Brett Favre and I were born two weeks apart in 1969. This means that Favre is a 38 years old – and as my wife likes to note – “rapidly approaching 40”. Unlike Favre, my football days ended sometime in the 1980s (or was it the 1970s?).
Favre managed to continue playing football until 2008. A few months ago, though, Favre bid farewell to the NFL. And as John Elway noted when he retired, this means that Favre was never going to play football again (in other words, Michael Jordan could go out today and play basketball. Favre can’t really call up a bunch of friends and play anything close to an NFL game at a local park.).
Now that a few months have passed, though, Favre has had second thoughts. This week he has announced that he would like to come back and play another season.
This presents a problem for the Green Bay Packers. On the one hand, Favre was the face of the franchise since 1992. Consequently, Green Bay feels they owe Favre something (and plus he played well last year, so it’s not like he’s not capable of playing anymore). On the other hand, Green Bay has spent the off-season preparing Aaron Rodgers to play starting quarterback in 2008. And it may not be too easy to tell Rodgers to wait another year.
This dilemma has led Favre to offer a simple solution. According to Favre, the Packers can simply release him. This gives Favre a chance to play more football and the Packers the opportunity to continue their off-season plan.
This solution, though, is not appealing to many football fans and sportswriters. For fans it appears possible that Favre will “tarnish his legacy” by playing for another team (currently 53% of fans express this sentiment at ESPN.com).
As an economist, I thought I would apply a bit of cost-benefit analysis to Favre’s position. On the one hand, if the Packers do as Favre asks he will be able to continue to play football (that’s a benefit to Favre). And he will get paid (that’s also a benefit to Favre). On the other hand, some fans will think less of him (this is supposed to be a cost to Favre).
To understand these costs and benefits, imagine the following scenario. Let’s say the NFL decides to increase its revenue by approaching 38 year-old men and asking: How much would you pay us (the league) to play quarterback in the NFL? Now many 38 year old men are probably in no condition to play professional football. In fact, if they tried they would not only look silly, but they might get seriously hurt. And both of these outcomes could “tarnish their legacy.” Nevertheless, I think the NFL would have no trouble auctioning off the opportunity to play professional quarterback.
With this scenario in mind, let’s go back to Favre. Favre is not asking to pay to play. He would just like to continue to play a game he loves (and for which he has some talent). And in addition to getting to play, Favre also knows he will collect a few more dollars.
Given the obvious benefits to Favre, and what we now see are the very silly costs suggested by fans and sportswriters, I say Favre should do what he wants. If he wants to play, then come back and play. If fans don’t like this, too bad. Again, I am sure many of these same fans would pay money for the opportunity to be in Favre’s position.
Let me close by noting that Favre probably shouldn’t have retired in the first place. As I tell my wife, 38 is really not that old. Nor should it be thought of as “rapidly approaching 40.”
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
scipio202
July 12, 2008
There are strategic costs for the Packers, however. Several reports have suggested that the Minnesota Vikings would be Favre’s first choice to sign with if released. The Packers would certainly not like to see a division rival get better, particularly by addressing their biggest weakness. The Packers have said Favre can come back (and get paid $12.5 million), but he’ll be a backup to Rodgers. Alternately, they may try to trade him to a team that is less of a threat. Favre has a right to try and play, but the Packers also have a right to protect their aspirations for the year.
Kent
July 12, 2008
This is a really interesting post and why I continue to love this blog. When I took economics I couldn’t see how the theory applied to the realworld. When I read this blog though I can.
Jeremy
July 12, 2008
The bottom line still is, though, that the Packers have been preparing the entire offseason for Brett’s retirement, and the subsequent handing of the reigns over to Aaron Rodgers, who they have invested first round money in. At some point, they will need to get some return on that investment. I do not have any of the figures, but given the “god-like” status that Favre has in Wisconsin, and many other places in America, I am sure the investment the Packers have made to Brett over the past 16 years has paid off handsomely for them.
But you cannot blame them for moving on, on any level.
Jeremy
July 12, 2008
For the record, I also believe that Favre is, and has been overrated for some time now. He has been surpassed IMO by Brady and Manning, even just to this point in their careers.
Anon
July 13, 2008
Favre may be overrated, but even at this point in his career, I’d still rather have him as my quarterback over all but a few people in the league