Not too long ago there was a discussion about the Ravens and the percentage of their salaries that they were fined. I wonder how the percent of the salary that was fined for the players compares to what percent of his salary that the official was fined. Maybe someone can get the numbers and do the math.
EDIT: I read the article and it says that the official was fined a full game fee. I assume that means it is 1/17 of his salary, assuming he works a game each week of the season.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TXMike
Bart Scott gets over $7.5 million a year. His fine is equal to 1/3 of 1%. If you make $100,000 the equivalent would be $333, not much more than a bad speeding ticket.
Samari Rolle makes over $3 million a year. His fine is equal to 1/2 of 1% , That equates to about $500 if you make $100,000 a year.
Chris McAlister makes $5.5 million a year. His fine is equal to 1/3 of 1% and you know what that rquivalent is already.
Derrick Mason makes $3 million so he is in same boat as Rolle.
This would be laughable if not so sad. The NFL just does not get it.
|
So the official was fined 5.88% of his salary, while the payers were fined either 0.33% or 0.5%. Was the officials actions almost 18 times worse than the player who got fine 0.33% of his salary?