My intention wasn't to take a dig at you, but I did want to challenge a prominent idea that came across in your (and WPR's) post. I'll get to that in a sec; but point taken that I could've phrased the post better to challenge that idea more directly.
Regarding limits on lawyers - it's not something I've ever heard of before. A few clarifications may be needed, because what you talk about regarding an attorney's ability to charge:
1. Attorney's charge fix fee (or percentage) or hourly, but I'm sure you aren't explaining the limits on a lawyer's earning power correctly. For example, a settlement involves no winners or losers - it is a resolution that is founded on compromise. A lawyer can't be limited to not charging for a settlement if they lose because, by definition, there are no losers in settlements. Not to sound like I'm dragging you, because even I still get mixed up navigating the legal system - it is complex. My point is that I've heard of limits for PI lawyers on settlements, but that doesn't limit how such a lawyer can earn from their profession because a PI lawyer's earning/revenue streams can be so diverse (e.g., referral fees for client referrals, fee from being a mediator, being an arbitrator, and (most lucrative of all) fees from taking case to court and arguing in front of a judge). That's even before a PI lawyer that is part of a law firm gets to share in the profits of the law firm they are at (which routinely results in significant bonus payouts). A limit on settlements does not altogether limit how much a lawyer earns from their profession.
2. Lawyers are different than players. You wouldn't hire players to act for your benefit/best interest. You hire lawyers to do only such; lawyers are obligated under rules of their profession to put your interests first, and have a duty to advocate for your best interests (and place your interests above their own in the lawyer-client relationship context). To that end, it can be argued that limits on a lawyer's ability to charge for a particular service they offer you should not be seen as a limit on lawyer's earning ability. Rather, it (i.e., limit of charging 1/3 the settlement figure) is a mechanism to ensure a lawyer is acting within the moral and legal scope of his obligations to you as his/her client - namely, they are not benefiting improperly at your expense. I know for a fact that it is so, so easy for lawyers to bill in a way that you won't see it coming. I've seen cases in the personal injury context where, even before a conference begins between the parties, a lawyer has charged his/her client many thousand dollars before speaking or saying anything. In other words, limits of what lawyers are allowed to charge for settlements from their clients who, usually, are vulnerable (i.e., you usually get a lawyer at one of the toughest/lowest points in your life), not as savvy (i.e., clever in "masking" charges or reading legal bills), and to whom lawyers have legal (and moral) obligations of elevating their interest... I think it is entirely a different context than football players playing for the entertainment of others, to whom they owe no legal (or moral) obligations.
Which brings me back to the idea I wanted to challenge: I'm quite dumbfounded whenever I see people complain/wish football players made less. Why? These are very often football players who're from poor means (whether rural or urban), who've spent the bulk of their lives assuming risk of injury while training/playing for nothing in return until they get to the NFL. All the more power to them for cashing in every penny they can once they get to the NFL. I'm not sure what it is about people in society generally poo-pooing others getting a boatload of green paper after chasing it for so long.
I'm being serious about what I said regarding free markets; no other economic system in recorded history has produced wealth to the rate we're seeing today (which, to be clear, is not to say the system is flawed and can be tweaked to improve). You, I and NFL players only have our labor to sell in exchange for money - we can use it to make products, offer services or provide entertainment for consumption in exchange for making an earning. If an NFL player gets a multi-million dollar contract, all the more power to them; good on them for capitalizing in the way many people only ever dream of. Capping salaries is not going to reduce ticket prices (I note the money the NFL receives from selling its broadcast rights is enough to cover the vast, vast majority of player salaries without ticket/gate revenue).
I'm not sure why NFL players should be held to a standard (i.e., put a limit on how much they earn) when that is not something many of us would support in other scenarios (e.g., CEO salaries, teacher salaries, serving members in the military). I'm all for people chasing their dreams and cashing in (legally) to the most of their ability once they are in a position to do so. If it leads to 9-figure incomes - cool! All the more power to them, as they are receiving a return on their product/service/performance for entertainment that the market has deemed to be a fair exchange/return for what such players are offering. And it's neat seeing so many NFL players who grew up on farms, or lived such tough lives in poor neighborhoods strike it big, and become financial engines for their family, friends, and loved ones - and work to give them (and themselves) a comfortable life.
Originally Posted by: all_about_da_packers