IGX

According to Sports Illustrated, 78 percent of NFL players who are retired for only two years file for bankruptcy or are under financial stress, and after five years of retirement 60 percent of NBA players suffer the same fate. Why have so many athletes and celebrities who were once financially well off later find themselves bankrupt and more important, what can we learn from their falls from financial grace?

Washington Wizards rookie Chris Singleton says it was worth it to buy $10,000 worth of tickets for last week's Mega Millions lottery, adding it was "either that or blowing it in the clubs."

It's because many of them are idiots. They were idiots when they played and they are idiots afterward, only more so. Nothing about the NFL prepares you for a regular life.

Careers are also much briefer than most pro sports. I think the mean is <4.5 years.

It's a black thang.

You're less likely to lose money easily when you work hard for it.

High Velocity Lie-Nap! wrote:It's a black thang.

How dare you include Lenny Dykstra in this!

I don't know how much of it is window dressing, but a few years ago the NHL started offering financial counseling to players.

WildGorillaMan wrote:I don't know how much of it is window dressing, but a few years ago the NHL started offering financial counseling to players.

My college roommate was a huge hockey fan from Chicago and I remember a group of us talking about how it seemed like hockey players never showed up on those lists of athletes who'd gone bust.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Careers are also much briefer than most pro sports. I think the mean is <4.5 years.

I think that it's even closer to 3. I know 3 guys who played in the NFL and all were done in 3 years or less. One took his money, which wasn't much above minimum salary, and went back to school as he had never graduated, despite having five years to do so for free.

The hockey player thing is interesting - never thought of that.

Aren't the odds of winning 1 in 170-something-million? If that's the case, and the grand prize is 600+ million then why not buy 170+ million tickets and guarantee yourself the win? Easy money.

Kraj 2.0 wrote:Aren't the odds of winning 1 in 170-something-million? If that's the case, and the grand prize is 600+ million then why not buy 170+ million tickets and guarantee yourself the win? Easy money.

That kind of logic probably would work in a lot of banks.

Kraj 2.0 wrote:Aren't the odds of winning 1 in 170-something-million? If that's the case, and the grand prize is 600+ million then why not buy 170+ million tickets and guarantee yourself the win? Easy money.

SRSLY? You really are dim. Good luck with getting that done between drawings doofus.

The Crawdaddy wrote:

Kraj 2.0 wrote:Aren't the odds of winning 1 in 170-something-million? If that's the case, and the grand prize is 600+ million then why not buy 170+ million tickets and guarantee yourself the win? Easy money.

SRSLY? You really are dim. Good luck with getting that done between drawings doofus.

It's actually been done at least once.

Kraj 2.0 wrote:Aren't the odds of winning 1 in 170-something-million? If that's the case, and the grand prize is 600+ million then why not buy 170+ million tickets and guarantee yourself the win? Easy money.

See: actual results. Multiple winning tix ruins the plan.

Kraj 2.0 wrote:Aren't the odds of winning 1 in 170-something-million? If that's the case, and the grand prize is 600+ million then why not buy 170+ million tickets and guarantee yourself the win? Easy money.

Except there were 3 winning tickets that have to share the prize. So the winnings are down to 200 million each. Then you gotta pay taxes. So, in your scenario, one would actually lose money in the end.

I know one NFL guy that had really bad investing advice, and went bankrupt.

baffled wrote:
My college roommate was a huge hockey fan from Chicago and I remember a group of us talking about how it seemed like hockey players never showed up on those lists of athletes who'd gone bust.

While I'm sure it does happen part of the disparity may be because hockey isn't a ticket out of poverty. Getting drafted to the NHL represents fifteen years of significant time and financial investment on the part of the player's parents. As a result it's a sport for the children of middle class kids and higher. Parents have to have the resources and/or be able to make the sacrifices to foot the bill for so many years, so most players come from well-off families (in Mike Comrie's case, his dad is a billionaire).

So while it's certainly feasible for a 19 year old draft pick to become a multi-millionaire overnight and blow it, I'd expect that once the gravy train ended they'd have mom and dad to fall back on, and quite probably a family business to enter upon retirement from hockey.

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:

The Crawdaddy wrote:

Kraj 2.0 wrote:Aren't the odds of winning 1 in 170-something-million? If that's the case, and the grand prize is 600+ million then why not buy 170+ million tickets and guarantee yourself the win? Easy money.

SRSLY? You really are dim. Good luck with getting that done between drawings doofus.

It's actually been done at least once.

By one person? I think not.

I don't think that the NFL players that played in the sixties and seventies went bankrupt at anywhere
near those current percentages. I have heard that a lot of thwm lost money in various investments
though.

I think I read about George Blanda in the Kenny Stabler biography, "Snake".George was doing pretty
good and one of the ex-Raiders, maybe Stabler, asked him how he got so financially secure. Blanda
said that he put his money in the bank and earned interest on it.

Fat Cat wrote:It's because many of them are idiots. They were idiots when they played and they are idiots afterward, only more so. Nothing about the NFL prepares you for a regular life.

On a related note, there's evidence that winning the lottery doesn't save people from bankruptcy. It simply delays their bankruptcy.

The NFL players who blow all of their money and go broke would have done the same thing if they had been flipping burgers since the age of 16. They just would have gone broke earlier.

More money is quite simply another thing on the long list of items that can't cure stupid.

WildGorillaMan wrote:

baffled wrote:
My college roommate was a huge hockey fan from Chicago and I remember a group of us talking about how it seemed like hockey players never showed up on those lists of athletes who'd gone bust.

While I'm sure it does happen part of the disparity may be because hockey isn't a ticket out of poverty. Getting drafted to the NHL represents fifteen years of significant time and financial investment on the part of the player's parents. As a result it's a sport for the children of middle class kids and higher. Parents have to have the resources and/or be able to make the sacrifices to foot the bill for so many years, so most players come from well-off families (in Mike Comrie's case, his dad is a billionaire).

Exactly. You also don't see professional triathletes on these lists.

Pinky wrote:Exactly. You also don't see professional triathletes on these lists.

QED. Not many niggers do triathlon, play in the NHL, race in NASCAR, play tennis, etc.

It's clearly a stupid nigger thing.

I was thinking more of sports played by poor kids with shitty educational opportunities vs. sports played by kids raised in middle- or upper-class homes.

Pinky wrote:
Exactly. You also don't see professional triathletes on these lists.

On the other hand, is triathlon a ticket to wealth if you're really good at it? For avid amateurs it's certainly an enormous money pit, do most of the top ranked pros really do better than making a middle class income with the added perk of having their obsession/training paid for by their sponsors?

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Pinky wrote:Exactly. You also don't see professional triathletes on these lists.

QED. Not many niggers do triathlon, play in the NHL, race in NASCAR, play tennis, etc.

It's clearly a stupid nigger thing.

I didn't know Ryan Leaf was black