The union is made up of the players. If this was ever proposed, they would vote it down. Guys like VY don't want someone telling them what they have to do with their money. These guys make more than enough money to find sound financial consultants, and I'm sure they are given suggestions during their orientation period that they all go through now.
You are probably right that short term thinking would get the batter of analyzing the data and fighting for contractual stipulations that have the long-term interests of the membership in mind...but clearly whatever they are doing now in terms of counseling etc is not good enough. And it makes the leagues look exploitative and makes the unions look like they aren't doing a very good job. Sure these guys are adults and can do what they want...but when you have a large number of athletes falling into the same situation something should be done to correct it. Professional athletes are unique in that you quite often have someone coming from no money to having an overwhelming amount of money when they are still young. Now I know some 20-something investment bankers who have had $800k years - but those guys have the knowledge to deal with it. there is just really no comparison and no excuse for this happening to so many of these guys, something needs to change.
I agree that it would be in the best interest of all to change, but now we're talking about what should happen versus what can happen. If it's up to the union to include something, the membership has to agree to it. It's one of the same problems they're having with regard to getting benefits for the old timers now. The current players are unwilling to sacrifice some of their money for the benefit of the guys that came before them, and, as a union, they can vote on that stuff. The NFL already provides a pension, so as a company they're doing their part. At some point adults have to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions, and that's not something that can be mandated. Also, there is nothing keeping these guys from getting real jobs and living like the rest of us.
Missed that. I guess my scenario would mean having to live off of only $260,000+ then. Even better.
$600 shots. That's SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS...EACH. If I ever spend $600 on a one-ounce shot of cognac, it better be made from grapes that were squished between Marilyn Monroe's breasts.
Yup - because he had well informed educated parents who are deeply involved in his young life and career. Many of these guys don't really have that.
Ok change that word to allocate. It's essentially like delayed compensation - you know the full amount of the contract but don't get all of it until a certain date. I mean you can call it whatever you want and structure it however you want - but clearly there are serious problems with how things work now. Structuring contracts in a way that enhances likely long-term economic outcomes for players and incentivizes good fiscal behavior (you could give a bonus if they contribute more than mandatory to the trust) is positive for all parties as long as it doesn't harm the value of the overall contract. Assuming it's invested in something that outpaces inflation there is no harm to contract value under what I am describing.
