if anyone is old enough to remember that……

Yap away, boys. Carl Eller knows where you live.
——————————————————

You’re right hobey. He’s probably on his way to drunk drive right thru their living rooms.

First off, when someone sacrifices something, they do it willingly and WITHOUT compensation. That is what makes it a sacrifice. No, these retired players exchanged their health for a paycheck, no different than a coal miner or a cop who gets hurt on the job, or a firefighter.

The current NFL became a huge money maker and wildly popular for two reasons…..fantasy sports and betting. Without those two things, football doesn’t make NEAR $9B a year.

So, it wasn’t the play or “sacrifice” of the retired players that made the game what it is today. The game is what it is today because current players are bigger, stronger and take much better care of themselves. The players today get paid better because of the TV contracts and merchandising, which all stems from gambling and fantasy sports leagues.

Sorry, but the truth is what the truth is….

I think that if individual teams/owners want to help bail some of their former players out, good for them. But for every sad story that engenders sympathy like Mackey, there are the Refrigerator Perrys of the world who received tons of help and refused to lose weight, stop drinking and take his meds. Hard to feel sorry for an adult who makes those choices. Or feel he is “owed” more.

Hope the formula includes provision for these guys, otherwise, get in the queue Carl……..

He looks like he has a Tommy gun in a guitar case in that picture.

That’s what you are suggesting. The moral argument, if it is to hold, should apply to all similar situations, and not just selected ones. By your argument, you should be chipping in to improve the livelihoods of all media people, and more specifically all bloggers, who came before you. After all, they created the opportunity for you to earn your living.

Are you prepared to do so? And if so, how much? At none point does your moral obligation end? Is it when everyone in the past has an equal income, living standard, or whatever measure you want to use, as you? Or is it acceptable for only some of the people in the past to receive support? Or is it okay for them to receive only a certain level of support? At want point is your moral obligation then met?

You are making an emotional argument, not a moral one. A moral argument should be reasoned and objective. Your argument is emotional and subjective. Yes, it would be nice for current players to put something into the kitty for past players, but they have no so-called moral obligation to do so. Just like I have no moral obligation to alter my current pay arrangement just so that someone now retired from my company can receive more (whether they actually need it or not, as need and satisfaction of need is a subjective argument in the first place) or whether they failed to live up to their own obligation to look after themselves (do they not have a “moral obligation” to do so?)

By this same moral obligation, current owners should set aside revenues for past owners or does moral obligation stop at an absolute level of income and not a relative one? Would current owners only gave to help past owners who are now broke?

Seriously Foolio, I sometimes wonder just what you are thinking.

The players didn’t make the league great. They were employees of an organization that became great.