First, Cam Newton makes the argument that economics dictates why quarterbacks are getting paid. Then he defeats his own argument with his opinion of how good Prescott is in comparison other quarterbacks on his list.
Economic value is not based on merit pay. That is a financial argument and closer to a market value judgment. Economic value takes into account what a buyer (e.g. owner) deems the benefit of the good (e.g. player) for his or her franchise.
A financial argument assigns how many accomplishments (especially postseason) and statistic data equal a player's level of compensation. There is nothing wrong with the argument except owners in every sport do not agree to player contracts based on that principal. It is why there is no rhyme or reason for x-player getting paid for x-amount in comparison to what y-player got paid. It is also why such discussions will never end in an equally mutually understood compromise.
Owners do not sign or draft players solely for wins, losses and chances to win championships. They acquire players to increase and sustain interest. To put butts in seats. To buy merchandise. To secure sponsorships. Etc., etc. And the economic value applied to quarterbacks is almost always highest for quarterbacks.
