High Kicks and Low Wages: The price of being a NFL Cheerleader.

[ksen]

I'm pretty sure "contestants" =/= "employees".

I could be wrong though.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm pretty sure "contestants" =/= "employees".

I could be wrong though.

Well, if you define a job as a job, then the other side has nowhere to go, but to agree. And we can't have that!

 

[dismal]

I'm pretty sure "contestants" =/= "employees".

I could be wrong though.

So you're saying those people don't deserve to get paid for their work?

Is it because they are women?[/this thread]

 

[ksen]

I'm pretty sure "contestants" =/= "employees".

I could be wrong though.

So you're saying those people don't deserve to get paid for their work?

Is it because they are women?[/this thread]

tl;dr

 

[Axulus]

Maybe the NFL could turn it into a revenue stream and avoid the costs of pay and associated lawsuits. Invite amateur cheer-leading groups to rent space on the field during games to have the opportunity to perform for the crowd and be on TV in front of a national audience. The groups that perform best (perhaps though some sort of competition with awards) could get a discount on their future rent.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm pretty sure "contestants" =/= "employees".

I could be wrong though.

Well, if you define a job as a job, then the other side has nowhere to go, but to agree. And we can't have that!

Since cheerleaders have no control over scheduling the service they provide, they can't be classified as "contract labor," so they are employees and subject to current Federal and State employment regulations.

 

[ronburgundy]

Why is it illegal? Those women agreed to those wages of their own free will.

Because even the worst NFL player is in the top 0.01% of all people who can play football. Not necessarily so with the cheerleaders as being in the top is not really needed as cheerleading is a sideshow in NFL games. The quality of the cheerleading squad doesn't determine the success of a team but the quality of the players does.

Isn't even the worst NFL cheerleader in the top .01% of all people who can cheerlead?

No. NFL cheerleading has none of the athleticism, skill, and risky moves of school cheerleading. It is about nothing but sexual titilaion, and having nice tits and ass and being willing to display them are the only real qualifications. High leg kicks are the most "athletic" thing they do and many women could do it with minimal training. And the only reason they are asked to do even that move is that it is a form of spreading their legs to highlight their crotch that is a bit less crude than having them lie on their backs and do it. Many of them have no real prior dance or cheerleading experience when they audition. Again, it isn't relevant because the "moves" and "dances" are so basic and require little talent or specific skill beyond smiling and looking hot while you do it. More of them are wanna-be models or actresses doing it for exposure. And they are not even the hottest .01% of women. They don't need to be, just hot enough to titilate most men, and that is not a high bar. The team doesn't lose and no one cares if one of the cheerleaders is only in the top 10% but not .01% of hotness, but the team does lose (and fans tune out and stop buying merch) if a player is only in the top 10%.
The reason there are players who don't seem very good by comparison to other players and the reason teams hold onto 'mediocre" QBs for decades (like the Bears are doing) is that there are not even 32 people in the world that can play QB better than even a mediocre NFL starter, and not more than a couple hundred that play better at any position. Cheerleaders might put in a lot of work to be hot enough, but there are many thousands of women who could do the same job with that same work. There are a literal few that could do what players do even with years of training.

I don't know the true per hour pay of most of them, it depends upon the true required practice and PR time. $125 per game is actually over $30 per hour even with an hour of pre-game time, and about $9 an hour assuming another 10 hours per week of training and PR. With so many billions in profits, they should be paying more than minimum to all people involved, but not because cheerleaders are hard to replace but because its unethical to make so much excessive wealth while paying desperate people as little as you can legally get away with paying them. Contrary to assholes that mistake immoral greed for "libertarianism", treating other people like they are garbage is not an inherent feature of the free market or capitalism, its just an inherent feature of the kind of assholes that tend to rise to the top ranks of wealth if the rest of us let them get away with it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Isn't even the worst NFL cheerleader in the top .01% of all people who can cheerlead?

No. NFL cheerleading has none of the athleticism, skill, and risky moves of school cheerleading. It is about nothing but sexual titilaion, and having nice tits and ass and being willing to display them are the only real qualifications. High leg kicks are the most "athletic" thing they do and many women could do it with minimal training. And the only reason they are asked to do even that move is that it is a form of spreading their legs to highlight their crotch that is a bit less crude than having them lie on their backs and do it. Many of them have no real prior dance or cheerleading experience when they audition. Again, it isn't relevant because the "moves" and "dances" are so basic and require little talent or specific skill beyond smiling and looking hot while you do it. More of them are wanna-be models or actresses doing it for exposure. And they are not even the hottest .01% of women. They don't need to be, just hot enough to titilate most men, and that is not a high bar. The team doesn't lose and no one cares if one of the cheerleaders is only in the top 10% but not .01% of hotness, but the team does lose (and fans tune out and stop buying merch) if a player is only in the top 10%.
The reason there are players who don't seem very good by comparison to other players and the reason teams hold onto 'mediocre" QBs for decades (like the Bears are doing) is that there are not even 32 people in the world that can play QB better than even a mediocre NFL starter, and not more than a couple hundred that play better at any position. Cheerleaders might put in a lot of work to be hot enough, but there are many thousands of women who could do the same job with that same work. There are a literal few that could do what players do even with years of training.

I don't know the true per hour pay of most of them, it depends upon the true required practice and PR time. $125 per game is actually over $30 per hour even with an hour of pre-game time, and about $9 an hour assuming another 10 hours per week of training and PR. With so many billions in profits, they should be paying more than minimum to all people involved, but not because cheerleaders are hard to replace but because its unethical to make so much excessive wealth while paying desperate people as little as you can legally get away with paying them. Contrary to assholes that mistake immoral greed for "libertarianism", treating other people like they are garbage is not an inherent feature of the free market or capitalism, its just an inherent feature of the kind of assholes that tend to rise to the top ranks of wealth if the rest of us let them get away with it.

If NFL cheerleading "has none of the athleticism, skill, and risky moves of school cheerleading" then how did this happen?

BALTIMORE -- A Baltimore Ravens cheerleader is out of the hospital and recuperating at home after being injured in a fall and carted off the field Sunday.

The woman, whom the team declined to identify, was thrown in the air and hit the ground during a stunt while Baltimore played Tennessee. She was treated at the hospital for head, back and neck injuries.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...cheerleader-hurt-no-significant-injuries-fall

 

[jonatha]

I don't think the law requires paying volunteers anything.

Actually, it does.

See the third paragraph ("Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.")

 

[Axulus]

I don't think the law requires paying volunteers anything.

Actually, it does.

See the third paragraph ("Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.")

It's solved with the NFL charging a fee for amateur teams rent for field space to do a show during a live game (sold to the highest bidder): discounts available for the most talented teams and the best looking members. The kinds of activities allowed would be specified in the lease agreement.

 

[Bronzeage]

If NFL cheerleading "has none of the athleticism, skill, and risky moves of school cheerleading" then how did this happen?

BALTIMORE -- A Baltimore Ravens cheerleader is out of the hospital and recuperating at home after being injured in a fall and carted off the field Sunday.

The woman, whom the team declined to identify, was thrown in the air and hit the ground during a stunt while Baltimore played Tennessee. She was treated at the hospital for head, back and neck injuries.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...cheerleader-hurt-no-significant-injuries-fall

Obviously, it's what happens when a cheerleader tries the "risky moves of school cheerleading", but lacks the athleticism and skill they had a few years earlier, when they were school cheerleaders.

Why is the first response heard when an underpaid person demands equitable pay is, "You're barely worth what you're paid now and are lucky to have a job at all."

 

[jonatha]

Generally you are not paying NFL players millions to play football. They would probably do that for a lot less. Some might even volunteer. You are paying them millions to play for your team instead of someone else's.

You are probably paying NFL players millions because NFL players have a union with negotiated payscales....

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't think the law requires paying volunteers anything.

Actually, it does.

See the third paragraph ("Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.")

That would be the "you cannot volunteer to do your own job clause".

- - - Updated - - -

Generally you are not paying NFL players millions to play football. They would probably do that for a lot less. Some might even volunteer. You are paying them millions to play for your team instead of someone else's.

You are probably paying NFL players millions because NFL players have a union with negotiated payscales....

Yep.

 

[jonatha]

It's solved with the NFL charging a fee for amateur teams rent for field space to do a show during a live game (sold to the highest bidder): discounts available for the most talented teams and the best looking members. The kinds of activities allowed would be specified in the lease agreement.

I think this fails under the substance-over-form doctrine.

Why is the amateur team paying rent for a space to do a show from which they derive no revenue?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it does.

See the third paragraph ("Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.")

That would be the "you cannot volunteer to do your own job clause".

That particular rule only applies to public-sector employees.

You can't volunteer to do anybody's job for a private-sector employer....

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think this fails under the substance-over-form doctrine.

Why is the amateur team paying rent for a space to do a show from which they derive no revenue?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it does.

See the third paragraph ("Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.")

That would be the "you cannot volunteer to do your own job clause".

That particular rule only applies to public-sector employees.

You can't volunteer to do anybody's job for a private-sector employer....

That explains Wal-Mart.

 

[dismal]

Generally you are not paying NFL players millions to play football. They would probably do that for a lot less. Some might even volunteer. You are paying them millions to play for your team instead of someone else's.

You are probably paying NFL players millions because NFL players have a union with negotiated payscales....

The union scales and salary caps are generally there to keep salaries down, not up. And what the top guys make has abso-lutely nothing to do with union scales.

The reason Tom Brady makes $20 million is not that it takes $20 million to convince him to play football. The reason Tom Brady makes $20 million to play football is someone else is willing to pay him $19 million to play football.

If all you had to do was pay him enough to convince him to play you might have to pay him 50 grand.

 

[Nexus]

Why is the first response heard when an underpaid person demands equitable pay is, "You're barely worth what you're paid now and are lucky to have a job at all."

And we got the second response in this thread also. The "why don't you start your own organization and pay them what you think they're worth?"

 

[Axulus]

I think this fails under the substance-over-form doctrine.

Why is the amateur team paying rent for a space to do a show from which they derive no revenue?

For the thrill of being able to perform in front of a huge audience and to be on TV and to show off your skills. It would be just like any other hobby, they pay for it because they enjoy doing it.

I honestly don't see how it would fail the substance-over-form doctrine. The NFL is renting out high value space (field space during a live game). That space is surely worth tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per game. However, they are free to attract groups they find more desirable by offering them discounts on that space to use it. If you are willing to perform a cheer-leading routine and your group meets certain minimum requirements, then we'll let you rent the space at a significant discount to FMV.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think this fails under the substance-over-form doctrine.

Why is the amateur team paying rent for a space to do a show from which they derive no revenue?

For the thrill of being able to perform in front of a huge audience and to be on TV and to show off your skills. It would be just like any other hobby, they pay for it because they enjoy doing it.

I honestly don't see how it would fail the substance-over-form doctrine. The NFL is renting out high value space (field space during a live game). That space is surely worth tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per game. However, they are free to attract groups they find more desirable by offering them discounts on that space to use it. If you are willing to perform a cheer-leading routine and your group meets certain minimum requirements, then we'll let you rent the space at a significant discount to FMV.

If the thrill is enough, why pay anyone anything?

Why charge ticket prices? Why not replace concessions with a free buffet?

Because there is money to be made, that is why. And everyone involved in putting on a show, contributes to the value of the show.

What I don't get is why so many people are so dead set against paying minimum wage to professional entertainers?

 

[ksen]

What I don't get is why so many people are so dead set against paying minimum wage to professional entertainers your employees?

fixt