Deion Sinks To New Lows

[RastaRocket]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

That's a flimsy argument. The league could pay the guys half of what they do now and still go bankrupt if they were horrible in managing their finances in so many other ways that it basically ate through every cent they earned and then some.

The league could also pay these guys a ton more and still stay afloat if they were so successful at managing their finances that they could overcome the large cost of employer salary.

What about at the break even point? What do we consider them to be at this point?

Seems like the issue isn't nearly so black-and-white but rather many shades of grey. Staying afloat or stagnating and growing at a fast rate both avoid bankruptcy but the players are compensated as the market dictates and as such are not overpaid?


[View Full Quote]And that's just a look at the idea that players are worth whatever they are paid up until the point of bankruptcy for the league............but still kind of raises the question as to why the players would be overpaid in such scenario like this when the market has clearly dictated the ridiculous salaries in the first place and it's still quite possible that players salaries were the main culprit for bankruptcy.

There are other things in play as well.

There are times when the market doesn't solely dictate pay. Al Davis didn't sign DeAngelo Hall to that ridiculous contract because that was the going rate for a CB. He did it because he was an idiot and while it didn't occur in this case, instances where teams overpay for players to great extents has an impact on the average of the top 5 salaries if that players falls into that bracket.

Team A: For whatever reason pays way more than they should have or what anyone else would have for a specific player. Player's salary increases the average of the top 5, thereby raising the cost of the franchise tag.

Team B: Applies the franchise tag to a player and is stuck having to pay the additional bump in the base salary because Team A was stupid.

Also, throw in the fact that a player could actually be paid less than what his perceived value might be on an annual but because of the structure of the contract he is sitting in a year where his base salary falls into the Top 5 for his position. His average annual salary is below this point for any season but for that given year, it raises the tag price for the following year.

A guy who is viewed as underpaid raises the price for other players? Doesn't seem to fit the model idea too well.

This is actually part of the reason Dallas' contract structure with Austin was so ridiculous. It raised the average of the Top 5 by like 1M, IIRC.

Essentially, market value is not a simple reflection of supply and demand and is partly determined by how each of the 32 teams write their contracts which is largely a result of how much cap space they have.....which in itself is heavily influenced by previous bad signings for which they still have to pay in cap space, which is ultimate the limiting factor in player acquisition.


I'll gladly admit I'm no authority in the realm of economics so perhaps these same variables are present in all business. I just don't think you can conclude they are paid at an appropriate level by citing supply and demand.

One thing I will say that completely refutes the idea of what the market demands indicating appropriate pay is the implementation of the rookie wage scale.

The market was demanding these guys get record contracts every year. If that's what the market demands, why did they slot pay these guys? The market was dictating these prices and the NFL wasn't going bankrupt. Doesn't that mean they were paid appropriately? The conclusion is obvious, those guys were overpaid regardless of what price the market had set. Had they not changed things, Andrew Luck would likely have a $90M contract on his hands.

The distribution they agreed to in the new CBA.

We are actually studying wage determination in professional sports in my Labor Economics class. Later in the semester I will have a more educated answer. We have already covered it in a brief course overview and ultimately from what I can remember it comes down to the Labor Market supply and demand (like everything). It's a rare skilled labor that brings in massive revenue (low supply, high demand) so the price of athletes is traditionally always very high (demand). Just look at the difference between superstar salaries and league minimum salaries. Most of the money is made by the players in highest demand. The rookie wage scale is the equivalent of the government (the owners) putting a price ceiling on the market. Price floor would be the minimum salary. It helps spread the money to the veteran players who have earned it.

It has all the properties of any other market in which equilibrium comes down to supply and demand.

[Galian Beast]

Originally Posted by RastaRocket

The distribution they agreed to in the new CBA.

We are actually studying wage determination in professional sports in my Labor Economics class. Later in the semester I will have a more educated answer. We have already covered it in a brief course overview and ultimately from what I can remember it comes down to the Labor Market supply and demand (like everything). It's a rare skilled labor that brings in massive revenue (low supply, high demand) so the price of athletes is traditionally always very high (demand). Just look at the difference between superstar salaries and league minimum salaries. Most of the money is made by the players in highest demand. The rookie wage scale is the equivalent of the government (the owners) putting a price ceiling on the market. Price floor would be the minimum salary. It helps spread the money to the veteran players who have earned it.

[View Full Quote]It has all the properties of any other market in which equilibrium comes down to supply and demand.

None of that addresses the overall market itself being overvalued.

[BHendri5]

Concussions are real in football and other sports. But Deion is telling the truth alot of these old Vets are trying to get a payday. They are jealous of the money that the now day players are getting

[BHendri5]

Concussions are real in football and other sports. But Deion is telling the truth alot of these old Vets are trying to get a payday. They are jealous of the money that the now day players are getting.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by BHendri5

Concussions are real in football and other sports. But Deion is telling the truth alot of these old Vets are trying to get a payday. They are jealous of the money that the now day players are getting

Even the one's who outline their donation wishes, in terms of their brain, in their suicide notes?

[RastaRocket]

Originally Posted by Galian Beast

None of that addresses the overall market itself being overvalued.

Why is it overvalued? It's a huge market. Ticket sales, TV contracts, merchandise, etc... I don't see why it would be overvalued.

Do you think they are using fake money?

In contrast look at the MLS. Five years ago there was guys making 20k a year to play professionally. It's getting better now, and the average is about 150,000 I believe but that's with increased popularity.

[RastaRocket]

Also, we are all forgetting about the players making the league minimum or close to it. Such as special teams players. They aren't by any means rich and they are out there for some of the most dangerous plays in the game. These are the real players who need help after football.

[Galian Beast]

Originally Posted by RastaRocket

Why is it overvalued? It's a huge market. Ticket sales, TV contracts, merchandise, etc... I don't see why it would be overvalued.

Do you think they are using fake money?

In contrast look at the MLS. Five years ago there was guys making 20k a year to play professionally. It's getting better now, and the average is about 150,000 I believe but that's with increased popularity.

Because they have local governments subsidize their stadiums, because they receive tax exemptions, because they are a major part of price fixing along with telecoms? Because their allowed to get a great deal of their talent due to a system created in favor of their profession?

[RastaRocket]

Originally Posted by Galian Beast

Because they have local governments subsidize their stadiums, because they receive tax exemptions, because they are a major part of price fixing along with telecoms? Because their allowed to get a great deal of their talent due to a system created in favor of their profession?

Maybe there is a reason cities want these huge NFL stadiums. Look at Arlington.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/cowbo...ears-early.ece

With the tax exemptions, you can think the NFL-AFL merger which made it a law they were tax exempt.

Either way, the NFL is a massive cash cow so yes they are going to have fat wallets.

[NIBGoldenchild]

Originally Posted by Galian Beast

I grow increasingly frustrated by people's unwillingness to read that which has already been posted.

Well we surely can't have you frustrated....oh no....

Maybe I need to rephrase the question, give me a VALID reason why the NFL is artificially bloated? Because having TV revenue, that by itself, surpasses the total revenue of the NFL's competition would call your argument laughable.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by RastaRocket

The distribution they agreed to in the new CBA.

I was talking about break even at the entire league level in terms of making spending exactly as much as they make, not in terms of an equal split between the owners and players.

We are actually studying wage determination in professional sports in my Labor Economics class. Later in the semester I will have a more educated answer. We have already covered it in a brief course overview and ultimately from what I can remember it comes down to the Labor Market supply and demand (like everything). It's a rare skilled labor that brings in massive revenue (low supply, high demand) so the price of athletes is traditionally always very high (demand).

I'm not saying it isn't high. I haven't said they are overpaid either, although I think it's pretty obvious that some are and some are not and in general they are paid too much.

The "rare skill" doesn't apply to all the players. The difference between Jesse Holley making a team was a stupid reality show. He earned the right to retain his spot by being guy who just did his job but lets not think for a moment that his skillset was so unique that he would have made it without that show.

A lot of guys are simply athletes, which isn't all that rare. Even more are just big guys which is far from a skillset but admittedly a desirable attribute.

Just look at the difference between superstar salaries and league minimum salaries. Most of the money is made by the players in highest demand.

Which in one way is an example of the "rarity" you keep talking about in that the guys who are absolutely the best are rare while the guys filling the last couple roster spots are often times guys who haven't really done much more than thousands of other college players except maybe show off a little bit more speed in a spandex suit.

Very little separates a guy at the bottom of the roster and a guy who's sitting at home watching the games and waiting for a phone call from a team who just lost a player. Ernie Simms is one such guy and his rare talent was on the couch until Dallas lost guys. Many times, the difference between in or out is just having someone give you a chance.

The rookie wage scale is the equivalent of the government (the owners) putting a price ceiling on the market. Price floor would be the minimum salary. It helps spread the money to the veteran players who have earned it.

I understand it's a price ceiling. I'm asking why was it put in there. Don't fool yourself and think the owners really care about getting older players a little more cash. That was the tradeoff they accepted in order to protect themselves from having to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to a group of players who haven't even set foot on the field, many of whom will fail out. That was the tradeoff for not having to make these guys overpaid from the moment they signed a contract, even though the reality is many of them are anyways.

As far as veterans go, if we look at supply and demand there are far more veterans available than there are rookies so from that perspective, spreading more money to the pool of players that is far larger and could be viewed as more susceptible to market powers (thank rookies, their pay is what it is) just doesn't make sense. You have a larger supply of veterans, less demand for those who have significant time accrued and aren't really standout players because they cost so much more than a rookie free agent or mid-late round pick based purely on base salary.

It has all the properties of any other market in which equilibrium comes down to supply and demand.

Sure. And plenty of properties that aren't.

Price ceilings and price floors. Salary cap, franchise tags, contract structure and in some cases an inability to let your demand for a specific player drop by cutting him when he sucks because you're going to be held accountable for it.

You liquidate your assets according to supply and demand, you've lost or gained the difference in acquisition price and sale price.....generally speaking. If you've gained, you can now acquire more of a product that you now demand than you would have been able to without dumping your supply of whatever it was that you no longer demanded.

In the NFL if you "liquidate" (not in a true sense but practical one in that you rid yourself of him just as you would rid yourself of a product) a guy like Doug Free you've not only lost the real money spent on him, you've lost the amount of available imaginary money that you have to work with which ultimately limits your ability to spend real money.

[CowboysYanksLakers]

Wow... This is pathetic on Sanders part.

[Galian Beast]

Originally Posted by RastaRocket

Maybe there is a reason cities want these huge NFL stadiums. Look at Arlington.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/cowbo...ears-early.ece

With the tax exemptions, you can think the NFL-AFL merger which made it a law they were tax exempt.

Either way, the NFL is a massive cash cow so yes they are going to have fat wallets.

There are plenty of reasons why cities want huge nfl stadiums, and there is also reasons why major cities like Dallas and Boston end up passing on them.

And lobbying congress for tax exempt status is exactly my point...

I think you missed the point completely..

Originally Posted by NIBGoldenchild

Well we surely can't have you frustrated....oh no....

Maybe I need to rephrase the question, give me a VALID reason why the NFL is artificially bloated? Because having TV revenue, that by itself, surpasses the total revenue of the NFL's competition would call your argument laughable.

another person who missed the point.

Having tv revenue? Is that what I said? No, I said that they are involved in price fixing and gain much of their revenue from that. Thank you for helping to make my point.