The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

$179 Million guaranteed.

That sets the bar for Herbert and Burrow. Not really for Lamar Jackson though, as the Ravens called his bluff and no other team came in with offers. It will increase his chances of holding out, however as he thinks he is worth this kind of money but no one else does.

Is he going to want $200 million guaranteed now?  How about $250 million?

This is absurd.  Mahomes is the best in the league.  Nobody should be making more than he does.

The scary part is we have no choice.  Miami has one ONE game in the last two years without Tua.  What other options do the Dolphins have?

Edit:  Don't agree with this merging.  I think the two players should be separate.  One thread is about the Eagles.  The other is about the Dolphins

Just my two cents.

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, as any other team's cost for Lamar Jackson is [contract value]+two first-round picks.

The concern over how much Tua will make is overblown.  At no point are the Chiefs worried about the size of Mahomes' contract, because an elite QB is worth the cap space (whatever that may be).  Same went for Brady, Brees, Peyton, etc.  It would still be the case for Rodgers in GB today (even with his reduced production last year) if not for his attitude issues, and even with that caveat, NYJ will happily pay his contract.

If Tua can stay healthy and play at the level he did last year, Miami should happily give him a contract in 2024 making him the highest paid player in the league.  And in 2025, Trevor Lawrence will likely surpass Tua as the highest-paid player.  This is just the way the system works.

Think of it this way: teams without good QBs need more money for the rest of their team in order to simply be competitive.

Agreed, plus I think it was reported that teams felt any offer made the Ravens would match unless it was insane. Still, if you have no QB and thought Lamar was worth $50 Million a year, you make that offer and see if Baltimore matches. No harm in trying.

But the real issue will be the Burrow and Herbert extensions. Burrow deserves more money than Herbert but sometimes these things are just a matter of who signs last gets the most.

LMAO at grown men playing a child's game and getting paid these ridiculous sums of money.

Just wait until you hear how much more the owners make for hiring grown men to play a child's game!

They earn it more than these goofballs on Tik Tok and Only Fans. If you entertain people will pay.

Owners who measure success by profits rather than championships should be tarred and feathered.

LOL ... I second that and that goes for every sport although the Tampa Bay Rays seem to break that mold where they can do both. I guess they haven't won it all but they are always in the equation. Teams like the Marlins refuse to spend money and keep finishing at the bottom of the league.

I'm more talking about the amount they make. In my opinion it's gotten out of control. 1 guy making more in 5 years than all the members in this thread will make in their lifetime combined. The league should implement something like a 2 year contract limit with a maximum salary per year.

Again, unless you're talking about the government stepping in and implementing price controls on tickets and TV contracts*, all that this "players make too much money" discussion means is that you think Stephen Ross, Robert Kraft, and Jerry Jones aren't making enough money now, and you wish they would get a larger percentage of it.

The guys out there blowing up their knees and/or suffering permanent brain damage "playing a child's game" are at least putting themselves at significant personal risk.  There is absolutely zero risk in owning an NFL team; you literally CANNOT LOSE MONEY in the process (and obviously they aren't getting injured watching from the skybox).

*Even if such price controls were implemented, that just shifts the profit one level up: NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC aren't selling cheaper advertising, so now they are getting richer if the TV contracts are regulated.  And if you implement price controls on advertising, now you are just keeping more money in the pockets of Budweiser, Ford, etc., who were obviously already getting their money's worth from advertising under the status quo.  There is no way to square this circle.

So who should get the money that the league generates? Should everything go to the owners? Should the league take a lesser deal from the networks, who would then effectively be the ones getting the money?

The problem is that sponsors are willing to pay obscene amounts of money into the system, because we as fans are willing to watch ridiculous amounts of commercials and pay premiums for access to feeds.

Basically, it all comes down to fans. If we keep, directly or indirectly, pumping billions and billions of dollars into system, why shouldn't the players get a good amount of that? And if not the players, then who?

Of course, there is a way to funnel some of all that money back to the fans... it's called taxes. When Reagan came into office, the highest incomes were taxed at 70%. Under Reagan, that was cut to 50%. Today, the highest income tax bracket is 37%. This isn't to get political, it's simply a factual statement with no opinion attached.

I agree income disparity in this country has gotten out of hand.  The best way to fix this is restore the graduated tax rates (adjusted for inflation) we had in 1950 and restore the wealth  transfer tax Bush got rid of in 2001 and use the money to increase social programs.

Unless I'm wrong no one really knows how much NFL owners profit every year because they are private businesses, with the exception of the Packers.  In the NFL there aren't many teams that are putting profit over wins, maybe the Lions.  I think they all pretty much come close to using their allotted cap, or else the players/players union complains.  But having the cap is how they minimize their expenses to make sure they all turn a profit.

Now MLB is a different story, there are many teams that are in it for the profits and not championships.

What revenue sources are there that are unknown? Tickets and merchandise are known. TV deals are known. Licensing deals (e.g. Madden) are known. The way the league is set up, most revenue sources go into a shared pot (all of the above except tickets, which are shared between the home team and the visitors 60/40). After subtracting some expenses, that money is then distributed evenly among the 32 teams and 48.8% is allocated for the players.

The way the salary cap in the NFL works, players will get their money. If a team spends too little over a period of time (89% over 4 years), the deficit will have to be paid directly to the NFLPA for distribution among players (no idea how). If the teams in total spend too little (95% over four years), the deficit will, again, have to be paid to the NFLPA.

So there's no way players don't get at least 95% of 48.8% of a very well-defined pie, which includes all major sources of revenue with one notable exception - local corporate sponsorships, mainly stadium naming rights. While we don't know the value of every single deal around the league, we do know that the biggest one is the $30 million a year SoFi is paying for the Rams/Chargers stadium. Smaller markets are estimated to get around $10 million a year from stadium naming rights.

Sure, ticket sales aren't included either, but they are 1.25% of total revenue, so not a huge deal.