This might be anecdotal, but I feel like we don't hear these athlete bankruptcy stories as often about hockey players. Why? Because they're all white, not black. Putting a kid through junior hockey is expensive and hockey players tend to come from privileged homes with much better financial education than young black football players. They get just as many knocks on the head, but they get better advice from their father's accountant, and they make it to retirement with some money left.

Making them sign away control of their money sounds like a new version of the old story of infantilizing black people by removing their adult rights, "for their own good".

Any broke Formula 1 race drivers or tennis players? That's where you'd really look for athletes coming from wealthy families, I think.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/11/columbus-blue-jackets-jack-j...

In my defence, weak though it is, there was no moment I actually intended to refer to specifically black sportspeople. If more black people in sports in America are financially uneducated, the bias in outcome would be there. I am pretty sure immature spending behaviour is colourblind and in all seriousness I meant this across race and culture: I think huge cash incentives for young people should be constrained to last. I'm not a libertarian.

When do you educate somebody about how to control millions of dollars of assets, in the moment of giving them autonomy over them? If you want to propose education, then its rational to propose the control over the money before and during education is there, no? or, do you propose letting them blow the million on drugs and sex, and then teach them how to sustainably hold onto it, when all they have is a debt hole?

Personally, I think the unions should help guide these guys. New money leading to bankruptcy is a universal story, not unique to any race.

Athletes are particularly vulnerable to scammers, as they spend a lot of time isolated by coaches with a small group of people. Self dealing trusted advisors and that isolation makes them vulnerable.

Mandatory contribution of 10% of their income into an investment account and that has a maximum annual withdrawal of 1% until age 55.

If they otherwise destroy their finances, they'll at least be able to afford a place to live.

Could it be that black kids as a group just isn't that interested in playing hockey?

If you want a direct non-racial example of this: white hockey player origin distribution, Canadian and Scandinavian-born versus US-born. Guess where the ice is? :)

Baseball is another sport where black participation has declined in the US and the general assumption is that it's similarly because it's harder to find places to practice baseball in modern American cities (while still much more common in Latin America). Hence http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/mlb_official_story_head...

Organized youth sports are expensive (in the US at least), and hockey more so than others. You need a lot of equipment which your kid will keep growing out of, and then costs for ice time. Ice time is likely less expensive in big hockey regions (I have no idea), but it's always a cost. A competitive youth league team isn't practicing on a frozen lake.

Although, someone pointed out elsewhere that good skates can be expensive and requires maintenance. I didn't consider costs of keeping skates sharp. But I'm still curious as to why high-quality expensive equipment is required specifically for hockey when it seems to me that every other sport has a large number of kids with substandard equipment. Do hockey players not use hand-me-downs or used equipment?

Minors don’t choose where their parents live. If you’re getting drafted at 19 yrs of age, you’ve probably been playing since you were a kid. If you don’t live in a region with abundant natural ice, it will cost you money to skate.

Frankly, your comments comes across as the same type of empty criticism as that which often comes up when people complain about government: “If it’s really so bad, why don’t you just move to another country?” Easier to blame someone for where they live than to consider the challenges of relocating. Both criticisms are deliberately dim.

I don't understand all this negativity I'm getting by just asking questions. A person couldn't possibly propose a solution to a problem without asking questions first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_on_Ice_(film)

And consider this criticism of the somewhat rosier picture portrayed in that film:

https://hockeyinsociety.com/2017/03/06/soul-on-ice-the-day-t...

https://www.purehockey.com/c/ice-hockey-skates-senior

But if priced low-to-high the senior skates on that site start at $64.99 and go up from there. Assuming that the lower cost skates are not worth it, you get what you pay for and all that, what's wrong with the middle tier skates that are in the $100-$200 range? How long do they last once a kid's foot doesn't outgrow it every 3-to-6 months?

You also have to invest in padding, helmets, gloves, socks, and so on.

I didn't consider the maintenance aspect; the need for sharpening makes sense though.

Cheap skates are like cheap running shoes. Yeah, they get the job done until the ill-fitted skates don't offer proper fit and support. Your kid is fine for a month, then they have welts from the cheap insoles and twisted ankles from no stability.

Just wanting to skate at the rink is one thing, practicing and chasing pucks on top of learning edge control demands proper equipment.

So this looks great at first right? It's like a lotto winner taking the lifetime payments instead of the lump sum. The problem is you can take loans against that money very easily, or you can sign the contract over to someone else very easily. Want to invest $300,000 in your friends restaurant because you think he's a great chef, just take a loan against 10 years worth of your guaranteed income stream.

Maybe a ten percent retain and the moral of the story is you are a former millionaire who now has a small stipend to remind you how stupid you are.

No, thanks. It's their money, let them have it. If they want it to be invested on their behalf, that's fine. But it should be their choice.

How would you like it if your employer told you that instead of paying you your wages, he was instead going to contribute to an investment fund, and you'd receive the income from that fund rather than receiving the money directly?

And to the extent that it's not (e.g. National Insurance): it should be.

The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

We would likely have a national riot if Social Security was just yanked at once. But if my own life is any guess, the age to qualify for "benefits" keeps going higher and higher. It's theft by attrition, and backed as not theft by courts.

I do not agree with CATO's eventual policy of "privatization" at all. The other choice, which was not posited, was to earmark the funds, keep them segregated from the general fund. Then do the right thing and set Social Security as a guarantee at the same age for everyone. And, remove that cap.

(1) https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-...

You have to take in consideration a few factors governing the original social security age limits. IE Life expectancy was significantly less. People live on average quite a bit longer now, addressing that reality isn't a bad idea.

The other thing to consider is the money we're paying in now isn't being saved for our benefit later. It's being used to pay the benefits of current retirees. Not to mention the money that current retirees paid into the system 20, 30, 40 years ago is a pittance to what they're drawing now.

I mean I like the idea of social security. A lot of people do, it's become ingrained in our national expectation. But in the same token, a lot of people don't have realistic thoughts about it. And we're going to need it to evolve with the realities of our culture. Longer lifespans, real cost of living, etc are all real issues that can't be ignored and expect Social Security to chug on perpetually.

In effect the payroll tax was spun up in the 80s and used as government revenue via special bonds. But as the surplus as waned due to increased payments, the cap didn’t move and the government’s spending power to bridge the gap was reduced by our post-2001 perpetual war.

You get some choice where its invested, but in short, you can't spend it on anything that benefits you materially here and now. 9.5% minimum is taken out of practically every non-casual working position.

In general, it's defined contribution, not defined payment (barring some of the older pension plans which are going to have some tough decisions ahead).

Flaws of the system aside, I'm generally in favor of the idea myself.

Choice is a hot button item. You value this specific choice above others. I value their long term welfare above choice in this matter.

First of all, these are not minors - they are over 18. Secondly who the heck are you to decide that you should be in charge of what they can and can't do with their money?

Someone who doesn't have responsibility can't be forced into it.

Which would suggest that responsible parent won't put children into such system.

So, yes, it does appear you're talking about right and wrong.

The comment I was originally responding to said teams "should require [athletes] to sign a consent form for arms-length management of their capital" which I absolutely don't agree with because they are adults who can choose for themselves. And yes, it's personal because it's their money and their choice to either spend it or do something else.

I don't care what or how they do it, and there's no inherent wrong or right involved. It's their paycheck and they can do whatever they want with it... but taking away their agency in the first place doesn't solve anything and certainly doesn't magically teach better decision making in the future.

Going with the principle of charity: I apologize for assuming you were using "personal responsibility" as a bludgeon.

All 4 big professional leagues in the US have pension plans [0] that, while not making them rich, will at least provide enough money to survive in the event they blow all their earnings. It's not quite as extreme as what you propose, but there's definitely some deferred income.

[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-nhl-nba-mlb-retirement-pe...

They also had to agree not to spend on drugs, strippers, excessive houses, etc.