Reed Doughty Facebook page - The owners have decided not to continue players health insurance past march 4.

[ConnSKINS26]

How much of their paycheck should go into the health care fund? 25%, 50% 75%. Because covering a guy from 21 to the end of his life is a huge burden on an employer. Especially if you apply that to all workers who made it one year in the league, the costs would be astronomical.

That's true, and a big issue.

[GoSkinsGo]

That's true, and a big issue.

I've got a strong feeling and belief on this because I'm the financial manager of small company and these issues hit home with me.

[MLiverpool]

One thing that comes to my mind, one whose side do us fans benefit the most? When we buy merchandise, tickets, NFL tv packages, etc, what should we demand?

For the fan, I'd imagine better stadium experiences, better stadiums, lower concession prices, lower apparel prices are to our benefit. What drives those costs up? Is it the price of labor (players, personnel, etc), or supply and demand (i.e.how much will we spend that can maximize the profits for whom?).

I'm just curious. In one article (which I can't find right now), it mentioned one of the beef's owners have is that they've not had enough revenue to start new stadiums (hence no new stadium projects have been started in the past five years...which means the new Cowboys stadium has been in the works for longer then that..I guess).

Maybe the owners and players need to designate more funds to stadium projects and fan appreciation. Without the fans, the NFL has no revenue. We're the source of income for both sides, yet the fans have no say. Maybe fans should take a seat at the table and make some demands, or we'll stop buying merchandise (yea, okay, very doubtful), but much like fan cards made the news last season (turning them in), maybe the fans have more of an effect then we know. Many of us blindly follow our team, because we feel deeply rooted emotional bonds with organizations that are blindly turning away from our needs. What are fan needs? I know many Redskins fans would prefer a better home stadium. Would it be fair to make a demand on the players and owners to build such a stadium. To invest some of our money or we start boycotting games. Not watching Skins football. Or football in general.

Too bad the fan doesn't have a seat at the table. I am sorry Reed won't have health insurance. Complain to the 9.4% unemployed in this country, or those who're barely scraping by. Being shocked won't cut it. We sometimes forget players are just people, jocks who grew up just like we did, but were given lots of money because of physical gifts and tenacity (and luck). I'm not saying jocks are stupid, but definitely sheltered (much like the Hollywood community). They don't get it.

Some owners seemed to be entertainers (I dare say Jerry Jones still is in that mold) and believe in the show. Yes, that's how they make their money, but they're often trying to make it worth it to the fan, because they know we can walk away if we're not entertained. Players make a lot of money, but also know their skillsets are limited and if they do get hurt, they're not gonna be living it up as celebrities, but instead used car deals or security guards..maybe a bouncer.

I'm not sure who to side with, because I'm not sure what benefit there is the fan. I live in the beach cities near Los Angeles, and I don't have a local team to go see. I grew up in the suburbs of Washington D.C. and hence I'm a huge Redskins fan. I miss the days where players were Redskins, and not fantasy stats. The league has changed, it has evolved, but how it's evolving now may or may not be in my best interest as a fan. Or your best interest...who knows...end of rant...

[The Tris]

I don't think players should have lifetime coverage necessarily, but I do think it should be longer than the 5 or 10 years (depending on tenure) that is currently offered, when many of the problems don't become evident until later in life.

And I do think that a portion of the salaries should go into a HC fund.

What I don't think is fair is players being asked to take a pay cut, while playing more games with still subpar health coverage.

[Dirt]

I don't think players should have lifetime coverage necessarily, but I do think it should be longer than the 5 or 10 years (depending on tenure) that is currently offered, when many of the problems don't become evident until later in life.

And I do think that a portion of the salaries should go into a HC fund.

What I don't think is fair is players being asked to take a pay cut, while playing more games with still subpar health coverage.

When considering what's fair and what's not, I think it's important to forget about the way the deal HAS been. It HAS been awfully player friendly.

[TD Riggo]

Well, the players can whine all they want, but they have to realize that the economics of the game have changed. If they refuse to come to an agreement by March 4 then they are without a contract. And the gravy train stops.

They will have to give up some of their demands. And the owners have valid grievances. For example, fewer people are attending games because they prefer to stay home and watch in HD .. and the beer's cheaper (and the owner's will also have to start lowering the price of beer and tickets as well to keep butts in the seats). The practice of guaranteeing rookies hundreds of millions of dollars before they play a single own will have to stop as well.

It's a new world. Both sides will have to get used to it. And they had better get to an agreement quick, because sports fans have traditionally frowned upon professional sports strikes. And with so many people out of work and hurting financially in this recession, a strike by NFL players will NOT go over well!

[ConnSKINS26]

The practice of guaranteeing rookies hundreds of millions of dollars before they play a single own will have to stop as well.

I don't think the players are against this at all. Veterans don't like unproven guys getting paid more than they are. I think this is understood as being a reasonable, need, integral part of the next CBA.

[KDawg]

I think the players have come across a lot worse than the owners so far in this whole fiasco. The whole finger in the air thing, The player union rep Smith saying "It's War", etc. Well, if it's war, the owners are not going to pay you health insurance to go to war.

It sucks for Reed, I agree. And he seems like a damned good guy. It's even more reason why the players and owners need to get together and figure this out before that happens.

[addicted]

Of course I'm not saying that. I'm merely saying that its understandable why they deserve long-term health care coverage. Making $162,000/ year for 3 or 4 years (this is a description of the average NFL player) is a nice haul, for sure. But you can't expect $600,000 or so to cover them for the rest of their lives, with increased medical expenses...especially since you're talking about guys who are in their early-mid 20's. You're talking about guys still in the first third of their lives.

Ok you've lost me?

Who is responsible for the health care? The employer right? If the employee goes on strike why would the employer still be forced to pay this?

And why is the employer the only place these men can go to get extra care in case they need it? Can't they get it themselves or use the players association to fund it?

It seems to me that there is something about this missing where I see a few of you defending these players and actually feeling sorry for them but can't seem to answer these questions

[B55Green]

That's terrible to hear, especially for parents such as himself whose kids have health issues.

[ConnSKINS26]

Ok you've lost me?

Who is responsible for the health care? The employer right? If the employee goes on strike why would the employer still be forced to pay this?

And why is the employer the only place these men can go to get extra care in case they need it? Can't they get it themselves or use the players association to fund it?

It seems to me that there is something about this missing where I see a few of you defending these players and actually feeling sorry for them but can't seem to answer these questions

I think the argument throughout the thread has been mixed up. I'm not opposed to the owners withholding further health insurance from the players until a new CBA is agreed upon. I was referring to new provisions in a new CBA, and doing more to provide for post-retirement health-care.

Sorry for the confusion.

[wildbill1952]

As far as helath insurance, all health insurance providers must provide COBRA if they employ 20 employees or more. Although not as cheap as free insurance, which the player may have enjoyed while they were employed under the CBA, it does allow for the continuation of health insurance when you are laid off, fired or, as in this case, locked out. Pre-exisitng conditions are covered. For me and you, that would be a tremendous amount of money. But the cost for the NFL player, or you, is only going to be about 6 grand a year for the most premium of plans. Certainly not pleasant, but not enough to push a guy who has (or at least had) a minimum salary of 400k into a corner.

For me, since I can always get my NFL Sunday Ticket back if I want it, I'm thinking I cancel it, just in case the season starts late, or not at all. If enough people do that, maybe the owners will be willing to negotiate. So far, it seems like the fattest of fat cats (the Snyders and the Jerruhs) are the ones who want even more of the fan dollar in their pocket. I'll start to feel bad for the owners as soon as I see one of them driving a 15 year old vehicle around town.

[addicted]

35% for taxes, 10% for agents

That's still not half and I doubt agents for the lowest paid players are actually giving away 10% of there money to the guy who got them a minimum contract. Really your reaching here to say the least

Not sure how the average of 162K is five times the national average of 46K.

Well since your grasping at straws and making **** up I'm really not surprised that I said 5 times, and it's closer to 4 times if we were to use those numbers anyway which like i said above I thinks pretty liberal and wrong for the most part anyway. So while your living in your make believe world where you simply can't seem to understand that these men have options and if they are in bad shape they only did it to themselves.

This is solely about the lingering health care issues and non-star players.

Players who buy mansions and bling and cars I have no sympathy for. Nor do I have sympathy for the 10% of players who make up the majority of salaries.

Please show us all these welfare receiptant "non-star players" your mentioning instead of just pulling bullspit out of the air and then explain to me why these men given the college expirence they went through and all of the money they earned can't be responsible for themselves. See the problem here is your just making this up and putting the burden on everyone else except where it rightfully belongs. If a man is too stupid to save money then its his fault. I blame these players for this and don't think they want to look elsewhere other then at the owners feet for more money, if they want to be responsible they can take care of things and if they don't have a long future playing they went to college so they could find another form of employment. We don't need an NFL players welfare system, and if more people pointed the fingers at the players for screwing up their own lives then they might get the message instead of looking for a handout.

The bottom line is they want to strike, then they should be prepared for the consequences

---------- Post added February-7th-2011 at 05:15 PM ----------

I think the argument throughout the thread has been mixed up. I'm not opposed to the owners withholding further health insurance from the players until a new CBA is agreed upon. I was referring to new provisions in a new CBA, and doing more to provide for post-retirement health-care.

Sorry for the confusion.

It's all good. I get you now.

Didn't this come up many times in the past? I remember reading about players like Earl Campbell going in front of congress to address the need for retirement for health care concerns for former players? What happened with that? I thought the answer was more player involvement from the players association to take care of there own? You remember this? Why couldn't the same work for current players as a backup plan in case the primary insurance runs out? Aflack if you will

[IrepDC]

I don't see why the players are being viewed as whiny or cry babies here. The majority of these players are not coming from silver spoon backgrounds. They are supporting a lot of people, and putting their bodies and health on the line to entertain you all. A lot of money is going into the NFL. Other than some of the really small markets, I don't buy excuse that the teams are losing money. The owners are being greedy imo, and it's just like everything else in this country, the people at the top want more and more while the rest of us scramble for their crumbs. Just because the player salaries are public, many of your perceptions seem to be that they are lucky and should just figure out how to make it work. But for comparisons sake, if you all knew how much those guys up in the press boxes sipping champagne were making off of the players, your perception might change a bit. It's really a bigger issue that I see across the board with our nations mentality, but I will leave it at that since this is the Stadium. I won't comment on this topic anymore. Just my opinions

[HigSkin]

I don't think the players are against this at all. Veterans don't like unproven guys getting paid more than they are. I think this is understood as being a reasonable, need, integral part of the next CBA.

The players are definitely not against a rookie cap. What they're against is where that additional money eventually goes. Apparently, there's no clear plan for reinvestment back in to Veteran contracts/income.