Yeah, it's not the same principle. I'm not sure what you do for a living, but sports is a zero sum game - either you win or you don't, there's not levels to success like there is in business. I don't disagree with your stance - I work for a small independent in my industry, which is comprised almost entirely of people that formerly worked for the big corporate national competitors and they made that change (and likely sacrificed a little $) for the lifestyle change. They can work here and be just as personally successful as they were at their old employer. That's a little different in my view than saying "I'm going to a shitty team because I got tired of the culture and am ok with playing out the string. Oh, by the way, they gave me an extra $15M, but that had nothing to do with it."I can believe this. And honestly, winning-is-everything just isn't for everyone. Personally, I'd be fine if my company was third in market share if it was a great place to work and I loved being there. I don't have to "win" all the time. It's not sports but it's the same principle. There are some players who want to win above all else and are willing to be "all football, all the time, remorselessly" guys, and there are others who say, "Yeah, winning matters to me but I want the freedom to speak out, I want to have more enjoyment at my job so winning isn't EVERYTHING".
As someone else stated, I don't question Theo's story or that Solder even weighs that more as some kind of self-justification for leaving. And I harbor no ill will to him, players should grab the money they can, while they can. I'm just doubting that it's not hindsight a bit and that if the Pats had matched, he wouldn't have come back.