Why does an athlete need $30m instead of $20m?

[Red Dragon]

Not another Dak thread - but someone please explain to me, from the perspective of a pro athlete, just what makes $30 million/year so badly necessary more than $20 million/year?

Yes, I know, more is always better. Yes I know, inflation. But there is virtually nothing you can want with $30 million/year that you couldn't have with $20 million/year, especially considering that there is no state income tax in Texas (unlike, say, an athlete in California or New York). You want big mansions? You got 'em - you can buy several every year. You want Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches, Corvettes, Bugattis, Maseratis? You can buy a dozen each year. You want hordes of women flocking to you? Well, you would have had that with even just $2 million a year, let alone $20 million. You want to send your kids to private school, make sure your family is financially set for life? Again, you sure don't need an income of $30 million a year to do that.

This isn't even taking into account the fact that many such athletes are making plenty of money on the side through advertisements, endorsements, and other ancillary income.

Where I'm going with this is: The difference between $20 million/year and $30 million/year is virtually nil for a pro athlete - either way, he's positively bathing in wealth. But it makes a big difference to a pro team's salary cap, on the other hand. The $10 million difference could mean the difference between an NFL team being able to sign additional talent that could propel them over the top, or not being able to.

Is it simply about "Such-and-such an athlete got so-and-so much, so I want just as much?" Or, "I want to be THE highest paid so I can feel like No. 1?"

 

[glimmerman]

Cause it’s the going rate. Lol. They usually take care of there families and blow through some. A lot end up broke.

 

[TexasHillbilly]

Can you say "market"?

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Playing football is a perishable skill. You almost certainly won't be able to do it anymore at age 40. Even the rare athlete who can still do it at 40 won't be doing it at 50. An NFL athlete will therefore look to make as much money as possible while he still has the skills. Once he's too old or too injured it will be too late.

I do agree with you that 20 million is a huge amount of money which I would be happy with, but the athletes are going for as much as the market will bear, so they'll get that 30 mil if they can.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Not another Dak thread - but someone please explain to me, from the perspective of a pro athlete, just what makes $30 million so badly necessary more than $20 million?

Yes, I know, more is always better. Yes I know, inflation. But there is virtually nothing you can want with $30 million that you couldn't have with $20 million, especially considering that there is no state income tax in Texas (unlike, say, an athlete in California or New York). You want big mansions? You got 'em - you can buy several every year. You want Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches? You can buy a dozen each year. You want hordes of women flocking to you? Well, you would have had that with even just $2 million a year, let alone $20 million. You want to send your kids to private school, make sure your family is financially set for life? Again, you sure don't need an income of $30 million a year to do that.

This isn't even taking into account the fact that many such athletes are making plenty of money on the side through advertisements, endorsements, and other ancillary income.

Where I'm going with this is: The difference between $20 million and $30 million is virtually nil for a pro athlete - either way, he's positively bathing in wealth. But it makes a big difference to a pro team's salary cap, on the other hand. The $10 million difference could mean the difference between an NFL team being able to sign additional talent that could propel them over the top, or not being able to.

Is it simply about "Such-and-such an athlete got so-and-so much, so I want just as much?" Or, "I want to be THE highest paid so I can feel like No. 1?"

Would you rather have $30 or $20? Would you rather have $300 or $200? Would you rather have $3,000 or $2,000? It's simple math. When you are talking about trying to create generational wealth for you and your family, it means a bunch. Over 20 years, the difference in one $10 million dollar investment with compounding interest could be the difference in over $100 million for average performing, index-based mutual funds.

 

[Red Dragon]

Would you rather have $30 or $20? Would you rather have $300 or $200? Would you rather have $3,000 or $2,000? It's simple math.

This is different, though - diminishing returns. For someone who earns only $20,000 a year, getting their salary bumped up to $30,000 a year is a hugely meaningful raise. But at a certain point, filthy rich is just filthy rich; $20m/year vs. $30m/year.

By analogy, if you win a $200 million Powerball jackpot, you probably wouldn't be any less delighted than if you won a $300 million Powerball jackpot - either way, you're rich beyond your all-but-wildest dreams.

 

[sean10mm]

Why do the OWNERS grub for every extra penny they can get when they're already billionaires? It's funny how nobody asks that, but quibbles over players getting millions for accepting actual risk of harm on the field.

Owners have a lifetime to earn more money too, while players on average just have a few years.

In normal life if you ask a guy why he doesn't work for less and he'll tell you to pound sand. In that respect the mindset of the players is no different than anybody else.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Is there, like, a book that outlines the "market" somewhere? I keep hearing things like going rate and Market Value but I haven't really seen anything that dictates you have to pay anybody anything, in terms of set contract values.

IDK

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Not another Dak thread - but someone please explain to me, from the perspective of a pro athlete, just what makes $30 million/year so badly necessary more than $20 million/year?

Yes, I know, more is always better. Yes I know, inflation. But there is virtually nothing you can want with $30 million/year that you couldn't have with $20 million/year, especially considering that there is no state income tax in Texas (unlike, say, an athlete in California or New York). You want big mansions? You got 'em - you can buy several every year. You want Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches, Corvettes, Bugattis, Maseratis? You can buy a dozen each year. You want hordes of women flocking to you? Well, you would have had that with even just $2 million a year, let alone $20 million. You want to send your kids to private school, make sure your family is financially set for life? Again, you sure don't need an income of $30 million a year to do that.

This isn't even taking into account the fact that many such athletes are making plenty of money on the side through advertisements, endorsements, and other ancillary income.

Where I'm going with this is: The difference between $20 million/year and $30 million/year is virtually nil for a pro athlete - either way, he's positively bathing in wealth. But it makes a big difference to a pro team's salary cap, on the other hand. The $10 million difference could mean the difference between an NFL team being able to sign additional talent that could propel them over the top, or not being able to.

Is it simply about "Such-and-such an athlete got so-and-so much, so I want just as much?" Or, "I want to be THE highest paid so I can feel like No. 1?"

egos. self worth. competing against your peers. I think I agree withyou in principal. Brady has always taken less....his focus in on winning championships. he knows he can ask for $40 mill a year and no body would blink and say he is not worth it (just using a high number, so don't get hung up on the actual number). but he wants to win championships and he knows if he asks for that money he can't win them....he can have anything he wants, but championships he has to earn and win.

its also this thing between owners and players....players saying they don't get what they deserver and owners wanting more..... but that's a false...because there is a cap. at that point they are just taking money from each other...

 

[Red Dragon]

Why do the OWNERS grub for every extra penny they can get when they're already billionaires? It's funny how nobody asks that, but quibbles over players getting millions for accepting actual risk of harm on the field.

Owners have a lifetime to earn more money too, while players on average just have a few years.

In normal life if you ask a guy why he doesn't work for less and he'll tell you to pound sand. In that respect the mindset of the players is no different than anybody else.

The difference is that NFL owners don't have an "owner salary cap." Whereas NFL players have to have their salaries all fit under a cap. If one player gets an extra $10 million a year, then that's less money available to pay the other 52 players on the roster, which equals less ability to keep talent on the roster, and less chance of a championship. It's a zero-sum thing. More here means less there.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

This is different, though - diminishing returns. For someone who earns only $20,000 a year, getting their salary bumped up to $30,000 a year is a hugely meaningful raise. But at a certain point, filthy rich is just filthy rich; $20m/year vs. $30m/year.

By analogy, if you win a $200 million Powerball jackpot, you probably wouldn't be any less delighted than if you won a $300 million Powerball jackpot - either way, you're rich beyond your all-but-wildest dreams.

1. $300 million will last longer than $200 million. You can do more with it. Again, simple math. If you want to fund cancer research, you can fund cancer research. If you want to support your local non-profit/school/university/whatever, you have more means to do so. This idea of "filthy rich" is laughable.

 

[sean10mm]

Is there, like, a book that outlines the "market" somewhere? I keep hearing things like going rate and Market Value but I haven't really seen anything that dictates you have to pay anybody anything, in terms of set contract values.

IDK

No, there's just a recognition that somebody will pay for your players if you won't. Of course you never really know what a guy's market value is until he's cut loose and all the teams can freely fight over (or ignore) him.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why do the OWNERS grub for every extra penny they can get when they're already billionaires? It's funny how nobody asks that, but quibbles over players getting millions for accepting actual risk of harm on the field.

Owners have a lifetime to earn more money too, while players on average just have a few years.

In normal life if you ask a guy why he doesn't work for less and he'll tell you to pound sand. In that respect the mindset of the players is no different than anybody else.

Owners take all the risk. Players do not. I am not trying to make the point that players don't have skin in the game because they do but owners really do bare the overwhelming burden of risk and because of this, they make more money.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

This is different, though - diminishing returns. For someone who earns only $20,000 a year, getting their salary bumped up to $30,000 a year is a hugely meaningful raise. But at a certain point, filthy rich is just filthy rich; $20m/year vs. $30m/year.

By analogy, if you win a $200 million Powerball jackpot, you probably wouldn't be any less delighted than if you won a $300 million Powerball jackpot - either way, you're rich beyond your all-but-wildest dreams.

That's a good point. For me at least, I would think once the money gets way up there, I would consider other aspects of the deal, for example, your chances of winning a championship. If I were offered 30 million to play for the Browns or 20 million to play for the Patriots, I would probably go with the Patriots. At least I think I would. Who knows if I were in that situation maybe I would agonize over that extra 10 million and think playing for a crappy team may make it worth it. I'd doubt it. There are other factors too such as location and weather. Would you rather be in the nice weather of Miami or freezing your buns off in Buffalo? Some players probably will make the money their total bottom line while others may consider other factors. Maybe you've already earned your millions but have never gotten a championship, so you go for the best team that will sign you. There's no one right answer. But it would be tough for a lot of players to say no to that extra ten million.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No, there's just a recognition that somebody will pay for your players if you won't. Of course you never really know what a guy's market value is until he's cut loose and all the teams can freely fight over (or ignore) him.

Agreed. I don't think Dak's value is where a lot of our fan base think it is, around the league. I mean, there is no doubt in my mind that he has significant value but not what we, as a fan base believe, I think. I will say this though, if he continues to develop, he could easily reach that type of value in a couple of seasons.

That's just my opinion.

 

[JoeKing]

This is generational money. The difference the OP is asking for is how many generations that money supports.

 

[sean10mm]

Most players don't care about the salary cap or winning a championship. They want to get paid as much as they can for their work. That's literally all of it.

Owners take all the risk. Players do not. I am not trying to make the point that players don't have skin in the game because they do but owners really do bare the overwhelming burden of risk and because of this, they make more money.

Your concept of risk is very different from mine. The players risk being permanently disabled. The owners risk the numbers in a ledger being slightly smaller. This isn't the 1960s when owners were basically making a long shot bets with their family savings or whatever, the NFL is free money even if you're a moron nowadays.

Edit to add: The BROWNS have been profitable this whole time hahaha

 

[kskboys]

Would you rather have $30 or $20? Would you rather have $300 or $200? Would you rather have $3,000 or $2,000? It's simple math. When you are talking about trying to create generational wealth for you and your family, it means a bunch. Over 20 years, the difference in one $10 million dollar investment with compounding interest could be the difference in over $100 million for average performing, index-based mutual funds.

Would you rather have 20 million and win a super bowl, or 30 million and finish last? That's a more relevant question.

 

[viman96]

Respect. Athletes want to feel their efforts are respected the same as their peers.

 

[kskboys]

1. $300 million will last longer than $200 million. You can do more with it. Again, simple math. If you want to fund cancer research, you can fund cancer research. If you want to support your local non-profit/school/university/whatever, you have more means to do so. This idea of "filthy rich" is laughable.

Not true. Unless you are really stupid and spend the principle, both last your lifetime plus.

And there's really not much you can do w/ 300 mil that you can't do w/ 200 mill.