All these people are opposed to Trump? It seems to me as if he attacked an entire organization and they showed unity in defiance of the attack.
Tom Brady is a Trump supporter and he came out against the comments. He attacked an organization.
Anyways my point was how can people be saying players need to keep politics out of the NFL when the President of the United States injects politics INTO the NFL? Isn’t he just as guilty?
Their work is literally called a game… I don’t play my budget… I don’t play excel…
Of course, everyone would do it if they could because it’s not work. You don’t “work” football. You play it. I mean, I come home from work and play football sometimes.
Gonna have to just disagree on this I guess. Doctors deserve to be highly paid. Athletes are highly paid because we put a premium on entertainment in this country because we enjoy escaping the reality of working 40+ hours a week…
This seems anti-capitalist to me.
Do CEO’s and business owners deserve to be highly paid? Isn’t the argument that they create jobs? NFL players are massive job creators. We pay high amounts of money to people who can do things other people can’t do that is highly desired. An NFL quarterback is a highly desired JOB. Very few Americans can do it. Owners (CEO’s) are willing to pay big money to the people doing this job.
The amount of work that goes into being able to perform at this level is unreal. And these people are “working” on it almost 24/7 and far more than the average 40 hour a week American “works” at their job. They are compensated well for an extradoniary talent and work ethic.
In my opinion no doubt exists that NFL players are performing a job. If you want to say that job is “just” entertainment that’s fine. Doesn’t devalue it or else they wouldn’t be well paid.
No. You’re reading more into the statement than is there. It’s fan-fucking-tastic that a football player can make $100M dollars. That doesn’t mean they deserve it. They run up and down a rectangle with a ball…
I think you could come up with 1,000’s of jobs then that “don’t deserve money.” Which to me is not a capitalist idea but we don’t have to get bogged down on that.
Them running that rectangle up and down the field provides livelihoods for tons of people. Tons. And they perform something that only a handful of Americans can do at the level which people pay that much to watch it.
Getting rid of the NFL would ruin many lives. And compared to owners yes I think you could easily make the argument the “workers” are underpaid.
They showed unity by doing something politically dumb, kneeling.
People are annoyed at both Trump and players for mixing sports and politics, people are pissed at the NFL about disrespecting those who have served.
Listen, man, I’m trying really hard not to be a dick, but nowhere did I say they “don’t deserve money.” I said they don’t deserve to be so highly paid. That’s my opinion.
Wonderful. Fantastic. Outstanding.
It’s still just a game played for entertainment purpose. The owners are the ones that create the job not the players anyway.
… I don’t even know what to say here.
I’m happy you feel that way.
I understand what your opinion is but mine is they are paid market value. Market value happens to be super high in the opinion of many sure. We may both think it is too much and that it would be nice if teachers were paid more let’s be real this is pure capitalism at work and is the exact reason teachers make less than NFL players. To interfere in this is to reject capitalism.
I think players create a lot of jobs. People aren’t watching the NFL because of Robert Kraft. They are watching it because of Tom Brady. People are making Tom Brady jerseys because of Tom Brady. Owners create jobs as well but get rid of the players and the whole thing collapses. They are not just the labor they are labor that can’t be replaced. Put you or me in and no one is watching. People are watching to see elite level athletes perform.
I mean, right now we’re basically just splitting hairs over what the word “deserve” means. I happen to agree that football players probably don’t “deserve” to make $15 million/year for playing a sport (I would say the same about most other entertainers as well), and would much rather see that money distributed elsewhere in society. However, as you alluded above, and we discussed earlier, people continue to shell out hundreds (or in some cases thousands) of dollars for tickets, and those who don’t buy tickets are so collectively addicted to the NFL on Sundays that it’s one of the most-desired television products in America, creating gobs and gobs of revenue, which has to go somewhere, and if not to the players that constitute the actual on-field product, where does it go?
(giant run-on sentence there)
With that said…
…I’m not sure that I agree with this. As far as I know, the prevailing economic belief does not support sports teams as a net positive for their cities. Most of the “jobs” they create (outside of players, coaches, and some front-office positions) are part-time, low-wage, no-benefits jobs. I once read somewhere that the argument that “tons of people come downtown to watch the game, and that benefits all the bars and restaurants and other local businesses” is a bit of a red-herring because then those people all go inside the giant stadium for three hours, whereas absent the local sports team those people would be spending their entertainment dollars elsewhere in the city (the movie theater, bowling alley, museum, whatever else it is people that don’t attend NFL games do). Meanwhile, teams generally obtain public funding to pay for their stadiums and benefit from giant tax breaks that they squeeze out of city leadership.
In short, no, I don’t think that getting rid of the NFL would ruin many lives. I think people would find other ways to spend their entertainment dollars, and those jobs would just be replaced by whatever else people collectively decided to spend their dollars on.
Of course, they’re paid at market value… I never said otherwise.
Literally all I was saying.
[quote=“H_factor, post:3661, topic:229190”]
I think players create a lot of jobs. People aren’t watching the NFL because of Robert Kraft. They are watching it because of Tom Brady. [/quote]
People watch the NFL. When Brady is gone they will still watch the Patriots.
Sure, Chinese kids making $0.01/hour.
No, it wouldn’t. People pay to watch Single A baseball teams. Viewership might drop with less talent and that might lead to job loss, but I doubt it’d “collapse”.
People paid to watch replacement players during the 87’ season…
A lot of it does go to the players. A lot of it goes to the owners. Players get 47% of the revenue per the CBA and that doesn’t include the billion or so for retired players.
Here’s some kids capstone project, lol
I think we can all agree that @anon50325502 knocked it out of the park here.
Only ones that agree with me 
Come on now. You can’t compare single A baseball to an almost 35 billion dollar industry like the NFL. Take away the people who are the best in the world at football and numerous jobs will be lost. Check out the stands and sales for the Yankees vs their single A club.
Of course because elite level talent will replace that. People watch NFL football because of who’s playing. Some of the most athletic people in the entire world. An elite few who help create a multi billion dollar industry.
Ruin lives was probably not the right term but countless people depend on professional sports teams for their income. Whether the jobs are perfect or high paying or not doesn’t change the fact that tons of people make money because of them.
Like many other jobs it would be great if they paid more but it’s that capitalism thing we keep talking about. TV revenue, concessions workers, ushers, announcers, increased revenue for beer and restaurants on game days, hotels, cabs, etc times a million. Make no mistake about it if the NFL shut down tomorrow it would be a huge financial impact for way more people than just the owners and players.
But hey maybe I’m just a weird guy as well who wouldn’t mind if the President worried less about what someone did during the anthem and more about the multiple areas who have just been hit by hurricanes or working on a thousand times more important problems than is this one guy not upright for a minute at a ball game.
Actually, to the exact opposite. To interfere (as we are the supply in the supply/demand function) IS capitalism.
Wouldn’t mind if a little more went to the staff instead of the players 
I did not mean interfere as in not watch football I meant doing something like saying football players can only make X and teachers will make Y. From a free market sense is what I meant
I’m not comparing the two…
People pay to be entertained. As long as people have disposable income this will be true and that was the point. Talent doesn’t hurt, but it’s not the reason (or the #1 reason) people spend their money on entertainment.
Totally disagree. People watch the NFL because they love football or just want a few hours of entertainment. Not because the players are “elite”. That’s just icing on the cake.
No one said this…
Finally some tax reform talk:
WASHINGTON—A day after announcing their ambitious tax plan, Republicans debated scaling back one of their largest and most controversial proposals to pay for lower tax rates: repeal of the individual deduction for state and local taxes.
Faced with the potential for defections by House Republicans from high-tax states such as New York and New Jersey, Republicans are exploring ways to satisfy those lawmakers without backing off the lower tax rates they promised.
“The members with concerns from high-tax states have to be accommodated. This has to be dealt with,” said Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee whose district outside Chicago ranks 37th out of 435 in use of the deduction. “So, you can imagine a soft landing on this that creative people are putting much time and energy into.”
The fight over the state and local deduction, with more than $1 trillion at stake over a decade, is an early signal of the bruising battle ahead for Republicans trying to pass a tax bill that hasn’t garnered Democratic support and that faces narrow GOP margins in the House and Senate. It is the most obvious case of a bloc of pivotal lawmakers holding a specific concern, but it won’t be the only one.
“The notion that you fix this and then it’s smooth sailing?” Mr. Roskam said. “How naive.”
If Republicans from high-tax states all oppose repeal and stick together, they have the clout to force a change. The top nine states for the deduction, measured as a percentage of income, are represented by 33 House Republicans. With one vacancy in the House, the party can lose no more than 22 GOP votes on legislation if all Democrats remain opposed.
The dispute over the state and local tax break echoes back to 1986, the last time Congress revamped the tax system. Then, too, House Republicans from New York fought against their own party’s plan to repeal the tax break. Aided by Democrats, who controlled the House, they prevailed, and taxpayers can now deduct their property taxes, along with either their income or sales taxes.
More than 90% of filers with incomes over $200,000 claim the deduction, according to the Tax Policy Center. Overall, 38% of the deduction’s value goes to California, New York and New Jersey, which have 21% of U.S. households, the center said.
Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he is listening to lawmakers from high-tax states and is open to further discussions.
“It’s crucial that we deliver tax relief for every American regardless of where they live, including in those states that have high state and local taxes,” said Mr. Brady, whose suburban Houston district ranks 328th out of 435 in use of the deduction, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “We will have a choice between keeping that deduction for a few, or lowering tax rates for every American.”
RELATED
Mnuchin: Plan Would More Than Offset Its Cost
Treasury Removes Paper at Odds With Mnuchin’s Take on Winners
What Awaits Wall Street in Trump Tax Plan
What We Know About the Tax Revamp
5 Takeaways From the GOP Tax Framework
New York Republicans said Thursday that they were concerned that without that deduction, many of their voters might end up paying more in taxes under the GOP plans, and they were waiting for details about tax brackets and other breaks to determine how they would fare.
“I’m also worried that it would exacerbate New York’s status as a donor state to Washington, where we send many more dollars to Washington than we receive back,” said Rep. John Faso (R., N.Y.), whose district is largely in the Hudson River Valley.
Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) said that taking away the state and local tax deduction would squarely hit his middle-class constituents on Long Island, whose property taxes can average $15,000 a year and who wouldn’t tend to benefit from other tax breaks contained in the House GOP plan.
“It doesn’t add up,” Mr. King said. “Even under the best interpretation, maybe a majority of my constituents would break even. So, if the rest of the country is getting a tax cut, the most I can tell my constituents is: It could have been worse for us.”
Republicans don’t intend to produce a detailed plan for weeks. A high-level framework released Wednesday was the product of six top negotiators from the House, Senate and Trump administration, and top policy makers said the state and local tax provision was one of the main deductions they were targeting for elimination.
Possible options under discussion include allowing the break for property taxes but not income taxes, or else converting the deduction into a smaller credit. The plan could also adopt a more general cap on itemized deductions.
Repealing the break would free over the next decade more than $1 trillion that the party plans to use to lower tax rates. Politically, it would be good for most Republicans, shifting more of the federal tax burden from states they represent onto states they don’t and to Washington, D.C.
Repealing the state and local deduction while increasing the standard deduction would also limit the value of other deductions. Fewer people would get over the new, higher threshold to itemize deductions of $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples, meaning that fewer people would have an incentive to take deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
Many higher-income households already have their state and local tax breaks curtailed under the alternative minimum tax. But about three-quarters of taxpayers who owe AMT and deduct state and local taxes would see a net increase if both provisions were repealed, as is the case under the GOP plan, according to economist Frank Sammartino of the Tax Policy Center.
Republicans argue that the deduction lets states raise taxes with fewer consequences, because the federal deduction subsidizes part of the cost. If New York wants higher taxes, they say, New Yorkers should pay.
Democrats and blue-state Republicans say the change would punish their states.
“Republicans used to say that the best decisions are made locally, and now they want to tax local decisions,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.).
The deduction’s fate in the Senate isn’t clear, either, even though Republicans there don’t represent any of the top nine states for the deduction.
“Chairman [Orrin] Hatch recognizes that every major provision within the tax code has an important constituency and consequence,” said Julia Lawless, a spokeswoman for Mr. Hatch, who heads the Senate Finance Committee. “He will work with members to examine these provisions and make appropriate decisions.”
The fight over the state and local deduction highlights the backlash every decision in the tax debate will bring—a reality glossed over when Republicans described their tax plan Wednesday, said Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.). He said he supports repealing the state and local deduction but was “almost aghast” at the lack of clarity about tax breaks that would have to go away.
“They’re throwing sugar out on the table,” he said. “You haven’t even begun to deal with the spinach part. Not even a little leaf of spinach was thrown out on the table.”
—Kristina Peterson and Laura Saunders contributed to this article.
This is what keeps worrying me. I like the majority of the tax plan’s major points, but it seems to be like everything out of the admin so far. Ungodly vague.
Also wouldn’t mind a decrease in the estate tax instead of elimination.
