There are also players that play into their late 30's. Mostly kickers and QBs, but they are still NFL players.
Those players that are in their 30's would have played for almost 10 years by then and should have banked a lot of money. Hopefully they were smart enough to manage their money wisely so they can take care of themselves the rest of their lives.
The ones who have the long careers are not the ones who need this. The one's who need it are the ones who only play a couple years and have minimum contracts. It's for athletes who are lesser leagues like the minors. These are the people who go through the same abuse yet make much, much less.
I had not thought about that. Great point about the people who can't bank the money because they didn't earn much.
Those players that are in their 30's would have played for almost 10 years by then and should have banked a lot of money. Hopefully they were smart enough to manage their money wisely so they can take care of themselves the rest of their lives.
The ones who have the long careers are not the ones who need this. The one's who need it are the ones who only play a couple years and have minimum contracts. It's for athletes who are lesser leagues like the minors. These are the people who go through the same abuse yet make much, much less.
I had not thought about that. Great point about the people who can't bank the money because they didn't earn much.
I guess my priorities are messed up. I don't think it matters one hill of beans what a person banked or if he can afford to spend every cent he has for proper medical care or not.
To me the issue is did a person get hurt while employed and doing his job? If so, that to me is a simple yes to whether or not they are entitled to workmans compensation.
Now, as to what age a person should be paid until.... That is very subjective. If you are employed as an athlete does that mean that you get paid for less time than another person that has to work longer because you would work less? Is it a guarantee that an athlete will never work again in his life after his athletic career? Most athletes go to work for other companies after they retire. Is the inability to do that worth nothing? I guess in some peoples minds, if in their opinion he does not have to work that job then he is not entitled to the money he would have made.
And what about the rich executive that can afford to retire at 35, but hurts his back on the job. He is entitles to workmans comp until 65 but not the athlete who is maybe not as rich, but is an athlete instead of an executive. And what age is an athlete not entitled to benefits even though he may still be crippled. I guess someone decided 35. But if the dude gets hurt at 37, he is screwed. He should have retired at 35.
There is so much just wrong with this whole athlete and how much money you made line of thinking. You can't hold poor against someone and you can't hold rich against someone. Why do we even let rich people buy health insurance if they can afford to pay for themselves. They should pay full price because they can.
I dunno. I'm a simple guy. Make the rules for everyone. If I'm rich and I get hurt at my job, why is that on me? It's just wrong.
Those players that are in their 30's would have played for almost 10 years by then and should have banked a lot of money. Hopefully they were smart enough to manage their money wisely so they can take care of themselves the rest of their lives.
The ones who have the long careers are not the ones who need this. The one's who need it are the ones who only play a couple years and have minimum contracts. It's for athletes who are lesser leagues like the minors. These are the people who go through the same abuse yet make much, much less.
I had not thought about that. Great point about the people who can't bank the money because they didn't earn much.
I can't take credit for that view. I heard it brought up on the Score. I think it was Spiegel that mentioned it. Originally he said he was a little upset that athletes would need that because they make so much but he was only thinking of the top athletes in the most popular sports. This would affect all professional sports which includes minor league ball players. There are a ton of players that only make practice squads or special teams and make the minimum and then almost half of their salary goes to taxes depending on which state they are in. There's a reason why a lot of ex-athletes open up restaurants, car dealerships and insurance agencies. They don't have enough money to live off of even though they played for 4 years.
I had not thought about that. Great point about the people who can't bank the money because they didn't earn much.
I guess my priorities are messed up. I don't think it matters one hill of beans what a person banked or if he can afford to spend every cent he has for proper medical care or not.
To me the issue is did a person get hurt while employed and doing his job? If so, that to me is a simple yes to whether or not they are entitled to workmans compensation.
Now, as to what age a person should be paid until.... That is very subjective. If you are employed as an athlete does that mean that you get paid for less time than another person that has to work longer because you would work less? Is it a guarantee that an athlete will never work again in his life after his athletic career? Most athletes go to work for other companies after they retire. Is the inability to do that worth nothing? I guess in some peoples minds, if in their opinion he does not have to work that job then he is not entitled to the money he would have made.
And what about the rich executive that can afford to retire at 35, but hurts his back on the job. He is entitles to workmans comp until 65 but not the athlete who is maybe not as rich, but is an athlete instead of an executive. And what age is an athlete not entitled to benefits even though he may still be crippled. I guess someone decided 35. But if the dude gets hurt at 37, he is screwed. He should have retired at 35.
There is so much just wrong with this whole athlete and how much money you made line of thinking. You can't hold poor against someone and you can't hold rich against someone. Why do we even let rich people buy health insurance if they can afford to pay for themselves. They should pay full price because they can.
I dunno. I'm a simple guy. Make the rules for everyone. If I'm rich and I get hurt at my job, why is that on me? It's just wrong.
My thought about the guys who make more money was that they know the situation ahead of time. I think everyone is responsible for themselves. If you are an athlete then you should be responsible for knowing what that state's rules and regulations are. That's one of the things the NFLPA is there to help players with. If you're in a state that doesn't offer any workers comp then you should be putting some money away or getting your own insurance that works the same. Regardless of it being right or fair, they should be prepared.
I had not thought about that. Great point about the people who can't bank the money because they didn't earn much.
I guess my priorities are messed up. I don't think it matters one hill of beans what a person banked or if he can afford to spend every cent he has for proper medical care or not.
To me the issue is did a person get hurt while employed and doing his job? If so, that to me is a simple yes to whether or not they are entitled to workmans compensation.
Now, as to what age a person should be paid until.... That is very subjective. If you are employed as an athlete does that mean that you get paid for less time than another person that has to work longer because you would work less? Is it a guarantee that an athlete will never work again in his life after his athletic career? Most athletes go to work for other companies after they retire. Is the inability to do that worth nothing? I guess in some peoples minds, if in their opinion he does not have to work that job then he is not entitled to the money he would have made.
And what about the rich executive that can afford to retire at 35, but hurts his back on the job. He is entitles to workmans comp until 65 but not the athlete who is maybe not as rich, but is an athlete instead of an executive. And what age is an athlete not entitled to benefits even though he may still be crippled. I guess someone decided 35. But if the dude gets hurt at 37, he is screwed. He should have retired at 35.
There is so much just wrong with this whole athlete and how much money you made line of thinking. You can't hold poor against someone and you can't hold rich against someone. Why do we even let rich people buy health insurance if they can afford to pay for themselves. They should pay full price because they can.
I dunno. I'm a simple guy. Make the rules for everyone. If I'm rich and I get hurt at my job, why is that on me? It's just wrong.
I'm just concerned about what happens if poor people like the McCaskey's or Sweaty Teddy get injured on the job. Is there a safety net in place for these people? I doubt the average Bears fan understands the dangers involved in building a 3-win team dynasty. Torches and pitchforks could come out soon. I just want to know these people are financially safe the rest of their lives - and not just to age 67. Virginia is well into her 90's now... she could be around past age 100. The Illinois legislature needs to protect these poor rich people.
I guess my priorities are messed up. I don't think it matters one hill of beans what a person banked or if he can afford to spend every cent he has for proper medical care or not.
To me the issue is did a person get hurt while employed and doing his job? If so, that to me is a simple yes to whether or not they are entitled to workmans compensation.
Now, as to what age a person should be paid until.... That is very subjective. If you are employed as an athlete does that mean that you get paid for less time than another person that has to work longer because you would work less? Is it a guarantee that an athlete will never work again in his life after his athletic career? Most athletes go to work for other companies after they retire. Is the inability to do that worth nothing? I guess in some peoples minds, if in their opinion he does not have to work that job then he is not entitled to the money he would have made.
And what about the rich executive that can afford to retire at 35, but hurts his back on the job. He is entitles to workmans comp until 65 but not the athlete who is maybe not as rich, but is an athlete instead of an executive. And what age is an athlete not entitled to benefits even though he may still be crippled. I guess someone decided 35. But if the dude gets hurt at 37, he is screwed. He should have retired at 35.
There is so much just wrong with this whole athlete and how much money you made line of thinking. You can't hold poor against someone and you can't hold rich against someone. Why do we even let rich people buy health insurance if they can afford to pay for themselves. They should pay full price because they can.
I dunno. I'm a simple guy. Make the rules for everyone. If I'm rich and I get hurt at my job, why is that on me? It's just wrong.
My thought about the guys who make more money was that they know the situation ahead of time. I think everyone is responsible for themselves. If you are an athlete then you should be responsible for knowing what that state's rules and regulations are. That's one of the things the NFLPA is there to help players with. If you're in a state that doesn't offer any workers comp then you should be putting some money away or getting your own insurance that works the same. Regardless of it being right or fair, they should be prepared.
And so what about the situation where a player does his homework and knows that his state has workmans comp. And then right before he is 35 the state changes it. He is responsible for knowing the rule. But it changed. Kind of like a person working for the state for less money because he knows there is a pension. Problem is the state changed it. Guess it's on that dude too. He should have known they would have changed it? You can prepare, but you can't know. The only way to do that is not work for government or not be an athlete. That way, any change will not affect you.
I guess my priorities are messed up. I don't think it matters one hill of beans what a person banked or if he can afford to spend every cent he has for proper medical care or not.
To me the issue is did a person get hurt while employed and doing his job? If so, that to me is a simple yes to whether or not they are entitled to workmans compensation.
Now, as to what age a person should be paid until.... That is very subjective. If you are employed as an athlete does that mean that you get paid for less time than another person that has to work longer because you would work less? Is it a guarantee that an athlete will never work again in his life after his athletic career? Most athletes go to work for other companies after they retire. Is the inability to do that worth nothing? I guess in some peoples minds, if in their opinion he does not have to work that job then he is not entitled to the money he would have made.
And what about the rich executive that can afford to retire at 35, but hurts his back on the job. He is entitles to workmans comp until 65 but not the athlete who is maybe not as rich, but is an athlete instead of an executive. And what age is an athlete not entitled to benefits even though he may still be crippled. I guess someone decided 35. But if the dude gets hurt at 37, he is screwed. He should have retired at 35.
There is so much just wrong with this whole athlete and how much money you made line of thinking. You can't hold poor against someone and you can't hold rich against someone. Why do we even let rich people buy health insurance if they can afford to pay for themselves. They should pay full price because they can.
I dunno. I'm a simple guy. Make the rules for everyone. If I'm rich and I get hurt at my job, why is that on me? It's just wrong.
I'm just concerned about what happens if poor people like the McCaskey's or Sweaty Teddy get injured on the job. Is there a safety net in place for these people? I doubt the average Bears fan understands the dangers involved in building a 3-win team dynasty. Torches and pitchforks could come out soon. I just want to know these people are financially safe the rest of their lives - and not just to age 67. Virginia is well into her 90's now... she could be around past age 100. The Illinois legislature needs to protect these poor rich people.
My biggest concern is to make sure that we keep Sweatys brain. An asset like that should not be lost to civilization. We kept Einsteins and learned lots from it. If we do the same to Teddy (the Einstein of modern day man), there is no telling the kind of discoveries we will make.
My thought about the guys who make more money was that they know the situation ahead of time. I think everyone is responsible for themselves. If you are an athlete then you should be responsible for knowing what that state's rules and regulations are. That's one of the things the NFLPA is there to help players with. If you're in a state that doesn't offer any workers comp then you should be putting some money away or getting your own insurance that works the same. Regardless of it being right or fair, they should be prepared.
And so what about the situation where a player does his homework and knows that his state has workmans comp. And then right before he is 35 the state changes it. He is responsible for knowing the rule. But it changed. Kind of like a person working for the state for less money because he knows there is a pension. Problem is the state changed it. Guess it's on that dude too. He should have known they would have changed it? You can prepare, but you can't know. The only way to do that is not work for government or not be an athlete. That way, any change will not affect you.
This argument makes no sense.
Well that's just life in general. Plan for what you can and try to be ready for the unexpected as best you can. Also, be insured. Not sure what else you want me to say. If things aren't going the way you want then make sure you vote or try and find a way to make those changes. Get into politics or something.
And so what about the situation where a player does his homework and knows that his state has workmans comp. And then right before he is 35 the state changes it. He is responsible for knowing the rule. But it changed. Kind of like a person working for the state for less money because he knows there is a pension. Problem is the state changed it. Guess it's on that dude too. He should have known they would have changed it? You can prepare, but you can't know. The only way to do that is not work for government or not be an athlete. That way, any change will not affect you.
This argument makes no sense.
Well that's just life in general. Plan for what you can and try to be ready for the unexpected as best you can. Also, be insured. Not sure what else you want me to say. If things aren't going the way you want then make sure you vote or try and find a way to make those changes. Get into politics or something.
I'm just concerned about what happens if poor people like the McCaskey's or Sweaty Teddy get injured on the job. Is there a safety net in place for these people? I doubt the average Bears fan understands the dangers involved in building a 3-win team dynasty. Torches and pitchforks could come out soon. I just want to know these people are financially safe the rest of their lives - and not just to age 67. Virginia is well into her 90's now... she could be around past age 100. The Illinois legislature needs to protect these poor rich people.
My biggest concern is to make sure that we keep Sweatys brain. An asset like that should not be lost to civilization. We kept Einsteins and learned lots from it. If we do the same to Teddy (the Einstein of modern day man), there is no telling the kind of discoveries we will make.
I'm just happy the McCaskeys & Sweaty keep raising ticket prices. It's not easy for these poor rich people. And I wish these whining fans would shut up about the 3-win season as if that is a problem... we got a high draft pick, right?
Take what "The Family" gives us, and don't ask for more. Whiners.