Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

NFL owners are subjecting players to "modern-day slavery," Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson said in an interview published Tuesday.

The all-pro made the comments to Yahoo! Sports while reflecting on a lockout imposed this week by team owners after they and the NFL Players Association failed to renegotiate an expiring collective bargaining agreement.

"The players are getting robbed. They are," Peterson told Yahoo. "The owners are making so much money off of us to begin with. I don't know that I want to quote myself on that.

"It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too," Peterson said.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2011/03/ ... z1GiaEuB1C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I always dreamed since I was little of one day being enslaved in th NFL.

Libs disagreeing with labor? whod a thunk it would ever happen on here

youngterrier wrote:Libs disagreeing with labor? whod a thunk it would ever happen on here

Not really disagreeing with labor. I support the NFLPA.

Doesn't mean I think playing in the NFL is akin to slavery.

I've heard of the idea of wage slavery, but applying that concept to the NFL is patently ludicrous. Peterson will probably get laughed out of Minnesota.

SuperHornet wrote:I've heard of the idea of wage slavery, but applying that concept to the NFL is patently ludicrous. Peterson will probably get laughed out of Minnesota.

no he won't... it's not the dumbest thing said by an athlete here...

although - will someone in D. Smith's office give these guys some message training? seriously - this was the LAST thing they needed... the players have the upper hand right now - this is the kind of shit that can ruin that.

I don't the folks depicted in the history books I read COMPETED for jobs making in excess of $10M/yr. He played for free all his life leading up to receiving an athletic scholarship which gave him a springboard for the NFL. I'd suggest just for kicks that he suspend his NFL career and get a job for a while based on his degree for a little perspective on how bad he's got it.

I don't guess the owners need any compensation for lining up financing, getting the stadiums built, maintaining coaching staffs......it's exorbitant, but so are player's salaries. Risk and return.......

the one thing i thought about after re-reading his comments was this:

anyone watch the NFL combine? watch the way those players are evaluated... like cattle... not gonna lie, it does invoke the image of a slave auction.

that however is where the comparison ends given the very real compensation paid to the players (which - as I've said elsewhere isn't as excessive as people like to complain about)

ASUG8 wrote:I don't the folks depicted in the history books I read COMPETED for jobs making in excess of $10M/yr. He played for free all his life leading up to receiving an athletic scholarship which gave him a springboard for the NFL. I'd suggest just for kicks that he suspend his NFL career and get a job for a while based on his degree for a little perspective on how bad he's got it.

I don't guess the owners need any compensation for lining up financing, getting the stadiums built, maintaining coaching staffs......it's exorbitant, but so are player's salaries. Risk and return.......

while i agree that the comparison is... foolish... i disagree with your analysis of the owners/players dynamic in the nfl

the owners aren't the ones taking risks... NFL players are basically killing themselves for their living. shortening, dramatically in some cases their lives to play this game. yes, they get paid... but considering the revenue they generate (over 9 BILLION dollars/yr) they are surprisingly underpaid in many cases - and moreover have absolutely zero job security... hell, their contracts aren't even guaranteed.

owning an nfl franchise - even a weak one like Jacksonville or Buffalo is a license to print money.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the one thing i thought about after re-reading his comments was this:

anyone watch the NFL combine? watch the way those players are evaluated... like cattle... not gonna lie, it does invoke the image of a slave auction.

that however is where the comparison ends given the very real compensation paid to the players (which - as I've said elsewhere isn't as excessive as people like to complain about)

...except that they all signed up and fought to be there.

As far as owners not taking risks, this isn't exactly like opening a Subway franchise - lots of risk and personal fortunes involved.

ASUG8 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the one thing i thought about after re-reading his comments was this:

anyone watch the NFL combine? watch the way those players are evaluated... like cattle... not gonna lie, it does invoke the image of a slave auction.

that however is where the comparison ends given the very real compensation paid to the players (which - as I've said elsewhere isn't as excessive as people like to complain about)

...except that they all signed up and fought to be there.

As far as owners not taking risks, this isn't exactly like opening a Subway franchise - lots of risk and personal fortunes involved.

but is it? there's a reason the owners won't open the books for the last decade.

owning an NFL team is about as sure a thing as there is in this world for making money... while it requires massive capital at the start - even an ineptly run team turns a profit most years. the salary cap being where it is - the incredible revenue streams, the seeming unquenchable appetite for their product, the insanely lucrative national television deal... even if you don't sell shit for tickets - you're still making money.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
...except that they all signed up and fought to be there.

As far as owners not taking risks, this isn't exactly like opening a Subway franchise - lots of risk and personal fortunes involved.

but is it? there's a reason the owners won't open the books for the last decade.

owning an NFL team is about as sure a thing as there is in this world for making money... while it requires massive capital at the start - even an ineptly run team turns a profit most years. the salary cap being where it is - the incredible revenue streams, the seeming unquenchable appetite for their product, the insanely lucrative national television deal... even if you don't sell shit for tickets - you're still making money.

No argument that the owners are making a lot of money. For that matter so does Google, Apple, and loads of companies. The difference is that these guys run their franchises privately - what incentive do they have to open their books? If you say you'll run or catch a football for $10M a season, you and your agent sign a contract with the franchise then what's the problem? You don't like it, go somewhere else. Most companies determine what are acceptable pay ranges for key positions and pay their star performers accordingly based on market rates - again, if you're being screwed over then try to renegotiate - maybe it'll work, maybe they'll kick you to the curb for some other team to pick up. Greed is abundant from the players to the owners. If the NFL became publicly traded I'm assuming owners would open the kimono and players would be given some stock option or profit sharing arrangement, but that's currently not the case.

ASUG8 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
but is it? there's a reason the owners won't open the books for the last decade.

owning an NFL team is about as sure a thing as there is in this world for making money... while it requires massive capital at the start - even an ineptly run team turns a profit most years. the salary cap being where it is - the incredible revenue streams, the seeming unquenchable appetite for their product, the insanely lucrative national television deal... even if you don't sell shit for tickets - you're still making money.

No argument that the owners are making a lot of money. For that matter so does Google, Apple, and loads of companies. The difference is that these guys run their franchises privately - what incentive do they have to open their books? If you say you'll run or catch a football for $10M a season, you and your agent sign a contract with the franchise then what's the problem? You don't like it, go somewhere else. Most companies determine what are acceptable pay ranges for key positions and pay their star performers accordingly based on market rates - again, if you're being screwed over then try to renegotiate - maybe it'll work, maybe they'll kick you to the curb for some other team to pick up. Greed is abundant from the players to the owners. If the NFL became publicly traded I'm assuming owners would open the kimono and players would be given some stock option or profit sharing arrangement, but that's currently not the case.

they should open the books in the negotiation process to prove their point to the players that things are as bad as they say... they purposely tanked their 2010 financials to make it look bad - but over 10 years - there's no way they can't show obscene profits.

my problem is that there is a lot of "a pox on both houses" piety coming from a lot of quarters in this negotiation - when in fact - the blame lies entirely with the owners. they committed themselves two years ago to burying the players and reaping even larger profits for themselves and haven't spent a moment negotiating in good faith since. the lockout-indifferent television contract proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

the players aren't asking for more - they're asking for the same - which the owners have failed to show is untenable in any way... (in fact, the players are supportive of a rookie cap - something the owners desperately want)

my point is that without the players - the owners have nothing... yet they act as though the players are somehow robbing them blind. and the biggest mistake i think outside observers can make is to take the mental shortcut of saying "well, they're all greedy - so to hell with them"

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
No argument that the owners are making a lot of money. For that matter so does Google, Apple, and loads of companies. The difference is that these guys run their franchises privately - what incentive do they have to open their books? If you say you'll run or catch a football for $10M a season, you and your agent sign a contract with the franchise then what's the problem? You don't like it, go somewhere else. Most companies determine what are acceptable pay ranges for key positions and pay their star performers accordingly based on market rates - again, if you're being screwed over then try to renegotiate - maybe it'll work, maybe they'll kick you to the curb for some other team to pick up. Greed is abundant from the players to the owners. If the NFL became publicly traded I'm assuming owners would open the kimono and players would be given some stock option or profit sharing arrangement, but that's currently not the case.

they should open the books in the negotiation process to prove their point to the players that things are as bad as they say... they purposely tanked their 2010 financials to make it look bad - but over 10 years - there's no way they can't show obscene profits.

my problem is that there is a lot of "a pox on both houses" piety coming from a lot of quarters in this negotiation - when in fact - the blame lies entirely with the owners. they committed themselves two years ago to burying the players and reaping even larger profits for themselves and haven't spent a moment negotiating in good faith since. the lockout-indifferent television contract proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

the players aren't asking for more - they're asking for the same - which the owners have failed to show is untenable in any way... (in fact, the players are supportive of a rookie cap - something the owners desperately want)

my point is that without the players - the owners have nothing... yet they act as though the players are somehow robbing them blind. and the biggest mistake i think outside observers can make is to take the mental shortcut of saying "well, they're all greedy - so to hell with them"

The owners are afraid if the players see the mistakes in the books they will see the incompetent moves they made and if they see them then the media along with the public will as well and this will probably force them out of ownership.

I wonder if he fumbles his money at the bank

The player's union all along wanted this to go the litigation route. I don't believe for a minute they're blameless in this.