going all in as a Democrat or Republican. From everything I've read, Hillary is a train wreck waiting to happen. This country is already floundering as Obama has trampled all over the Constitution. With the Clintons ready to take the Whitehouse once again, we, as Americans, could be seeing some dire years ahead as the latest iteration of the Democratic Party leads us all further and further from the country our Founding Fathers created, wherein the Federal Government was small, the President merely a spokesperson for Congress, States maintained a modicum of self-governing, American rights were more important than illegal immigrants and the Bill of Rights was followed and revered as [basically] sacred rules for every citizen to live by.

Look at the state our Country is in today. The Constitution is barely recognizable anymore as King Obama does whatever he wants while Congress sits by and does nothing to stop him. The Bill of Rights are no longer enjoyed by ALL Americans as individuals and small groups use the Courts to force everyone else to adhere to THEIR beliefs and way of life, The Pledge of Allegience is no longer uttered in our schools for fear of 'offending' someone (Seiously?!), Big Government just gets bigger and bigger, individual privacy is gone, the true history of our Founding is no longer taught as secular revistionists declared that Christianity played no role in the lives of the Founding Fathers and played no role in the formation of this great country. Now too, we read that Illegal Immigrants are being given food, housing, medical care while our President ignores our war veterans, our homeless and the citizens of this country, in favor of illegal immigrants--he is FAILING to uphold the law! The very law he has twice sworn to uphold and protect.

For the record, I don't care about immigrants to this country. Aside from the Native Americans, we are ALL here as a result of immigration. However, when immigrants from the South choose to ignore the laws, as established by Congress, and enter this country illegally and then use the systems in place meant to help the actual citizens of the United States, then I draw the line.

No, I'm probably NOT going to vote for Trump...He's just the wrong choice, as well.  But to have Hillary Clinton as President would be disastrous for this country. Freedom, once enjoyed by all Americans, is now more of an illusion than a reality.

This country is teetering, folks, whether you recognize it, or not. Trump is a terrible choice; but Hillary is even worse. I only hope that the next four years do not see us as a nation crumble under the weight of our complacency as we blindly follow leaders who, speaking like a snake oil salesman, tell us "I know what's is best for you. Follow me..."  (And the blind and ignorant will follow)

The Bill of Rights is Essential to Our Government

From Senator Mike Lee (R) UT

Chairman's Note: Bill of Rights is a Feature - Not a Bug - of our Government

Since the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida nearly two weeks ago – the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 – Congress has been engrossed in a debate about what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again.

In their grief for the victims, and in their concern about the safety of our communities, many Americans have come to the same conclusion: “something must be done.” Unfortunately, many of members of Congress believe that those four words – “something must be done” – give the federal government permission to do whatever it wants.

But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances.

The government may not infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” It may not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Nor may it deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
These are just a few of the explicit limitations on government action – a few of Americans’ core civil liberties – listed in the Bill of Rights. They are not negotiable. Yet many of the legislative proposals that have emerged in recent days run roughshod over these basic constitutional rights.

One such measure would give law-enforcement agencies power to access Americans’ Internet browsing history and email metadata – which can be analyzed to reveal intimate details about a person’s life – without a warrant, probable cause, or judicial review by a federal court. Another measure, the Terrorist Firearms and Prevention Act, would prohibit individuals on the government’s secret No Fly List or Selectee List from purchasing firearms.

"But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances."

Everyone agrees that terrorists should be prevented from purchasing guns, but this proposal would deny Americans their Second Amendment rights based on a mere suspicion from the FBI that they are engaged in terrorist activity. The denial of a constitutional right should require more proof than a reasonable suspicion – a standard so low that it doesn’t even justify an arrest.

In defending these measures, some proponents have lamented the difficulty of working around the core civil liberties listed in the Bill of Rights. But this is a feature, not a bug, of our constitutional system.

Americans’ constitutional rights are not nuisances that the government must accommodate. Protecting these rights is the reason that government exists. As we continue consideration of these measures next week, we must work to ensure that Congress fulfills this purpose.

The ACLU Attacks Religion Over Service to Gays

From Reuters News Service:

May 9 (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday said it filed a lawsuit in federal court to block a Mississippi law allowing people with religious objections to deny services to gay and transgender people.

The law is due to take effect in July.

The ACLU said the measure is discriminatory and contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year that legalized same-sex marriage.

(Reporting by Colleen Jenkins; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)



The following is my response to this story:

 "Yet another example of the ACLU trying to eliminate religious freedom from our way of life. The gays can do and say pretty much anything they want these days, destroying business owners immediate and future incomes and demanding that upright and good people violate their personal morals, yet have ZERO TOLERANCE for anyone with the temerity to say something different than the message they are hammering into everyone about tolerance, acceptance "Love is Love, " etc.

I grew up knowing that Freedom of Religion actually meant something to this country. The prevailing message these days is, Religion is OK only so long as the gays aren't offended by pretty much anything any religion teaches about morals, personal conduct and anything else the LGBT community decides is objectionable.

So much for the ACLU defending the Constitution for everyones benefit. If only one person says boo about a particular issue, the ACLU will go to extraordinary lengths to assure that the other 350 million people in this country conform to that singular person's opinion. That isn't freedom; it's coercion through litigation. In this case, they are demanding that business owners everywhere violate any personal morals or religious objections regarding the LGBT community because a few people are offended that their minority lifestyle is not embraced by everyone.

Let me say this again...Coercion through litigation is not freedom at all. And anyone who tells you it is has an agenda all their own in which the vast minority are free to dictate to the vast majority what to think, say and do on any particular issue.

An Important Week in US History

This is an extremely important week in US history. It includes "The shot heard round the world." Please read on:

A Midnight Ride to Lexington

The events of this week in 1775, especially of April 18-19, are some of the most famous in the story of how Americans won the liberty that we still enjoy today.

Those eventful days began on April 18, 1775 with a horseback ride by Paul Revere and William Dawes. They set out to warn militias across the Massachusetts countryside of approaching British troops, who were sent to Concord to confiscate the weapons there. These British troops were also dispatched to "bring back the bodies of Mess. Hancock and Adams."
Arriving in Lexington around midnight at the home of the Rev. Jonas Clark (where John Hancock and Samuel Adams were staying), Revere passed on word of the British plans. Revere and Dawes then left Lexington, joined by Samuel Prescott, and continued their ride towards Concord. On their way, Revere and Dawes were captured by the British but Prescott escaped and alerted Concord.
After the alert by Revere had been delivered in Lexington, the local militia (largely the men from Clark's church) was mustered. On the morning of April 19, 1775, some 77 Americans would face about 800 British troops. Gunfire was exchanged -- the American Revolution had begun!
As the smoke cleared, 18 Americans lay wounded or dead (all the casualties being from Pastor Clark's church), including both black patriots (such as Prince Estabrook) and white patriots (such as John Robbins). (One of the amazing items we have in the WallBuilders library is a sermon preached by Jonas Clark on the one-year anniversary of the Battle of Lexington.)
The much larger British force, having prevailed in that Lexington skirmish, continued their march towards Concord, where they would be met by the Rev. William Emerson and 400 American patriots awaiting them. Also involved in that Concord group was black patriot Peter Salem, who a few weeks later went on to become the hero of the Battle of Bunker Hill.
As we remember the events of this week that occurred 241 years ago and the liberties they eventually produced, let's also remember the responsibility those events place upon us. As President John Adams reminded us:

"Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."

With DAPA, The President Broke The Law

The following commentary was written by U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R, UT) following the recent Supreme Court hearing on President Obama's unilateral amnesty for  millions of illegal aliens which also includes broad access to governmental aid programs.

'The President Broke the Law with DAPA. Will the Supreme Court Stop Him?'

"One of the most fundamental challenges facing the United States today is the deep and growing distrust between the American people and their political system in Washington, D.C. And the inconvenient truth — rarely acknowledged by Washington elites — is that the American people’s distrust of their public institutions is totally justified.

Most moms and dads in America still teach their children to follow the rules even when they’re inconvenient, to respect the authority of the law, and to work hard to earn their success. But when they look to their nation’s capital, they see a very different ethos — one that rewards politicians and bureaucrats who rewrite the rules whenever they please, flout the law with impunity, and rig public policy in their favor.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas, which challenges one of the most egregious examples of Washington’s corrupted culture: President Obama’s amnesty program, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Records (DAPA).

For more than six decades, Congress has exercised its power over immigration by establishing a comprehensive scheme of rules and regulations governing admission to the country and the circumstances under which foreign nationals may be eligible for work authorization or government benefits.

President Obama does not like the current immigration code and, to be honest, I have problems with it as well. But neither of us is allowed to change the law on our own, a fact President Obama used to respect.

As he (the President) explained in March 2011: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case. . . . There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

But just a few years later, President Obama did exactly what he had previously said was strictly prohibited by the Constitution. With the adoption of DAPA, he unilaterally suspended federal immigration law for more than 4 million aliens living in the United States illegally, granting them “lawful presence,” work authorization, and access to a host of government benefits.

President Obama claims DAPA is just a routine exercise of the chief executive’s inherent power of “prosecutorial discretion,” which gives executive-branch agencies some degree of leeway when enforcing the law. But that power has limits, and it’s clear that DAPA goes beyond them.

For instance, it is a legitimate use of prosecutorial discretion for a prosecutor to decide not to prosecute someone who got a ticket for driving 75 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone.

But that same prosecutor could not announce that, as a matter of policy, all motorists are permitted to travel at 75 miles per hour and then create a special lane for them to do so. This would be an obvious abuse of prosecutorial discretion, as it would effectively create a new law.

That is exactly what President Obama did when he created DAPA.
DAPA is not a minor adjustment of immigration-enforcement policy; it is a wholesale rewriting of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Nor is DAPA even remotely comparable to past deferred-action programs implemented by former presidents. Historically, deferred action has been reserved to provide temporary relief to narrowly tailored groups, but President Obama has used it to circumvent the legislative process and unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of foreign nationals living in the United States illegally.

The facts of the case are clear: By adopting the DAPA program, President Obama broke the law, usurped Congress’s authority to regulate immigration, and violated his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
You don’t have to oppose the policy outcome contemplated by DAPA to see the danger of allowing the president to singlehandedly rewrite the law.

In a republic such as ours, the stability and legitimacy of government rests, above all, on a moral foundation of public trust. Citizens must have confidence that the representatives they elect to write and enforce the nation’s laws will do so honestly, if not honorably. But today, that confidence has withered and weakened.

Fortunately, United States v. Texas gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to strengthen the public’s trust in our political system by affirming that in America no one, not even the president, is above the law."

"Equality" Demands in the State of Georgia

This week, the State of Georgia's Legislature passed a Bill addressing the issue of LGBT persons using the restroom facilities of the opposite sex, according to their birth gender. If signed by Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal, several entertainment companies including Disney and Tyler Perry Productions have stated that if the Bill is indeed signed, that they will pull out of the State, taking their production business elsewhere. Their gripe? Because they are all for "Equality" in all its forms, and against intolerance towards those of various sexual persuasions or identities. In other words, they are basically demanding that anyone of the LGBT ilk be allowed to use the public restroom facilities of their 'chosen' gender identity.
Forget the fact that this poses the traumatizing risk of children being exposed to things they just should be made to see, there is the very real probability that such allowances will pose the risk of pedophiles and other sexual predators to legally enter the bathroom of their potential victims. How is this OK with these companies who demand this so-called "equality?"
The issue is definitely a 'Hot Button' topic, and I immediately sat down and wrote the following comment to a story on today's MSN:

So, in the name of "equality" these companies and various celebrities would infringe on the rights of the vast 99% who don't want themselves or their children exposed to this vast minority of just 1% who seek to dictate to everyone else what is fair and acceptable. How about coming up with a solution that doesn't infringe on the 99% who see this as either a Freedom of Religion issue, or simply what is right, and what is blatantly wrong...or both.

It's because of the vast minority dictating to the vast majority that the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer recited in our public schools; that a student wishing to say a prayer over school lunch is prohibited; that our Freedom of Religion, as guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is on the brink of collapse; that the ACLU wrongly coerces school districts across the nation into banning Christmas references, and other religious activities in our schools; and that public displays of the Ten Commandments are being torn up from city hall's across the country.

Oh! Someone is offended! Now, they are going to make the entire country bend to their will, rather than displaying basic human understanding and compassion and allowing the vast majority to do, say and worship as they expect to be able to. You know...those pesky freedoms included in our Founding documents.

The Obama Administration Misrepresents the Constitution...Again.

With the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a vacancy on the High Court needs to be filled which is the job of the President to Nominate a successor, but the job of the US Senate to Accept or Reject the candidate at all.

US Senator Mike Lee (R), Utah, highlights the misrepresentation of the Obama Administration of the issue to the American people in the text of his weekly address to his constituents as follows:

Chairman's Note: The People Should Determine What Kind of Supreme Court They Wish to Have

The opening words of the Preamble to the United States Constitution are familiar to us all: “We the People.” But what exactly do they mean?

It was by “the People” that the Constitution was written and ratified. It is for “the People” that my colleagues and I, along with every other public official across these United States, now serve. And it was on behalf of “the People” that the Constitution established “one supreme Court,” consisting of judges appointed “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

Since the tragic passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there has been a great deal of debate about this particular provision of the Constitution.

But there should be no controversy. The text of our founding charter is clear: The president has full and complete power to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court, and the Senate has full and complete power to confirm nominees or to withhold consent.
It’s as simple as that. Indeed, the Senate retains complete discretion with respect to whether it should even consider – much less accept or reject – presidential nominees.

This should not be controversial. It is how virtually every student of the Constitution – and nearly every member of Congress – has understood the Senate’s power of “Advice and Consent” for the past 228 years since the Constitution was ratified.

But now, with the presidential election in full swing, President Obama and his allies in Congress and the media claim the opposite is true. As they tell it, the Senate is constitutionally obligated to hold hearings and to vote on the candidate that President Obama eventually nominates to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.

I respectfully dissent.

"It’s as simple as that. Indeed, the Senate retains complete discretion with respect to whether it should even consider – much less accept or reject – presidential nominees."

If this a-textual and a-historical account of the Constitution were accurate, then prior Senates violated the Constitution when they did not cast up-or-down votes on Supreme Court nominees. Even the Standing Rules of the Senate would be suspect, contemplating as they do that “[n]ominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President...”

Neither does the prospect of a temporary eight-member Court raise concern. For instance, during the Court’s 2010-2011 term, the Court decided over 30 cases with eight or fewer justices, almost entirely as a result of recusals arising from Justice Kagan’s nomination. Similarly, following the retirement of Justice Powell in 1987, the Court acted on 80 cases with eight or fewer justices.

In short, the sky does not fall when the Court comprises only eight justices. As Justice Breyer recently stated, the work of the court “[f]or the most part...will not change.”

With the future of the Supreme Court now at stake, and the election for our next president already well underway, it is the People who should determine what kind of Supreme Court they wish to have. The president is entitled, of course, to discharge his own constitutional authority to nominate. But the Senate is equally entitled to withhold consent and protect the People’s voice.

As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, "ambition must counteract ambition. And the People should decide."