Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Finance, Investing & Economy' started by msilverstein47, Feb 27, 2013.
It's common knowledge that celebrity charity foundations are part benefactor, part PR machine. I got no problem with that. Looks from the link like some of these guys (like many other celebrities or wealthy people who are not professional athletes) could raise more money for their stated cause by working with existing nonprofits rather than starting their own foundations. But they wouldn't get to do the celeb golf tournaments and whatnot that way, so it's a wash.
The link doesn't quite crucify people for not completely doing what they don't have to do at all, but it comes close. And the link didn't point out that any amount of money is better than nothing.
Except when it's criminal as in ARoid's case of raising nearly $500K and disbursing a tiny fraction of that. I'm sure there are disclosure rules and reasonable costs of running a charity. That dude sucks on so many levels.
Well, yeah... lawbreaking is a whole 'nother matter. The link didn't really make clear that it was pointing out illegal activity.
I can't get excited about PEDs in sport since some of the big American sports --baseball in particular-- looked the other way for so long and now want to appear righteously indignant. Employees have always tried to maximize their earning potential, and modern technology's just given them another way.
Most of the big money pro athletes are so bad with money. I won't say that it's come easy, but I'll say that they get too much too soon. Unlike most of society where you learn to live with a little and as you go through your career you start to earn more.
There may very well be one- this is a serious request.
Can't address basketball or hockey, but in the NFL, if you're fortunate enough to still be in the league after three or four years, you might --might-- get a big contract, but it's by no means guaranteed. And please don't turn 30 looking for compensation- that ain't gonna happen. So you get it when you can. Only the first-rounders get signing bonuses worth discussion at the start of their careers- the rest have to do what they can thru the rookie contract and hope for the best.
The NFL career average is about five years. I'd be surprised if the average for basketball or hockey or baseball was more than ten.
In the NFL the stat is around 78% are broke two years out of the league. And NBA is 60%, but I'd gather that the lower rate for the NBA has much to do with the longer careers. People tend to gain more maturity in their 30s.
ESPN had a 30 for 30 episode about this very issue.
These guys spend their whole, young lives learning how to play a sport and not much else. All of sudden they're in charge of millions and they have no idea. They trust managers and financial advisers who lead them astray, Michael Vick being a prime example.
But by that time, the career's done, or close to being done. There are no more serious contracts available. So what's the answer? Defer the payments until they're 30? Won't work for legal reasons.
They have the opportunity to learn as much as anyone else. If they don't, it's on them. But they deserve the pay, and they deserve it when they're earning it. That they're still young enough to have a bit of fun with it doesn't mean they have to throw it all away.
You pay them like they do now, but it's on them to learn to manage it. For example, Robert Griffin III got a signing bonus of $13Million. After taxes, that's $7.5 million. If he takes half that and saves it in something returning 6%, he can collect AT LEAST $108,000/year until he dies.
No one's arguing that. These guys are just clueless when it ocmes to money.
I've always said that if someone gave me $10M clear after taxes, I can't see spending anything significant on items that depreciate. If I've got $10 million, women will find out --and find me-- whether I have a great car or not. I would spend upward of $50K on a nice old double bass, tho, because they go up in value and are insurable for the appreciation. Aside from travel, my needs are few.
I get that. But frankly, I'm not sure most people wouldn't be as clueless. IOW, I don't think it's confined to athletes. Look at the people who win the lottery and are broke within a few years. My guess is the problem is keeping friends and relatives at bay, or keeping yourself from just wanting to do costly stuff for them even if they don't ask. You can't be a pro athlete and eat/drink/smoke/snort up that kind of dough all by yourself- you need help to do that.
not exactly a sports figure or even a rock star...but I get the feeling that this is a tax ploy nevertheless: