12/18/24
February 25, 2009
NFL Commissioner to take a 20% pay cut: reducing his $11,000,000 salary and bonuses that he was to receive.
dviking,
While i agree with you that we shouldn't pity Goodell, in my mind we should respect him. Like it was pointed out on ESPN radio, Goodell is taking a pay cut at the same time Selig, who has handled the last year or two terribly, is getting a raise. Goodell may not be perfect, but in light of the economic times i appreciate him leading by example.
How many of us, regardless of salary, would honestly give up 20% of our income.
posted by brainofdtrain at 02:47 PM on February 25, 2009
I have no idea what it is like to turn back 2-3 million bucks. Certainly one can live well on 8 mil but still it is a rare thing to see a person who doesn't have to take a pay cut do it just the same. Perhaps this can be a good example to other industry leaders. Adapt or perish.
As for Selig, his legacy is getting worse and worse. He seems to insist on steering the ship toward the rocks. And he tells everyone that he can't see the rocks even after crashing upon them.
posted by THX-1138 at 03:06 PM on February 25, 2009
Poor guy, will have to make do with only $8,800,000.
You know, it's no wonder that most executives don't decide to do this very often.
posted by dfleming at 04:22 PM on February 25, 2009
The way I see it is this: Sure, he gave up 20% when no one was forcing him to, unlike the CEO's of various banks/auto manufacturers/etc. so I guess he gets some credit for that.
However, I think the timing of doing this prior to a collective bargaining session in which the owners will be trying to argue that the players are getting too big a slice of the revenue pie makes it a bit disingenuous.
Given that he still makes an incredible amount of money, I really don't give him that much credit. Now, if he said he was going to only take 20%, that would be news worthy to me. No, wait, that still leaves him making $2.2mil, maybe if he only took the league minimum...
posted by dviking at 04:44 PM on February 25, 2009
How many of us, regardless of salary, would honestly give up 20% of our income.
I agree it's a good move by him. He doesn't have to do it, and the fact he's choosing to do this makes me respect him more than many high-paid executives, CEOs, etc.
Still, it's easier to take a 20% cut when you're making $11 million than it is to take a 20% cut when you're making $65,000. I get a yearly increase that barely covers any cost of living increase, and my bargaining unit is being asked to take a salary freeze (no increase) for next year (I work in a school, so the new pay year begins July 1). I've got a pretty good idea Goodell will still be able to make his monthly expense payments comfortably with his adjusted salary. Like I said, good for him, but it's nice for him he has a huge salary that allows him to do it.
posted by dyams at 05:41 PM on February 25, 2009
However, I think the timing of doing this prior to a collective bargaining session in which the owners will be trying to argue that the players are getting too big a slice of the revenue pie makes it a bit disingenuous.
That'd be true if you just blatantly ignored the fact that they've laid off a ton of their staff and the entire country is in a recession right now. It's disingenuous to think that the economy had nothing to do with this decision and that it was just a bargaining chip.
posted by dfleming at 06:03 PM on February 25, 2009
Damn, he might have to start buying his underwear at Wal-Mart like the rest of us working people.
As Rainman[Dustin Hoffman] said K-Mart sucks
posted by m8nsman at 06:55 PM on February 25, 2009
dfleming, I hear you, but truly, how genuine is it for a guy that still pockets just short of $9mil to act like he's taking the same hit as all the people he just canned.
The CEO of the company I work for refused his entire 2008 salary. Had Goodell done that I'd be impressed, to refuse only 20% isn't the same as being laid off.
As the article states, even the layoffs were likely aimed at the collective bargaining coming up.
posted by dviking at 11:24 PM on February 25, 2009
dviking,
the problem with your argument is that it is relative to other income levels. While to you Goodell is giving up nothing, someone starving in a third world country probably could similarly dismiss you or i if we gave up the same amount.
posted by brainofdtrain at 03:05 AM on February 26, 2009
granted, but only if I did so just prior to telling them that they also had give back some of their money.
Goodell (the ownership group) is about to enter a collective bargaining session in which it looks like they're going to ask the players to take less money. How better to set that up than to voluntarily take less yourself?
Keep in mind, that it's really the point of the article's author, I just happen to agree with it.
posted by dviking at 09:40 AM on February 26, 2009
dviking, Unless you or the author of the article can see into Goodell's soul for his motives, or know him really well, then the collective bargaining argument is conjecture. I mean, unless Goodell has said as much to either the author or to someone the author has spoken with, this is just an assumption.
Furthermore, i wonder what bitterness, or need for a controversial story, is driving the author. Of course that would just be unfair to the author and conjecture too. That is why it is good that we do more than assume what people's motives are.
posted by brainofdtrain at 10:05 AM on February 26, 2009
Damn that Goodell. Damn him all to heck.
He should take the full salary and pay all the people he laid off with it. Of course that wouldn't solve any financial difficulties within the NFL but it would be awfully nice of him.
Maybe those folks that were laid off can go to work for Selig. He's got some money. Perhaps he could use someone to wrinkle up his ill-fitting suits for him before he appears on camera or before Congress.
posted by THX-1138 at 02:11 PM on February 26, 2009
dviking, Unless you or the author of the article can see into Goodell's soul for his motives, or know him really well, then the collective bargaining argument is conjecture. I mean, unless Goodell has said as much to either the author or to someone the author has spoken with, this is just an assumption
Really? You mean I have to see into someone's soul now before I can make an assuption? Kind of makes the discussions on this site a bit more difficult.
As to bitterness. aren't you assuming quite a bit there? I mean, did you look into his soul and really determine his motives? Personally, I think he used good business logic. CEO types often signal upcoming layoffs/salary cuts by taking cuts themselves.
posted by dviking at 06:02 PM on February 26, 2009
sorry for the spelling error...assumption, not assuption.
posted by dviking at 08:27 PM on February 26, 2009
This sounds like the old tale about the horse and rabbit stew. Two men agree to make horse and rabbit stew, and to share equally in providing the ingredients. In this case, Roger Goodell is providing the rabbit, while the NFL employees who are being laid off provide the horse. It's just an empty gesture on Goodell's part.
posted by Howard_T at 01:45 PM on February 28, 2009
I'm sure the upcoming collective bargaining sessions play into this.
Poor guy, will have to make do with only $8,800,000.