Thursday Morning Cupcheck - Michael Vick Needs His Money Back

by Todd Maternowski

Good morning, hockey fans! Last week we dived headfirst into the dark and foreboding world of youth sports, or rather youth and sports, specifically making the argument, once again, that sports teams need to get younger and cheaper rather than older and more costly if they want to succeed. This week, I was planning on unveiling my annual Training Camp Secrets Revealed: What the NHL Commissioner Doesn't Want You To Know report, but after the Stars' contractual impasse with forward Jussi Jokinen lit up the message boards over at Andrew's Stars Page, I had to throw in my two pesos.

The essence of the impasse is, of course, money. Jussi Jokinen feels that he was severely underpaid last year (at around $700k), and is looking for a long-term contract somewhere in the range of $3-4 million a year. The Stars, while they agree Jussi needs to get paid in th' escalade, are looking for a shorter term contract for less money. Strangely, Jussi avoided arbitration and looks like he might hold out for parts of training camp if a deal is not done soon.

Obviously, there aren't a huge number of 25 year olds scoring 50 points a season on the third line in this league, so Jussi's side may have some weight. Not to mention the directly-measurable number of games the little Finn has won for the Stars in the shootout --the kid is clearly worth $3 million a season to the organization, even if he didn't have the same level of success last year as he did as a rookie. The bottom line? He's worth it, he's proven he can win under extreme pressure, he's fun to watch with the puck, and has nowhere to go but up in terms of production.

But that's not why I'm bringing it up: the Stars message boards are full of vitriol and spit, angry at the kid for trying to get paid as much as he thinks he's worth, for a job in which he willingly sacrifices his health and family life 9 months out of the year. Suppose I came up to you and asked you to work in Finland, where Lapps riding walruses would slap you upside the head with frozen fish three hours a day --you would get to come back to Texas for two months in the summer-- and then tried to short-change your check? Wouldn't you be a little pissed? Wouldn't you try to get as much ca$$h money as possible before early retirement? Why the heck are you getting fish-slapped in Finland? The life of the professional athlete is no different.

On ESPN (a.k.a. "The NFL's Bitch") and other places, the idea that athletes are overpaid crybabies has been taken to a new level: apparently the Atlanta Falcons are now trying to take back $22 million they paid to Michael Vick. How wonderful! First the organization drafts him #1, hoping to put butts in seats in the vast, empty cavern they call the Georgiadome. Vick does just that for six years. Remember all those Falcons jerseys you saw before Vick was drafted? You know, the top-selling Steve Bartkowski version? Or that cover of Madden with Terence Mathis on it? Don't tell me you haven't saved your commemorative Chris Chandler cover of Sports Illustrated!

Point is, the NFL and the Falcons took Vick and used his image and his flash to sell everything under the sun from bobbleheads to multibillion dollar television contracts. There are few that would argue that Vick wasn't overrated as a quarterback: that didn't seem to matter to the NFL, which regularly forced him into undeserved Pro Bowl spots, endless pre-game promos and Wheatie's boxes. How much did Vick make for the NFL and Atlanta Falcons? It's impossible to tell.

So when Vick was accused by known drug users and animal abusers as having a role in the dogfighting ring --mind you, this happened way before anyone pleaded guilty, any evidence was gathered and any plea bargain formulated-- the NFL and Atlanta Falcons bailed out on Vick. When Atlanta Falcon Jonathan Babineaux was accused of killing his girlfriend's puppy, Falcon owner Arthur Blank stood by his guy "under all the facts were in". When Atlanta Falcon Patrick Kearney had a poor black woman raped in his mansion (he claims he was asleep at the time of the incident), Blank stood by his guy. But when some guy gets arrested in a parking lot for possession, then rats out his millionaire cousin: Blank jumped ship. And now he wants his money back!

If any of my former employers are reading this: you're not getting your money back. I've already spent it, sorry. And besides, you can go to hell for even thinking of asking.

Note to current and future Falcons players: cash your checks as soon as you get them, in Swiss Bank accounts that the NFL cannot legally access. Unless, of course, you're somehow involved in rape or killing a do--well, some dog killing is ok, apparently.

A few days ago the excellent sports blog Starting Five pointed this out: ESPN columnist and NFL lackey Gene Wojchiechowski wrote that Vick's paychecks werent his: that he funded his dogfighting kennel with Falcons' money, or NFL's money, or the advertisers' money. Which in a way is true --if you put tracers on your dollar bills, you can go far enough to find that we're all getting paid by the U.S. Mint ( but since the Treasury is filled with our tax dollars, ultimately we're just paying ourselves). The point of the article was that athletes, overpaid whiners that they are, are less than employees of the owners that they serve.

Nice one, Gene. But why stop there? Just because athletes put their intact vertebrae on the line for our entertainment doesn't mean they're entitled to the money someone contractually agreed to give them. Frankly, we should apply that corporate-stooge line of thinking to other fields of entertainment: for example, the highest-paid non-golf, non-soccer athlete last year was A-Rod: but he was paid less than fellow entertainers Judge Judy and Anthony Robbins, not to mention virtually every A-List star out there. Tom Cruise's recent movies all sucked, and his box office invincibility took a possibly-permanent hit after his Oprah and pop-psychology episodes: should the studios sue him to get his extravagant $25 million paycheck back? Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez both got paid mega-millions for Gigli, one of the worst box-office performers in history: should they be reimbursing Sony for directly causing the company to lose $47 million?

My take: athletes, whether overpaid or not, should fleece the owners for everything they can. Especially the owners that got free, taxpayer-supported stadiums. Everyone complains that A-Rod makes $29 million a season, yet no one complains that Steinbrenner rakes in billions more, yet has not won a World Series in six years. When people rag on T.O. for wanting more money from the Eagles after risking his career and playing injured in the Superbowl, they forget to mention just how little risk Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie really takes: with guaranteed revenue-sharing, a legal monopoly, multibillion dollar TV contracts negotiated by the NFL on behalf of the Eagles, owning a sports team is about as financially risky as walking outside to get your morning paper. But who is the one getting raked over the coals? Who else --the guy having his kneecap turned to powder by 300-pound steroid-pumping linebackers. Meanwhile, Lurie just got a papercut from the enormous number of $100 million checks he cashed at the bank today.

That's it for this week's ill-informed rant: tune in next week when I break my exclusive interview with Gary Bettman, and find out how he plans to rig the 2007-08 NHL standings!

• Staff
• Verified User
• Anonymous