This isn't about how hard they work or how difficult it is for them to walk after a game. There are people that work much harder and leave the "playing field" with their legs blown the hell off (much less with the ability to walk) that don't get paid even a fraction of what these guys pay in taxes. They do not get paid for the difficulty of their work, but because of the rarity of their abilities to do so. There are obviously guys that play at a high level at Division I schools (something I could have never dreamed of) that can't even make it in the NFL. These are all elite athletes (even the back-ups) and the law of Supply and Demand dictates what teams are willing to pay them. The real issue is the fairness of the conditions of the contracts and not the $ amounts. Fairness, by definition, is that the contract is equally good and equally bad to both sides. His argument of "Unfairness" is based on one side and only one guy on one side. He argues the merits of "lets just go to one year deals then". OK, let's do that, lets see how many of your fellows players would like that with no guarantees for the future in the event of injury. My guess is that you wouldn't get a lot of takers. In my opinion, MLB contracts that are fully guaranteed are the contracts that are unfair. It's unfair to the team to spend that kind of guaranteed money when the PRODUCT isn't guaranteed. Let's don't forget the "hunger" factor that players have to get those fat contracts and lets not pretend that some players may back off a bit after getting it. It's human nature and we are ALL prone to it.