>I mean, no. But even if so, high pay doesn't stop athletes from joining a union. I think athletes are more in unions because when the NFLPA was formed most of

>I mean, no. But even if so, high pay doesn't stop athletes from joining a union. I think athletes are more in unions because when the NFLPA was formed most of them had to go get real jobs to support themselves combined with the fact that sports like American Football have a history of causing life-changing injuries including pretty severe TBIs. The wiki entry for the NFLPA even points this out >The new association's initial agenda also included a league-wide minimum salary, plus a per diem when teams were on the road, a requirement that uniforms and equipment be paid for and maintained at the clubs' expense, and continued payment of salaries when players were injured Even then they didn't get that great of a deal >Rather than face another lawsuit, the owners agreed to a league minimum salary of $5,000, $50 for each exhibition game played, and medical and hospital coverage Inflation adjusted from 1956 that's a minimum salary of $47,421.14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Pl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Pl ayers_Association So there was a very real reason for that specific union to form and once a union forms, it's pretty unlikely to go away. Trying to compare that to office workers needing a union doesn't really translate. I'm not saying office workers need, or don't need, a union. I'm simply saying I don't think this is a fair comparison. I've never been part of a union and can't really speak to the benefits and downsides of them.