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?"
