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

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,452
Reaction score
9,731
I agree, but the real shame is the owner making billions and having the tax payer subsidizing their stadium.
https://www.google.com/search?q=spo...dium&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
Luckily for them they have legions of fanboys and girls that cheer on these excesses and, in fact, get triggered by even the use of words like excess.
Lets face it, society pays for everything. That stadium .... what exactly do you think that stadium does for that community? How many jobs are created? How much tax revenue is generated? How much money is spent at local bars and restraunts? I fly to 3 or so games a year from California. Lets see. Care rental, hotel, meals, bar, game. I bring myself and normally 3 other people. Now how many other people from around the country do the same? Now look at all the non NFL events at AT&T. Raslin, concerts, NCAA games. AT&T is a year round venue, and Arlington and the surrounding areas benefit greatly by its' presence. It is a win win. Im not sure why people ***** about tax payers covering some of the costs. Tax payers benefit greatly. There are only 32 NFL teams. If your city has one, thank your lucky stars.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,908
Reaction score
64,316
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
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?"

1. Agents. They will push for max pay even if the player doesn't really care about 20M vs 30.

2. Status. Contracts are status. Not just personal bling but taking a lower contract than market value can diminish respect in the locker room.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,908
Reaction score
64,316
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
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

Most items don't have a published market value per se.

What is the market value of a steak dinner at a restaurant?

The price a contractor would charge to remodel your kitchen doesn't really have a "book" that sets that price.

There is a process where teams and agents determine the market price on players.
They don't generally agree initially, but it's ALL based on the contracts of other players.
It's fairly simple with regards to Dak. It's between Wentz and Russell Wilson.​
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,908
Reaction score
64,316
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
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?"

The reason that a lack of state income tax rarely ever comes into play with regards to NFL player contracts is because that has no value to the agent personally, only to the player.
 

IrishAnto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,945
Reaction score
1,906
But he risked everything to do it. Literally, everything he had. That is the reason he gets rewarded. Players didn't do that. That was all Jerry.

Anyone buying an NFL franchise today is on to a sure fire winner.

You know the bulk of your income before you buy and also know the bulk of your costs, which is governed by the salary cap.

Not only that you don't even have to produce a winner!

When Stephen Jones eventually takes over from Jerry, tell me what he's risking?

Is he risking life-changing injury like the players on his team?

What Jerry did 30 years ago is irrelevant to today's NFL.

Jerry is a very good businessman (lousy football GM) and I'm sure when the sunk his money into buying the Cowboys he was pretty sure he could make money from it and so it's proved.

The risks now are mostly taken by the players.
 

IrishAnto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,945
Reaction score
1,906
Throw in he has had to subsidize some bad ownership groups of other teams also. Some could say outside handful of teams the NFL would have folded up by now in today's climate unless of course others think the Browns, Bidwells, and others that ride the coat tails of the larger market teams really bring nothing to the table.

Anything Jerry has done is for the long term benefit of the NFL, which of course includes himself.
As I've said in another post he's a smart business man.
So in today's NFL no team will go under and all will make money no matter how badly they run their franchises football wise.
 

408Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,785
Reaction score
6,219
The players are the product without them there is no league. Owners bare 0 risk in today's NFL.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
It still is though. Life changing injuries happen every year, look at Alex Smith or Ryan Shazier. There's injury that can affect future earnings during contract years, like torn ACL, Achilles etc. Then there's the cumulative effects of playing football that they will live with long after their playing days are over, bad knees, bad backs, bad shoulders, surgeries attributed to their playing days and the decreased life expectancy for playing such a physically demanding sport. They may be regulating the sport to make it safer than it once was, but there's still a great deal of risk and a short earning window.

Sure there is but that's the choice you make when you decide you want to play ball. I mean, every player knows that this is the price you pay. But that's not the same as a Life Threatening deal to me.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
It is an approximation of what you would get in free agency should you be free to sign anywhere. We see this set of value setting every offseason. Not typically for QBs but most certainly for almost every other position.

But there are other factors that come into play. I mean, every player is not created the same so the value proposition is different for every player. There is no reason, at all, to simply pay a player a percentage over the last player to land a contract, simply because they are up for a contract. That's just bad business to me.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
On a personal level, I don't care one farthing what the players make. I only care as a fan of the Cowboys. Cap strapping contracts keep you from the super bowl, often from even making the playoffs. That is the ONLY reason I care about this at all.
 

Cowfan75

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,960
Reaction score
7,769
Let's not pretend they need the extra 10 million to "take care of their families" instead of "I want the extra bling and bubbly". Unless it's someone who is paying child support for 7 kids.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
I hated that because the rich owners won all the time. There’s a reason they instituted a salary cap.

There absolutely is but IMO, it was to protect themselves. As owners like Jerry came into the league, and had no qualms about paying players, it started driving salaries and the Owners quickly saw that they would need to implement some sort of control, in order to keep teams healthy. The Owners recognized that the NFL was on the door step of entering a period where everybody could make huge money through TV. In order to do that, you needed franchise stability and you also needed owners to put effort into actually trying to win and not just make money. That, to me, is what really drove the cap.
 

DogFace

Carharris2
Messages
13,132
Reaction score
15,595
Lets face it, society pays for everything. That stadium .... what exactly do you think that stadium does for that community? How many jobs are created? How much tax revenue is generated? How much money is spent at local bars and restraunts? I fly to 3 or so games a year from California. Lets see. Care rental, hotel, meals, bar, game. I bring myself and normally 3 other people. Now how many other people from around the country do the same? Now look at all the non NFL events at AT&T. Raslin, concerts, NCAA games. AT&T is a year round venue, and Arlington and the surrounding areas benefit greatly by its' presence. It is a win win. Im not sure why people ***** about tax payers covering some of the costs. Tax payers benefit greatly. There are only 32 NFL teams. If your city has one, thank your lucky stars.

So everyone chip in and pay and everyone benefits. So socialism is good sometimes.?.?

I won’t disagree. The problem I see is like when the Rams left the city of St. Louis with a crappy stadium, no team, and a large bill.

They love capitalizing and when they don’t the taxpayers can pay for the results of the poor business decisions.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
There is one sure fire way to find out what Dak is worth on the open market. If Dallas think he's asking for too much, don't give in. It's really that simple.

Exactly right. The Cowboys could offer him 25 per year, over 5 years with a 6th year option and guarantee 125 and just see what happens. They could absolutely do that.
 
Top