3 ms·

Given the average tenure of an NFL player is relatively short, wouldn't it make more sense to go for what would offer the highest reward with lowest CTE risk?

• finnh 3y ago
  The "Washington" in "Washington Commanders" is Washington, DC. Not Washington State (which has no income tax).
• mjr00 3y ago
  That's what I mean, it depends on what the "highest reward" means for each person. $100m is $100m, but what's Tom Brady remembered for, and what's Albert Haynesworth remembered for? One is near-unanimously considered the greatest of all time, and the other is known for being one of the worst free agent acquisitions of all time. They both have more money than they know what to do with, but one probably feels a bit better about his career. This isn't a perfect analogy with Amazon since they also pay near top of market, but in terms of what you can potentially accomplish, it's similar. Some people are willing to put up with demanding work and long hours in order to be able to say things like "I built S3" or "I built RDS", which gives you instant credibility. To some people that doesn't matter and they're perfectly fine building an internal enterprise app that nobody will ever see if they have less stressful hours. And that's fine too! There's room on the planet for both types of companies, thankfully.
• ambicapter 3y ago
  That average is dragged down by certain positions and also the great number of practice squad players that get pulled up for a game or two. I think to the "average" "good" nfl player, 20 vs 30 million lifetime doesn't make as much difference as being a champion. Probably a great many players would trade some lifetime earnings for a ring. I imagine most nfl players also don't manage their own money, so they are even more inured to the idea of making a couple million more over 3 or 4 years.