Adrian Peterson expresses frustration on labor issues

[Apathy]

Yahoo! Sports

No matter what NFL players may be doing in the offseason, the ongoing labor negotiations are never far from their minds. Even stars like Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson have strong feelings on the issues being debated by NFL players and team owners, who are fighting over how to divide the league's estimated $9.3 billion in revenue.

Speaking just minutes after the owners locked out the players, Peterson compared the players' place in the game to "modern-day slavery," a statement that, while ill-advised, was made in the context of how the players feel they're being treated in these talks. (Note: Based on the context in which the comments were made, I do not believe that Peterson was actually equating his current position in the NFL with any kind of slavery. I will update this piece if he clarifies his statement.) What follows is our full interview.

See the controversial quote in its entirety here.

SC: We're talking about 15 minutes after the NFLPA sent in the paperwork to decertify, so the lockout's on everybody's minds. I've talked to a lot of players about this recently, and I always ask the same question — what is the message you want to get out to the people who love the game and are tired of hearing all the labor talk?

AP: We're business-minded, also. It's not just fun and games. A lot of football players, whether it's Sunday or Monday night — we're out there on the field, competing, hitting each other. But people don't see everything else behind it. It's a job for us, too — every day of the week. We're in different states, sometimes thousands of miles away from our families and kids, and a lot of people don't look at it like that. All some people see is, 'Oh, we're not going to be around football.' But how the players look at it … the players are getting robbed. They are. The owners are making so much money off of us to begin with. I don't know that I want to quote myself on that…

SC: It's nothing that I haven't heard from other players, believe me.

AP: It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football.' There are so many different perspectives from different players, and obviously we're not all on the same page — I don't know. I don't really see this going to where we'll be without football for a long time; there's too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we'll get something done.

But this crazy idea about an 18-game season … I'm sure they want more entertainment and more revenue, but we're not going to see a pinch of that (the increased revenue), and it's just the business we're in.

SC: It seems to most of the players that if the owners had nothing to hide financially, and if the current business model was as unsustainable as they claim, they'd have no trouble opening the books and showing audited profit and loss per team. Is that your impression?

AP: Exactly! It's like … 'Well, show us.' We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want. If they have nothing to hide, just give us the information. Why not? Obviously, there's a lot to hide -- these guys are professionals, and they're maximizing what they do. But they know that if all this information comes out, the information the players want, it'll be right out there for everyone to see. It's a ripoff — not just for the players, but for the people who work at the concession stands and at the stadiums. The people working at the facilities, you know?

SC: Do you feel that you're represented well by DeMaurice Smith and George Atallah and what now used to be the Players' Union?

AP: Yeah, I think so — they're doing a good job. And with the veteran guys on board, and the player reps, they give us a lot of confidence.

SC: Obviously, last season was a disappointment for the Vikings — your team went 6-10 while the Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears played for the NFC championship, and the Packers won the Super Bowl. How do the Vikings get back to the top of the NFC North? And how should you get that new quarterback now that Brett Favre(notes) is gone?

AP: We need to make some adjustments. Obviously … I mean, Favre hasn't retired yet! (laughs) You never know! The quarterback situation is up in the air, and some adjustments need to be made there. We need to go out and do a good job of recruiting in free agency (whenever there is free agency) — bring some new guys in, patch up some areas, and I feel that with Coach [Leslie] Frazier and the changes he's made, they're all for the better, and they'll help our team in the ways we're hoping for. It's all about having 53 guys that come together, and can get it done with the same goals, and will make sacrificed to accomplish those goals.

I see so many teams … the Patriots are a perfect example. Tom Brady's(notes) the guy everyone knows about, but it's about all the other players — the role-players who, one way or another, will get it done somehow. It's not all about talent, and we were a perfect example of that. Brett Favre at quarterback, me at running back, the offensive line, Sidney Rice(notes) … Percy Harvin(notes) is one of the best athletes I've ever seen. Our defense is always ranked in the top five … that shows you that talent doesn't always get it done. So, the changes Coach Frazier has made, new offensive and defensive coordinators, I feel like the mindset those guys bring to the table will be the key we need to get back to that level.

Peterson is one of the best players in the game, and he's staying busy as the labor issues get hashed out — he recently teamed with Power Balance performance wear and Converge to shoot a "Double Take" video in which he interviewed himself and dealt with delicate subjects like McDonald's restrooms, fantasy football, and power handshakes. Here's the video link, and you can watch an exclusive blooper reel below:

Shutdown Corner: I wanted to ask you about the "Double Take" concept, and how you became involved with that.

Adrian Peterson: I was working with this guy named Marty Burns, and we were working on the whole concept behind it, and the interview process — me basically interviewing myself. The concept was to integrate with Double Take, and I thought it would be fun. It would give fans an opportunity to see a different side of me. You know, with football-related commercials and interviews, things like that, this was more personal — what I think about different topics. It was just about different inspirations that might have occurred, different topics, shedding a different light.

SC: Did you contribute to the material?

AP: It was written before, but as we went through the process, I had my input. These were all natural reactions in the commercials. The answers weren't scripted at all — they were all natural. The questions were obviously scripted, but we tweaked them as we went through.


---

$40.5 Million over 6 Years? It's modern-day slavery, you know?

[Latrinsorm]

Given that he specifically states "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too.", it would seem he's not talking about the amount of money. The question then becomes: were there other characteristics of slavery beyond not receiving pay that are analogous to the current situation? For instance:

- Are these workers disposable?
- Are these workers put at a serious physical risk that is not shared by the owners?
- Is there an elaborate system of people that benefit from the workers without contributing to the actual work?
- Do these workers have equal control over the means of production, which in this case would refer to stadiums, TV deals, etc.?
- Do these workers have an alternative business they can choose to be employed in, or do they labor for a de facto monopoly?

[Ardwen]

In literally every successful business in the world the owners can and do make considerably more then the workers, They also take all the initial risk. and even great players like peterson are actually completely disposable. It happens every season in every single sport. Does Adrian Peterson think that if he wasnt a great athlete he'd have any realistic chance over his entire life of earning even one of the years of his contracts value?

[RichardCranium]

Given that he specifically states "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too.", it would seem he's not talking about the amount of money. The question then becomes: were there other characteristics of slavery beyond not receiving pay that are analogous to the current situation? For instance:

- Are these workers disposable?
- Are these workers put at a serious physical risk that is not shared by the owners?
- Is there an elaborate system of people that benefit from the workers without contributing to the actual work?
- Do these workers have equal control over the means of production, which in this case would refer to stadiums, TV deals, etc.?
- Do these workers have an alternative business they can choose to be
employed in, or do they labor for a de facto monopoly?

All of those things may be true but it's not slavery in any way, shape, form, or age.

[Parkbandit]

In literally every successful business in the world the owners can and do make considerably more then the workers, They also take all the initial risk. and even great players like peterson are actually completely disposable. It happens every season in every single sport. Does Adrian Peterson think that if he wasnt a great athlete he'd have any realistic chance over his entire life of earning even one of the years of his contracts value?

Why do you hate The People so much?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The players don't have shared investment in a stadium, ticket sales, advertising, insurance, training and rehab facilities, etc etc etc. They are simply employees. As I said in the other thread, I kind of hope they all strike and a bunch of scrubs replace them. It'd be nice to see people being well paid and playing a game they enjoy.

[Parkbandit]

Given that he specifically states "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too.", it would seem he's not talking about the amount of money. The question then becomes: were there other characteristics of slavery beyond not receiving pay that are analogous to the current situation?

It was a dumb thing to say by a dumb person that only a dumb idiot would try and defend.




For instance:

- Are these workers disposable?

Who isn't disposable? To believe that you are the only one on the entire planet that could possible provide the tools necessary to do the job is ignorant.



- Are these workers put at a serious physical risk that is not shared by the owners?

If a player like Adrian gets hurt, do you think that the owners don't suffer an economic loss from it?


- Is there an elaborate system of people that benefit from the workers without contributing to the actual work?

You mean like owners and managers? You mean like most jobs and companies?



- Do these workers have equal control over the means of production, which in this case would refer to stadiums, TV deals, etc.?

Do employees who pump gas at the Exxon Mobile have a say on where the company drills for oil or how it markets itself to South Korea?


- Do these workers have an alternative business they can choose to be employed in, or do they labor for a de facto monopoly?

Didn't most of these "workers" go to college? Isn't that where you study to find jobs?

Here is the key you are obviously missing: no one is forcing poor, poor Adrian Peterson to play professional football. If he doesn't like it, he can do a myriad of different things with his life... or nothing at all, since football has paid him extremely well over the past 4 years.

[Archigeek]

And maybe, he could learn to hold onto the damn ball!

[Parkbandit]

And maybe, he could learn to hold onto the damn ball!

Or not crumble when he's needed in big games?

[Latrinsorm]

All of those things may be true but it's not slavery in any way, shape, form, or age.The concept of wage slavery is well-established. I don't put much stock in it myself, but as you may have heard I am a dumb idiot.
Who isn't disposable? To believe that you are the only one on the entire planet that could possible provide the tools necessary to do the job is ignorant.Everyone. Recognizing a worker only as a tool rather than a human being is very slavery-esque.
If a player like Adrian gets hurt, do you think that the owners don't suffer an economic loss from it?I think if a player like Adrian shoots himself in the chest because his brain has been turned into pudding, the owners don't suffer any bit as much as he was or his family will.
You mean like owners and managers? You mean like most jobs and companies? ... Do employees who pump gas at the Exxon Mobile have a say on where the company drills for oil or how it markets itself to South Korea?As Adrian said, there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way.
Didn't most of these "workers" go to college? Isn't that where you study to find jobs?The vast majority of these workers went to college to play football, which necessarily means an expense on everything else college-related. If the NFL is essentially a monopoly, the players therefore do not have any choice but to work for them if they want to play football for a living. We (Americans) don't tolerate monopolies anywhere else, why in sports?

[Ardwen]

actually there are indeed other professional football leagues, most of wheom have salary maximums of 100 ro 200 thousand, how bout all these whiny punks go play arena ball or in canada.

[Parkbandit]

The concept of wage slavery is well-established. I don't put much stock in it myself, but as you may have heard I am a dumb idiot.

Not only have I heard it, you prove it when you post. What happened to 30 minutes ago, when you made the claim it wasn't about the money?


it would seem he's not talking about the amount of money.


Everyone. Recognizing a worker only as a tool rather than a human being is very slavery-esque.

No one called anyone a tool, but to think that they aren't replaceable is ignorant.


I think if a player like Adrian shoots himself in the chest because his brain has been turned into pudding, the owners don't suffer any bit as much as he was or his family will.

LOLWUT? So, because Adrian Peterson is mentally unstable, the owner now should be held responsible? I thought mental problems were blamed on a parent or relative that molested them when they were younger?


As Adrian said, there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way.

So, you believe that every employee in every country should play an active role in how the company is run?

Please say yes.. because that is hilarious.



The vast majority of these workers went to college to play football, which necessarily means an expense on everything else college-related. If the NFL is essentially a monopoly, the players therefore do not have any choice but to work for them if they want to play football for a living. We (Americans) don't tolerate monopolies anywhere else, why in sports?

So, NFL is a monopoly?

Shit, I knew the Arena League was a farce. Same with the CFL. Too bad the USFL and XFL never existed.....

[Tgo01]

Latrinsorm I just have one simple question for you.

Are you serious?

[Gan]

Latrinsorm I just have one simple question for you.

Are you serious?

He is as serious as an unemployed man living with his parents who also happens to paint his fingernails/toenails, wears knee high stockings and women's boots can be.

Did I miss anything?

[Bobmuhthol]

LOLWUT? So, because Adrian Peterson is mentally unstable, the owner now should be held responsible? I thought mental problems were blamed on a parent or relative that molested them when they were younger?

Your entire attempt at an argument here is moot because you didn't even realize that he was talking about Dave Duerson.

[Latrinsorm]

Not only have I heard it, you prove it when you post. What happened to 30 minutes ago, when you made the claim it wasn't about the money?I don't know what you're referring to with "it". What I said was that slavery does not necessarily refer to a level of compensation. American slavery circa 1800s is an example where there was no monetary compensation. Wage slavery is an example where there is. It is entirely possible to receive the same or less compensation and not fit the definition of wage slavery.
LOLWUT? So, because Adrian Peterson is mentally unstable, the owner now should be held responsible? I thought mental problems were blamed on a parent or relative that molested them when they were younger?If you are seriously unfamiliar with the long-term effects of concussions and football, it would behoove you to research them. Also, I would like to point out that I did not say the owner should be held responsible for player health, I said that the players experience more suffering as a result.
So, you believe that every employee in every country should play an active role in how the company is run?

Please say yes.. because that is hilarious.I believe that an unempowered workforce will in general be abused by employers, because that has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. Consequently, I believe that every employee in every company should have say in their fate. Whether this means the ability to leave and join a different company, the ability to collectively dictate working conditions, etc. is immaterial to the larger point.
So, NFL is a monopoly?

Shit, I knew the Arena League was a farce. Same with the CFL. Too bad the USFL and XFL never existed.....The phrase "de facto" means that while the subject does not meet the technical or legal definition of the object, it functions in a similar enough way. The old AFL and to a lesser extent the USFL indicate periods when the NFL was less of a monopoly; which is to say when the NFL had competition. Neither the CFL nor the new AFL compete with the NFL, in the same way that independent minor league teams like the Bridgeport Bluefish do not compete with any given MLB club.

[LMingrone]

Fuck you!!!!! I still go to Whalers games!!! (I also put up a lot of signs for the Bluefish) Keep me in business.

[Latrinsorm]

Latrinsorm I just have one simple question for you.

Are you serious?I seriously believe that Adrian Peterson's statements are being interpreted incorrectly.
He is as serious as an unemployed man living with his parents who also happens to paint his fingernails/toenails, wears knee high stockings and women's boots can be.

Did I miss anything?The bitch about "knee high" is that, you know, it's knee high for a girl, and girls are shorter than boys, so I have to buy OVER the knee, but that's obviously a much less precise definition, sometimes they only mean just past, sometimes they mean thigh-high, you know, it's a real bitch.

[Parkbandit]

Your entire attempt at an argument here is moot because you didn't even realize that he was talking about Dave Duerson.

Very true.. never heard of him. So, was it concluded that the owners were responsible for his suicide?

[Bobmuhthol]

Considering he died less than a month ago, no; there has been no conclusion at all.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know what you're referring to with "it".

I was agreeing with you that you are a dumb idiot.



What I said was that slavery does not necessarily refer to a level of compensation. American slavery circa 1800s is an example where there was no monetary compensation. Wage slavery is an example where there is. It is entirely possible to receive the same or less compensation and not fit the definition of wage slavery.


So.. getting back to Adrian Peterson... it's not wage slavery.. then it is.. which one did you finally decide this is again?



If you are seriously unfamiliar with the long-term effects of concussions and football, it would behoove you to research them. Also, I would like to point out that I did not say the owner should be held responsible for player health, I said that the players experience more suffering as a result.

Some players. Like any job, there are inherent risks and rewards.. they decided when they took this job that the rewards were worth the risks. Pretty much like any job that has some amount of danger involved.



I believe that an unempowered workforce will in general be abused by employers, because that has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history.

But he's "empowered".. he is (was) a union member. Doesn't get more awesomely empowered than that, does it?


Consequently, I believe that every employee in every company should have say in their fate.

You realize no one is forced to work for a specific company, right?


Whether this means the ability to leave and join a different company, the ability to collectively dictate working conditions, etc. is immaterial to the larger point.

What exactly is the point? That every employee in every company should play an active role in how the company is run?


The phrase "de facto" means that while the subject does not meet the technical or legal definition of the object, it functions in a similar enough way. The old AFL and to a lesser extent the USFL indicate periods when the NFL was less of a monopoly; which is to say when the NFL had competition. Neither the CFL nor the new AFL compete with the NFL, in the same way that independent minor league teams like the Bridgeport Bluefish do not compete with any given MLB club.

No one is forcing them to play football. No one is forcing them to play in the NFL. No one is stopping them from starting a football league of their own.

[Apathy]

Given that he specifically states "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too.", it would seem he's not talking about the amount of money. The question then becomes: were there other characteristics of slavery beyond not receiving pay that are analogous to the current situation? For instance:

- Are these workers disposable?
- Are these workers put at a serious physical risk that is not shared by the owners?
- Is there an elaborate system of people that benefit from the workers without contributing to the actual work?
- Do these workers have equal control over the means of production, which in this case would refer to stadiums, TV deals, etc.?
- Do these workers have an alternative business they can choose to be employed in, or do they labor for a de facto monopoly?

Slavery isn't self-imposed. Correlation is not causation/Similarity is not Equality. You should know better.

[RichardCranium]

I seriously believe that Adrian Peterson's statements are being interpreted incorrectly.

If he had said something about wage slavery I would agree. But he said "new-age slavery" which leads most to assume he's talking about the most common usage of the term.

[Latrinsorm]

So.. getting back to Adrian Peterson... it's not wage slavery.. then it is.. which one did you finally decide this is again?I haven't wavered on any point. The concept of wage slavery expressly allows wages to be paid; an NFL player and a hot dog vendor can be wage slaves. I have not taken any position on whether Adrian Peterson or NFL players in general fall into that category - I consider the matter open to debate.
Some players. Like any job, there are inherent risks and rewards.. they decided when they took this job that the rewards were worth the risks. Pretty much like any job that has some amount of danger involved.These particular risks were both unknown to and deeply ingrained in football culture, and American culture for that matter. As recently as 2004, when Brett Favre went back into a game against the Giants after sustaining a concussion (and against medical advice), nobody said he was setting a terrible example, or that his coach had behaved disgracefully in initiating it. The New York Times described it as "adding to [Favre's] legend". How exactly was a 20 year old signing his first NFL contract supposed to know the risks in that era? Look at the responses in this thread, is that era even over?
But he's "empowered".. he is (was) a union member. Doesn't get more awesomely empowered than that, does it?And as a consequence of that empowerment, the union and owners are engaged in a legal struggle, as opposed to the owners dictating terms. This is the sign of a civilized, viable society. Give any group overwhelming power, whether it be the owners, workers, government, etc., and there will be problems.
You realize no one is forced to work for a specific company, right? ... No one is forcing them to play football. No one is forcing them to play in the NFL. No one is stopping them from starting a football league of their own.I refer you again to the concept of a de facto monopoly. The related concepts of cartels and barriers to entry are also useful.

[Latrinsorm]

Slavery isn't self-imposed.I think you severely overestimate the level of choice involved on the part of NFL players. Roughly 10-15% of the American population is poor. Why is it that a disproportionate number of the players in the NFL come from poor backgrounds, would never have made it to college without sports, etc.? Why do NFL players play hurt? Are we to believe that they are all sadists and masochists, too?
If he had said something about wage slavery I would agree. But he said "new-age slavery" which leads most to assume he's talking about the most common usage of the term.As I see it, wage slavery and 1800s slavery are the only relevant options here. 1800s slavery does not exist in the modern day. Wage slavery does (or at least, it does if you believe in it as an economic concept). Don't you agree that "modern-day" as an adjective could just as easily be used to distinguish wage slavery from 1800s slavery as to describe a version of 1800s slavery?

[RichardCranium]

As I see it, wage slavery and 1800s slavery are the only relevant options here. 1800s slavery does not exist in the modern day. Wage slavery does (or at least, it does if you believe in it as an economic concept). Don't you agree that "modern-day" as an adjective could just as easily be used to distinguish wage slavery from 1800s slavery as to describe a version of 1800s slavery?

Yes, I just don't believe it's the way he meant it. Does this make me an Adgnostic?

[Tgo01]

As I see it, wage slavery and 1800s slavery are the only relevant options here. 1800s slavery does not exist in the modern day. Wage slavery does (or at least, it does if you believe in it as an economic concept). Don't you agree that "modern-day" as an adjective could just as easily be used to distinguish wage slavery from 1800s slavery as to describe a version of 1800s slavery?

Are you saying since 1800s slavery does not exist anymore (I'm assuming you mean not legally in America anyway) the only possible conclusion could be he was referring to wage slavery and not that he's just an idiot?

[Latrinsorm]

Are you saying since 1800s slavery does not exist anymore (I'm assuming you mean not legally in America anyway) the only possible conclusion could be he was referring to wage slavery and not that he's just an idiot?I am saying that there are two possible conclusions based solely on his sound byte comment. The way he twice refers to low-income wage earners suggests to me that he is referring to wage slavery, but I wouldn't say it's the only possible conclusion.

[Apathy]

I think you severely overestimate the level of choice involved on the part of NFL players. Roughly 10-15% of the American population is poor. Why is it that a disproportionate number of the players in the NFL come from poor backgrounds, would never have made it to college without sports, etc.? Why do NFL players play hurt? Are we to believe that they are all sadists and masochists, too?

I think the NFL has proportionate socio-economic backgrounds in its members and refuse to change my mind unless I see raw data stating otherwise. My memory is usually pretty good, but I can't seem to recall any raids on poor communities by the NFL where they stole all the children to force them into NFL slave labor.

Lots of people go to work sick, disabled, or otherwise impaired. Not slavery.

NFL players have season-performance incentives. I have quarterly goals and bonuses. Same difference. Not slavery.

You offer me the opportunity to earn a degree from a university for free. I choose to forgoe that opportunity and pursue a career in the NFL. Not slavery.

If Peterson was white, would you still be defending him calling the NFL modern day slavery? Might as well turn that stone over, too.

[Latrinsorm]

I think the NFL has proportionate socio-economic backgrounds in its members and refuse to change my mind unless I see raw data stating otherwise. My memory is usually pretty good, but I can't seem to recall any raids on poor communities by the NFL where they stole all the children to force them into NFL slave labor.What would be the point in that? You would have to pay the mercenaries, pay off the police, pay off the government, pay off the media, just terribly inefficient. No, the way to go here would be to find an environment of poverty and poor education. Then your system that pretty much guarantees devastating physical injury in exchange for an obnoxiously slim chance at material wealth seems great in comparison. It helps to have a superficial culture, then you can even act like you're doing that environment a favor and people will go along with it.
Lots of people go to work sick, disabled, or otherwise impaired. Not slavery.I think you missed the point of that question. We do not necessarily conclude that people choosing to hurt themselves are masochists, even though at face value this is essentially an identity. In the same way, we should not necessarily conclude that wage slaves' consent prevents them from being wage slaves. Quite to the contrary, the concept of wage slavery is usually based on superficial consent, in much the same way as forced conversions of old.
You offer me the opportunity to earn a degree from a university for free. I choose to forgoe that opportunity and pursue a career in the NFL. Not slavery.This is an important point, and one I'm glad you brought up. Both the risks of what is commonly considered injury and long-term loss of cognitive ability are still very high in college football. This provides an overpowering incentive to get to the NFL as quickly as possible, especially with the typical structure of NFL contracts with signing bonuses and whatnot. This effect is exacerbated by the incredibly short expected career length for certain positions such as running back and the shortened life expectancy inherent to football players.

In short, the education available to a college football player is in no sense free. The opportunity costs and physical costs are prohibitive.
If Peterson was white, would you still be defending him calling the NFL modern day slavery? Might as well turn that stone over, too.He's not?!?