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

[rags747]

The CEO or owner of Walmart or some other corporations are paid market value, but the owner of an NFL team is greedy and evil and must be stopped?


Far too many people with less developed brains are making big money because they can run fast with a ball. They’re also defended far too often by people with less developed brains, which is interesting.

Will you answer one question? What’s more important, the “market value” of a 25 year old athlete, or the true value of a teacher, nurse, firefighter, police officer, or veteran?

All legitimate and good solid jobs. All of those will have good retirement plans and excellent benefits. With the right moves anyone in those job categories should be able to do rather well in life. Teacher and nurse is more difficult to become than a firefighter or police man. Teachers in our district have a 70% retirement pension, you cannot get much better than that. To answer your question the 25 yr old athlete is going to make the big bucks just for the simple fact that there are far fewer of them vs the nurse,teacher,police officer etc.

 

[ESisback]

It really isn't different. Both sides are just trying to make as much money as they can for as long as they can, and if the owners keep trying to make as much as they can and the players give in, then the system would work where salaries sink and shrink and the owners roll over the employees.

That's why free agency even exists - to prevent this from happening, and give players a chance to ensure they get paid fair market value for their services. It is an adversarial system, and has to be to ensure neither side takes too much advantage of the other.

Why do you think minimum wage exists? It's because business owners would pay at a bare dirt level if they could get away with it. Why do you think labor unions exist? Same reason. And that's why free agency exists.

Why NFL players get big dollars is really the same reason doctors and engineers get paid more than janitors and construction workers. Though not a formal process like in football, it still amounts to these people being free agents and there being a short supply of people that can do what they do. Accordingly, business owners have to be willing to pay a high rate knowing the sought after workers can shop their services unless the business is willing to do so.

What I'm failing to understand is why you personally wouldn't want to make $30MM instead of $20MM if you could and that's what was fair market value for your services? Obviously you could live off the $20MM, but why would you turn a blind eye to the $30MM. That's especially true of a football player who could have his leg shattered in a game and never play football and earn a sizable paycheck again.

Because at 20 million I’d be filthy rich playing on a good team. At 30 million I’d be filthy rich playing on a crap team.

 

[Birdgang]

No player needs 30 M .... I would argue they don't need more than 15 million. You would think by now they could figure out that if they all took less they could win more , with better talent. From there they can hit bonuses and endorsements. But greed and egos will get in the way ..... Someone with brains needs to step in and slap these players. Because they are only stealing from each other ..... its even worse with teams in no income tax areas. All though its not as much as some think but still more then most people will make.

 

[ESisback]

Because of the enormous benefits of the stadium.

I suppose the average Shmoe can have a &10 or $15 deduction taken from their paycheck to cover “local redevelopment” without much distress. But the enormous benefit for the average shmuck is what?

 

[cern]

there was a time when raping, looting and pillaging were the accepted ways of paying armies. no taxes, either. times change. yesterday's 20 million is today's 30 million.

 

[ESisback]

No player needs 30 M .... I would argue they don't need more than 15 million. You would think by now they could figure out that if they all took less they could win more , with better talent. From there they can hit bonuses and endorsements. But greed and egos will get in the way ..... Someone with brains needs to step in and slap these players. Because they are only stealing from each other ..... its even worse with teams in no income tax areas. All though its not as much as some think but still more then most people will make.

I think this is really more on greedy agents.

 

[408Cowboy]

there was a time when raping, looting and pillaging were the accepted ways of paying armies. no taxes, either. times change. yesterday's 20 million is today's 30 million.

All you need to show you how drastically things change is the history of lobster.

 

[CouchCoach]

Everytime I hear a so-called athlete talk, "oh I have to be able to take care of my family", is a slap to the face to millions of hard working Americans.

Agree, I'd rather have them be honest and say "hot damn, mo jewry".

 

[Diehardblues]

"Social services," is socialism... semantics. You are taking tax dolars and providing services to people with those dollars. Call it whatever you want.

We elect representatives to delegate our tax dollars. We don’t always agree on how it’s disbursed or allocated but that’s all part of our democracy driven by a Capitalist system. Social Services is a mechanism the taxes collected allows. Socialism on the other hand is an economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

[OmerV]

Because at 20 million I’d be filthy rich playing on a good team. At 30 million I’d be filthy rich playing on a crap team.

In times past fans thought that way about paying a QB $15MM, and then they thought that way about paying a QB $20MM. Whose to say today a team can’t win with a $30 million QB? Obviously NFL teams feel they can or they wouldn’t pay it, and my guess is they know the finances better than fans do.

 

[Birdgang]

I think this is really more on greedy agents.

Yes and no , because they would still get the same amount of the pie for most part because of the cap. Agents just need to work a bit harder for endorsements maybe. But if more players got a bigger part of pie it would also increase competition for the average players . It might just make it all even out in the end.

 

[Diehardblues]

Absolutely. However, I've already taken less for happiness, and have zero regrets. Don't miss the fact that you can easily retire on either amount!!!!!!

Money doesn’t solve all of your problems but it certainly addresses most of them. If I had to choose a life with or without , I’d choose with and try and figure out the rest.

I’ve only gone without about a year when I dropped out of college and took off to California for awhile and it didn’t take me long to get back on track. Fortunately I met a girl who steered me back in the right direction that I could be rebellious and more effective activist with money behind me. I took her back to Texas with me. Lol

 

[CouchCoach]

The CBA sets the cap % to the players and the TV deals set the cap, which keeps going up. Would you rather the owner pockets more of the money?

And this idea that the owners are the ones at risk is a joke. There is no risk with any NFL team making a profit, it is built in without selling the first ticket.

The owners and GM's set the going rate for players at each position on their team, If that's 30M for the QB because they have to pay him that to keep him, that's done and that's what's happening.

Every agent and player is going to push the envelope as far as they can because there isn't one DE that thought he would be making what was QB money 5 years ago. Think Wilson thought he'd be making 35M even 3 years ago?

The challenge is that all of the positions are going up and a team like the Cowboys trying to keep key players and re-sign some of their young stars are going to have a problem because the market isn't just going up on QB's.

And players do not gauge their value against the team but the market. Think many do not inflate their own worth?

 

[Roadtrip635]

So I take it you aren't a business man?

Did you start rooting for the Cardinals once Emmitt went there or did you still root for the Cowboys?

I became a Cowboys fan because of Walt Garrison and Roger Staubach. Part of of being in business is understanding what makes your business successful and in the case of the NFL, it's the players. The cost for those players go up, just like costs do for any business, but guess what else continues to rise? The revenue they continue to bring in.. The owners aren't making less when the cap rises and player's salaries rise, because their portion of that very lucrative pie is rising as well. The salaries are rising because the profits are rising. As far as risk for the owners, owning an NFL team is one of the safest investments a businessman can make. You can make poor choices and still make money.

If an owner doesn't want to pay a player the price they ask for, they can let him walk or not sign and find a cheaper replacement. It happens on every team, every season. An owner can choose not to pay the salaries and payout the league minimum of the salary cap, but that will eventually affect their bottom line, there will be less interest from their fan base if they can't stay competitive. Instead, they can choose to reinvest into the company, the players, to improve the team and marketability.

 

[Wolf2k5]

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.

They aren’t “winning the lotto”. They are employees and the company is literally worth BILLIONS because of their work. If anyone else could do what they do they wouldn’t make as much. You can invest that extra money and not only make sure your family is taken care now of but for generations. And extra 100 mil isn’t life changing for you but it is for your grandkids kids

 

[Diehardblues]

In times past fans thought that way about paying a QB $15MM, and then they thought that way about paying a QB $20MM. Whose to say today a team can’t win with a $30 million QB? Obviously NFL teams feel they can or they wouldn’t pay it, and my guess is they know the finances better than fans do.

That’s assuming winning is the top priority. Signing and retaining popular players generates revenue providing hope to the fan base. It doesn’t necessarily provide the best means to win a championship in Cap era with the exception for a handful of generational talents.

Not many others winning championships once they get paid since their supporting cast is limited unless they sign for less or more team friendly than the market will bare. Which is very rare . Everyone is in it now for the money and fame. Winning just makes it more fun.

 

[OmerV]

it's hilarious to see people say they would turn down $10M more dollars to win. you very likely would not once those numbers are in front of you.

add to the fact that $30M isn't actually near $30M net. once tha's all laid out to you, me thinks these opinions would change quickly. easy to say when it isn't your decision tho.

Then there is the reality that one injury could cause that $30MM/year to dry up and what they made up to that point is the last significant money most will ever earn. It’s not a perpetual thing - they only have a short time to make as much as they can.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

In times past fans thought that way about paying a QB $15MM, and then they thought that way about paying a QB $20MM. Whose to say today a team can’t win with a $30 million QB? Obviously NFL teams feel they can or they wouldn’t pay it, and my guess is they know the finances better than fans do.

Honestly Omer, it's not about the money. It's really more about the percentage of cap and the fact that we haven't seen if we have a QB who can be the guy who transcends the lack of talent to put his team in the hunt for a Championship, consistently. We both know that if you are going to pay a QB the way they want to get paid, then you can't pay the rest of the guys you will need to build the best possible team. If you don't have that talent level, then you need a QB who can be the difference and I don't know that Dak is that guy. He has a lot of things going for him but he hasn't show that he is "That Guy". That's really the difference for me.

 

[OmerV]

That’s assuming winning is the top priority. Signing and retaining popular players generates revenue providing hope to the fan base. It doesn’t necessarily provide the best means to win a championship in Cap era with the exception for a handful of generational talents.

Not many others winning championships once they get paid since their supporting cast is limited unless they sign for less or more team friendly than the market will bare. Which is very rare . Everyone is in it now for the money and fame. Winning just makes it more fun.

Ben, Brady, Brees, Rodgers and Wilson aren’t just popular because they are nice guys or good players. They are all Super Bowl winning QBs.

Had Dak not stepped in and won a lot of games nobody would care about him now and there would be no consideration of a $30MM contract.

These guys are popular because fans perceive them as giving their team a chance to win

 

[Rayman70]

The CBA is an agreement that the players have with the League but the money that drives the league comes from the fan base. I mean, the CBA has nothing to do with who actually pays for things. That's all us.

WE are about to find out soon. The new CBA should be very interesting...and I know healthcare for all players is a huge sticking point. IT MAKES GOOD SENSE. In the long run, its saves all parties money...ie settlements etc... pain management is a biggie. I have been dealing with a multitude of issues,and let me tell you...if not for having minimal healthcare like I do..it would be a tragic thing to have to pay for out of pocket longterm. Its long overdue for the parties involved to make it happen ...and at a reasonable cost.