• August 17, 2022

Are You Kidding Adrian Peterson? “It’s Modern-Day Slavery”

Minnesota Vikings Pro Bowl running Adrian Peterson should have tape put over his mouth or he needs it washed out with soap. This is as bad as those union workers in Wisconsin walking around with Hitler signs because the governor wants a balanced budget.

Everybody wants to play the victim. Comparing the battle over $9 billion dollars a year of revenue to million of people being killed and savaged for hundreds of years is just as bad as those union workers comparing having to pay some of their health care costs and losing collective bargaining rights to six million people being exterminated.

I do think the owners got caught lying and scheming with that $4 billion dollars war chest but this is business and the word slavery doesn’t belong any where near this discussion.

This is what Peterson tweeted to Doug Farrar of Yahoo Sports.

“It’s modern-day slavery, you know?” Peterson said. “People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money . . . the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money.”

Peterson is making over $10 million dollars a year and he brings the word slavery into the discussion. Come on, man!

I didn’t have a problem with what Peterson had to say before he made that stupid “slavery” comment.

“It’s like . . . ‘Well, show us.’ We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want,” Peterson told Farrar on Friday. “If they have nothing to hide, just give us the information. Why not? Obviously, there’s a lot to hide — these guys are professionals, and they’re maximizing what they do. But they know that if all this information comes out, the information the players want, it’ll be right out there for everyone to see. It’s a ripoff — not just for the players, but for the people who work at the concession stands and at the stadiums.”


Read Previous

Michael Vick Picks Up Sponsorship But I Hope He’s Focused On Football

Read Next

With 3-2 Win Against Panthers, Flyers Look to Turn Ship Around


  • I couldn’t agree more. Good article.

  • Gary you are right about Peterson, that comparison is just plain stupid and offensive, but WRONG about the Wisconsin thing. I am not liberal, nor conservative, i am a man of common sense. It is mind boggling to think that people think that they SHOULDN’T have the right to fight for a better wage or benefits in their work place. Do I think it can go too far, and people get disillusioned with what the rest of the working world deals with, maybe, but that is in the rare instance in which you have a 25 or 30 yer union guy who has never had another job. This country has “crabs in a barrel” syndrome. A small percent of this population controls most of the wealth, yet, people seem to believe that a union worker making 30 dollars an hour, with good health care is the problem, instead of insisting that THAT be the standard for EVERYONE deserving of it! Why should a CEO make whatever million a year base salary, then, make 50 to 75million in bonus money, then complain about paying its work forces benefits of salary? Global economy?, that just means that they want to outsource your job overseas and cut labor here, why not insist that Americans are working first? Isn’t this America? Why lean on a teacher,who is bargaining for their family, instead a multi millionaire who is cutting jobs by the thousands and sending them to India so their bonus can be 10 million more? If you say thats not he issue in Wisconsin, I will strongly disagree, because its just the start of an attack on all labor, which to me is dumb. I guarantee, that governor isn’t chopping HIS salary or benefits anytime soon. Same as these CEO’s, remember the bail out money? Remember how the STILL took their bonus money after having to have their company “bailed out” by the government? Where is that fair? Nobody is jumping up and down screaming about those people. America is in a sick state, and the way you control people is to turn them on each other and distract them from the REAL issues, and trust me, the REAL issue isn’t a union worker in Middle America.

  • Wil, good points, to a point. The argument withh public unions is that their money does not come from or contrained by commerce as it is in the private sector. A union in the private sector knows that the income is limited by the strength of the company and the willingness of the public to by the product at a competitive price.

    Public worker unions have no such limits, they simply tap into the boundless resviour of the taxing government. They don’t have to worry about a good product, competitive prices or even stating in business, government will continue no matter what “So we think”.

    There should not be government worker unions, what is the military wanted to go union, and vote on if they want to fight overseas? How about the F.B.I, C.IA.?

    No public service is just that, I think you should earn the most you can with the best benefits you can get, I don’t knock the public workers for that, they do need representative protection, but the system now is insane.

  • Wilch go to Russia and you will see how much a load of bullshit unions ans their “workers of the world unite” crap gets them. Their guaranteed pensions and income cease to exist without free markets and fiscal restraint. They are all either in the private sector stacking mud for shit wages because the socialist Kremlin government or they work for the government and are told what they earn and if they don’t like it, they are thrown off of buildings. You think I am making this up? Go. Go and take a look around the corner. This nation of people never cease to amaze. You all take so much for granted. It is only when you lose everything that you will see how great you once had.

  • While it certainly was a poor choice of words, I don’t know what Peterson meant by “modern-day slavery.” If I say “modern-day television,” for example, it’s not nearly the same as television in the 50s, just as a modern-day computer is not the same as the computers used to land Neil Armstrong on the moon. Today’s “home computer” is more powerful than those used to get Armstrong to the moon.

    When I look at the situation with Lebron James. Certainly, the Cavs’ owner acted as if he “owned” Lebron after Lebron exercised his option to leave Cleveland. Even some fans act as if they “own” players, holding them up to standards that even they themselves have never attained. In that light, there is a certain aspect of human ownership.

  • Any comparison of this situation to slavery is utterly ridiculous. Did slaves get paid? Did slaves get to choose to be there? Did slaves have a union that could negotiate for them? Did slaves live in mansions?

    By your rationale, every company shows an aspect of human ownership. It is not that at all. It is the owner of a business having certain expectations of the workers that he has hired and that have chosen to be there.

    Was the Cavs owner out of line? Sure, but so was LeBron. He did opt out which was his right, but he did it on tv taking his talent to South Beach. And barring his add in the paper, he has continued to act unprofessionally (mostly through tweets) towards the people of Cleveland.

    I am not siding with the owners or the players, they are both at fault. But you can’t simply ignore one side of an argument, because you are so certain the other is right.

  • AP needs to pick up a history book or some literature based in that time period to realize how much of an idiot he sounds like.

  • I get what Peterson was trying to say. He should have just said what he meant instead of using such a bad analogy. Anyhow, the thing I really don’t like is when either side tries to play the victim. The owners acting like they aren’t making enough money and barely keeping their heads above water and the players acting like someone is keeping to captive and making them do stuff.

    My problem with statements like this is that now it’s convenient for a player to now relate himself to “regular” workers when playing the victim to act like their doing something heroic. But when people say “at my job, I can’t do that” or “you can’t do this in other job” the players and their defenders back off and not say “being a football player is different than those other jobs”. So which is it going to be? Don’t try to relate to “regular” workers when it’s to your benefit and make you look good but when someone makes a comparison about “regular” workers act like it’s totally different. You cannot play both sides of the fence and still make sense.

    Again, I do get what he was trying to illustrate but a very bad choice of words. But excuse me Adrian, if the “regular” worker doesn’t feel sympathetic to the plight of the NFL player. The NFLPA is just like any other union…. fighting for more money for their workers. And that is their right to do so. I see nothing wrong with that but please don’t act like you are doing something so heroic.

  • G, find Ryan Grant’s response to Peterson’s statement. You can clearly see who’s the more intelligent of the 2.

  • Scorpiodsu, good response. Adrian Peterson is not a labor leader/hero/working man. To call it slavery is to diminish what our response should be to our history of slavery. And Dw’s comment about the Cav’s owner’s response? It reminds me of the same old story of the bartender who winds up owning the bar. The owner was upset after giving millions and millions of dollars to Lebron James, and the guy not only walked but did the whole tv thing. The owner was pissed. Wouldn’t you be if that happened to you and you owned the team? Human ownership? Slavery?

  • AP should pick up a history book

  • Fan

    First, Dan Gilbert “gave” Lebron nothing. Lebron “earned” his money.

    Lebron fulfilled his contract. He became an elite NBA player. Just as you have the right to work for whomever you’d like, Lebron “earned” that right, within the framework of the NBA set-up. So, what gives Gilbert the right to be angry? He didn’t “own” Lebron. It was an employer-employee relationship.

  • I actually don’t see what Lebron James has to do with any of this. It wasn’t slavery then and it’s not slavery now. Was the owner out of line? Yes. But I still don’t see how that had anything to do with slavery or this situation. Just my thoughts.

  • If Peterson doesn’t like it, he is free to go get another job. Maybe he could sell real estate or be a short order cook. Who knows. He is not a slave because he can leave his job and go find another one. Oh and he gets paid for any job he wants to take.
    As for the union comments – I look at it this way. The unions were invented to be a counter to “the man”. But in this case, the union is “the man” – as they are the government. People don’t see the cozy relationship between the unions and the people they get elected with major contributions who in turn, give them above market contracts. No one is representing the taxpayer – it is a total scam that takes your money. Unions work in private industry because they provide a counterbalance to corporate management. In government, there is no counterbalance.

  • GCobb,

    I am waiting for him to start asking for money. Because you know 10 million doesn’t feed a family.

    The league needs a rookie salary scale and i think to eliminate the “no trade clause”.

    Eliminate back loaded salaries and limit them to 2-3 years tops. Regardless of the statistics.

    I blame the Owners for giving bogus contracts to underachieving players for this mess.

  • peterson has long sufferred from fumblitis , it has now spread to his mouth. he should concentrate on holding on to the ball and taking his check to the bank, now wait he doesn’t have a check. i am guessing as long as the checks were coming it wasn’t slavery!

  • Scorp

    In my opinion, there could be a distinct difference between the terms “slavery” and “modern-day slavery.” I believe that some people have a modern-day slavery attitude. That’s why I referenced Lebron’s situation.

  • dw – good you made that distinction, however, it is still a pretty terrible analogy. Any power an sports owner has over a player is limited to the sport. That’s IT. No owner controls any aspect of the players freedom except to sign with another team, and that’s ONLY once the player signs a contract. There are no contracts and limited context in slavery, old/original or modern slavery. PERIOD. Slavery never ended at the end of the workday. Still a terribly offbase and unconsionable comparison.

  • you don’t need to reference slavery to point out that owners/bosses have some form of power over their employees/players. Sometimes owner/boss power may be unfair at times, but that’s still ENTIRELY irrelevant to slavery. It’s more relevant to a big brother’s power over a little brother than slavery. Get a clue

  • drummer, I see but I still don’t think Lebron James parallels at all to the NFL labor problem. Just because between cry racism and slavery about 2 situations doesn’t mean they are related.

  • Schiller

    I stated that I felt it was a very poor choice of words. Further, I stated that I didn’t understand what he meant by the term “modern-day slavery.” He may not have been referring to what we know as slavery at all.

    To me, it’s similar to the McNabb “black-on-black crime” statement. I don’t think McNabb actually saw it as a crime. I think he was trying to say that blacks shouldn’t attack other blacks in the media because he felt blacks were attacked by other races too often.

    I understand that “racism” and “slavery” are very sensitive words to be used at any time.

  • Scorp

    Once again, I respect your opinion. I don’t know if there are any parallels or not, because I don’t understand what he meant.

    I don’t know about you, but I sometimes say things that don’t accurately reflect what I’m thinking.

  • My thing is that people make verbal mistakes all the time. Peterson made one, big deal. I don’t think unconscionable, nor do I think it makes him a bad person. Is there any person on the planet who’s never made a regrettable statement?

  • Sorry – should have been: “I don’t think it’s unconscionable.”

  • drumm, agreed, stupid things come out of most people’s mouths at some point. And this should be pushed aside and forgotten, he’s not a terrible person for it. But it is a good opportunity for everyone, including us fans, to take a step back and gain some perspective. The owners may be (probably) acting unfairly, greedily, using their power too much etc… same for the players, but in the big picutre, it’s just sports haggling over money.

  • Adrian Peterson..way to go…You made yourself and the NFL players look like A-Holes that couldn’t be more out of touch with reailty then they already are. I didn’t know there were slaves making 10 million plus a year back in the day. If AP or “any other modern day NFL slave player” continues to feel this way well guess what…just stop playing football. Nobody forced you to play in the NFL and make millions and millions of dollars. Go find anther job. Your overrated anyway, AP.

    ” Well, show us.’ We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want,” Why not? Obviously, there’s a lot to hide — these guys are professionals, and they’re maximizing what they do. But they know that if all this information comes out, the information the players want, it’ll be right out there for everyone to see”

    Really, are you kidding me? The owners are filthy rich because of the fans. The players, including you AP, are filthy rich because of the fans.

    Hey AP, why don’t you open your books to me or all of the other NFL fans around the country. Why dont all the NFL players open their books to the fans so we can see where our money is going? Im sure fans would be thrilled if we saw the players books and saw where players are spending our cash in their daily events. Like you said AP, if you have nothing to hide then it shouldnt be a problem. The more and more this ridiculous childish media feud goes on between the owners and players the more and more it comes out that the owners and players dont care about the fans who are making both of them rich.

  • Yes, I would like to see the owners open their books but if that happens I would also like to see the players open their books as well. Its ridiculous how players are demanding the owners to open their books so them and everyone else could see how owners spend their money on a daily basis and bag them on how they need more. Most of the players are hypocrites and are just as bad as the owners which most of them don’t realize. Can you imagine if the world saw the players books and saw how they spend their money (that they get from us fans) on a daily basis? Both parties are acting foolish and the more this goes on the more it shows that both of them are missing the main point…the NFL fan.

  • Drummer, I agree with you that people make stupid statements in their lives but if he said this then he probably feels someway in a close perspective to it. Other NFL players probably feel the same way as him but just dont say it in the public. Thats the real issue that fans will have. No fans want to know that NFL payers making 10 million plus a year feel that way especially when that money is coming from our pockets. Explain to me why if they feel this way they don’t just stop playing football if its treated them and their lives so bad?

  • pheags – wait a minute bud. The players ‘books’ ARE open. The ‘books’ the players want to see from the owners are all the financial flow from revenue to players’ salaries that the owners keep track of. NOT what the owners do with their profits. The players don’t have ‘books’. They have salaries. This is not about what people, be it owners or players, do with their salaries. It’s about what portion of NFL revenue goes to players. That’s part of the owners’ books.

    The players don’t have any ‘books’ to show – their salaries are already public.

  • Schiller, I agree but it has become what people do with their money. Players want to see why the owners need more money than they already have. They want to see what the owners are spending on, to see what they need more money for.

    “But they know that if all this information comes out, the information the players want, it’ll be right out there for everyone to see”

    Yes, you are right when you say we know what players make in their contracts but we don’t know entirely what they spend money on on a daily basis. Ap makes 10 plus million a year. Im sure one year of his contract would be more than enough for you or me to live off of for the rest of our lives but yet most of these players are broke by the time their 40. And that goes for the owners too.

    Im only saying this because their the ones that are demanding the owners to open their books completely in which in return is stopping football from happenning next year. The fact is their just employees like anyone else with a job. If you or me went into our jobs tomorrow and demanded our boss to open their books and show their profits for the last decades we would be shown the door in a heart beat. The fact is neither side cares about the NFL fan and both of their greed is ruining the NFL.

  • Anyone that thinks they know anything about modern-day slavery is wrong. Modern-day slavery is as rampant as ‘slavery’ was back in the 1840. Slavery – modern or 1800s, or 1600s is where one person ‘owns’ another person. The ‘owned’ person must trade there labors, in the fields, in a sweat shop, or as a sex slave, for the economic advantage of the owner. While this may sound like a situation (hey, football player, owner, economic advantage…) it is flat out wrong and just plain ignorant to fail to recognize that in the this case the player has the right to 1) quit and walk away at any time 2) benefits including a (hefty) salary 3) the right to negotiate his working conditions. Slaves do not have this right – as a matter of fact, as slaves – even modern day, they have no rights. Read the State Department annual report on trafficing in humans if you think modern day slavery does not exist.

    I right this becuase I am furious that idiots (yes, I am calling Peterson an idiot) would somehow compare there situation, a food fight over 9 billion dollars, and compare it to a tragedy like human sex slavery…

    Mr Cobb, glad you called him on it. I think every supposed writer should call him out on it and he should be forced to apologize for his childish and immature comments.

  • Pay me the slave wages of Peterson.

  • some field hens never learn…..

  • navyeaglefan,

    modern day slavery is call marriage….

  • It is a stretch for Peterson to make his case on this topic. However, I have often wondered if this argument could be made at all.

    As you all know, slavery in the 1700 and1800’s was the norm. But I think we overlook the fact that anyone who thought differently about slavery was subject to ridicule and ostracism. Even as arguments started pouring out against slavery, those who fought for the freedoms of the black community, were considered to be off their rockers. My point is; the initial accusation on any moral topic is always subject to being labeled outlandish at first when it goes against the cultural norms.

    Navyeaglefan pointed out how modern day slavery still exists in the world today. And he is 100% correct on his statements. All except for his very first sentence, (sorry bro, you are not the only educated American, lol). However, navy is dead on with his points. But I have to ask this to all, is it possible that the faces of slavery is changing, regardless of the monies made? I am not saying the athletes are subject to the same lifestyles of the slaves from the 1800’s. I am just asking is it possible that the face of slavery in America has changed?

    I am in no way saying our players are subject to the torment of the underground slave trade that exists here or abroad. What I am suggesting is the possibility, that the owners are in fact using contracts and legal venues to keep players under control. A kid out of college gets drafted to a team he may not want to be part of. Before the CBA, if I remember correctly, the players were allowed no freedom until their 6th year in the league to choose their own team. If I hate my job, I find a new company in the same field of expertise. Players don’t get that opportunity until FA.

    I am not saying the NFL is a new slave trade, I am wondering if anyone can polish up the argument to make the case that it is a new face of slavery?

  • Ct- my question is this – it seems to me that you’re trying to make the point that the owners/front office has the power over the player while under contract. Ok, fair point. But why do you still want to work the word slavery into it? What motivates you to make your point about contracts being restrictive with the specific word slavery? The player who ‘isn’t FREE’ to switch teams at his leisure is in that position because THEY SIGNED A CONTRACT. A contract makes the word slavery irrelevant. Entirely. Why do you still want to use the word slavery?

    We need contract, otherwise players would be up and changing teams at their will. How would there be any order? Guy doesnt’ get ball thrown to him one week – he’s ‘out’ for another team. Total chaos.

    This has NOTHING, let me be clear, AT ALL, to do with slavery. Of ANY kind of ANY time. Can you argue otherwise? Show me if so

  • CT – OK, you got me. I have been involved in several job related issues dealing with trafficking in persons, underage sex rings, slave labor factories/field hands, and forced domestic service (cooking, cleaning etc.). And for some guy that gets paid how many million (I think his wages are higher then the GDP of Haiti) to evoke slavery offended me.

    But all sports have some sort of lottery/draft. I don’t think anyone will allow that entering the NFL draft is a form of slavery. If you don’t want to be drafted, tell al the scouts to go screw themselves, don’t do the combine, tell every team you will never play for them, and then sign as an undrafted FA to whatever team you want. Can’t have your cake (not being able to pick the team you want) and eat it too (get first round draft money)

    It was a stupid comment by Peterson and he needs to be called on it.

  • The use of the word slavery by AP adds a hint of “racism” to the labor negotiations. Very jive! Laughable.

    And there are lots of people who can’t find an appropriate job in their line of work, and so they get a job in another. There is no lack of choice or slavery here. People must be responsible for what they say. If they are not called out on it, they will never learn and things will never change.

  • Schiller, the definition of slavery in the Webster dictionary is; “submission to a dominating influence.” The reason I bring up the definition is to make sure the meaning is clear.
    In the mean time, it’s not that I am trying to work the word into this subject. It is the subject brought up by Peterson.

    My motivation stems from curiosity. I have noticed that the academic world always adjusts definitions of words to suit their purpose and arguments. I am just curious to see if anyone on this board has thought the same as me and has already put more thought into the idea.

    I agree with you on the signed contract. If players had the freedom to come and go as they please, the NFL would be in a state of total chaos. However, the CBA helped to control how long a team could hold onto a player. Before the CBA existed, a player that came out of college and is 23 to 24 years of age was under the thumb the team that drafted him for 6 years, which effectively eliminated said player from seeking out a better situation in his youth and prime. The players had to submit to the dominating owners, or not play at all. So, you are right that the idea of slavery from the 1800’s is not relevant here. I am just wondering if a new form is slavery is beginning or has already begun. I am just curious to see if anyone else else has a more solid argument to strengthen Peterson’s claim. Trust me, I really am not the one to do it…at least not today. I have another argument to go put together on euthanasia for a Philosophy class…..lol.

  • Based on GCobb’s avoidance of anything close to a racial topic, I was surprised to see this article. After reading it, there was little doubt that the article would touch peoples’ very souls.

    Shouts to CT, Schiller and Navy, but my absolute favorite blog came from Reed Richards who said, “modern day slavery is called marriage….”

Comments are closed.