Like most everyone else in
America, I watched the Super Bowl last night, stifled a yawn or two during the
13-3 proceedings and commented on the commercials (Turbotax creepy, Audi
reprehensible. Choking isn’t funny,
guys). But the highlight of my Super
Bowl Sunday was a story in the Tribune sports’ section.
In sports, you’d think veteran
teams have to win now before they get too old, but you’d be wrong, at least
with the NFL. As the story noted, teams
with a talented young core coming off their rookie contracts have to win before
the shenanigans of the salary cap ensue.
The Rams have a talented young core highlighted by quarterback Jared
Goff and running back Todd Gurley. Two
years from now, they could be rolling in the dough.
But money going to one group of
players has to come from another (think taking from Peter to pay Paul). Rams’ players will either be asked to
restructure their contracts, or they’ll be cut loose in a salary dump. Sportswriters and commentators will treat it
all like a chess match, with very few if any of them asking why football has a
salary cap in the first place.
There was another story on the
same page, and a dollar figure cited practically jumped out at me—the NFL generates
$15 billion a year in revenue. Again,
why have a salary cap other than to keep owners from going all Steinbrenner, or
paying a decent wage to players in probably the most violent sport on the
planet? Every NFL player who’s number
two on the depth chart should agree.
Baseball doesn’t face the health
or compensation issues of football, yet strike talk abounds because of the slow
free-agent market the past two seasons.
How sad, a sport that doesn’t need major change may go on strike while
the sport in need of a major overhaul in the relationship between management
and labor appears doomed to labor “peace.”
Oh, well. I wonder if Tom Brady and Bill Belichick will
be back again next year?
No comments:
Post a Comment