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

[Reid1boys]

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.

you dont think we have socialism? cmon. Why are those farmers getting bailed out right now? Didnt we bail out the banks and auto industry a few years ago? WE have medicare, low income housing, welfare and on and on. Like I said, pro sports teams are an enormous benefit, and not just financially to their communities. 1.5 million people were at the Raptors parade. Much more than just dollars and cents involved here.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Same thing I think when I pay 12$ for 12 ounces of beer at a game, 7$ for nachos, or 50$ to park my car.

What is the player owner split of the revenue?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We never find out until guys are retired or dead.

Sadly, I agree with you. But ultimately, it is the player's decision.

 

[DogFace]

you dont think we have socialism? cmon. Why are those farmers getting bailed out right now? Didnt we bail out the banks and auto industry a few years ago? WE have medicare, low income housing, welfare and on and on. Like I said, pro sports teams are an enormous benefit, and not just financially to their communities. 1.5 million people were at the Raptors parade. Much more than just dollars and cents involved here.

No I agree completely, we do.

Except, like you mentioned, when the banks or other corporations lose the losses are socialized while the profits are privatized. Yet, when I lose. I lose.

 

[Diehardblues]

Same thing I think when I pay 12$ for 12 ounces of beer at a game, 7$ for nachos, or 50$ to park my car.

What is the player owner split of the revenue?

Good question.

The players only share with ticket sales and TV revenue.

They don’t share with stadium revenue including sponsorship and why Jerry brilliantly sued for those rights. They also don’t share with merchandise except for the players individual deals with sponsors.

Those concessions and parking go directly to ownership.

 

[ESisback]

Why do owners increase advertising and marketing efforts and negotiate higher TV contracts etc … why do they try to make $1B in revenue rather than $800MM, or $2B rather than $1.5B?

And why not look at it the other way - the teams are making a lot of money, so why don't they give in and give up the $30MM? Team owners are going to be filthy rich anyway. They could eliminate the cap altogether if they chose.

Plus team owners can keep making those big bucks until the day they die, whereas most football players will be out of the game before they are 30 years old.

In the end, the players are a commodity, and they make money by selling that commodity for the best price they can get. They are pork bellies and crude oil and soy beans, but on the service side. That's how a free market society works, and it only works if both sides are negotiating rather than one side negotiating and the other side giving in.

Sure, I agree, but you’re still missing the point. NFL owners and owners of other corporate entities are ALL greedy. They ALL push for more. It’s NEVER enough. But the employees are different. The common man is fighting a numbers game for day to day living. Most players are padding an extravagantly generous financial portfolio and messaging egos.

 

[Diehardblues]

you dont think we have socialism? cmon. Why are those farmers getting bailed out right now? Didnt we bail out the banks and auto industry a few years ago? WE have medicare, low income housing, welfare and on and on. Like I said, pro sports teams are an enormous benefit, and not just financially to their communities. 1.5 million people were at the Raptors parade. Much more than just dollars and cents involved here.

We have Social services which are funded by taxpayers not Socialism per say. Big difference.

And not everyone in the community benefits from professional sports teams while they do contribute to the tax base which initially funds, at least partially , their stadiums.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You can easily go to spotrac or otc and look to see what the market is ie what the existing contracts are.

You can and when you do that, because I have done that, you see that there really only a hand full of guys who actually have solid contracts on both ends. If you look at the QB contracts, there are really only a few that have both big time averages over an extended period of time and that are fully guaranteed. You see big numbers but you don't see a lot of fully guaranteed years. You see pie in the sky numbers. You don't see rock solid contracts as the norm, that simply escalate year over year, regardless of players.

 

[Diehardblues]

Sure, I agree, but you’re still missing the point. NFL owners and owners of other corporate entities are ALL greedy. They ALL push for more. It’s NEVER enough. But the employees are different. The common man is fighting a numbers game for day to day living. Most players are padding an extravagantly generous financial portfolio and messaging egos.

True , greed is the driving force. But greed is necessary in a Capitalist system. It must be regulated though to protect the people from the overly greedy.

 

[Reid1boys]

We have Social services which are funded by taxpayers not Socialism per say. Big difference.

And not everyone in the community benefits from professional sports teams while they do contribute to the tax base which initially funds, at least partially , their stadiums.

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

 

[Clarkson]

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?"

why do CEOs and owners need $50M instead of $30M?

 

[Clarkson]

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

lmao is this a serious question.......

 

[Clarkson]

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

..na. taking the $20M doesn't guarantee you a super bowl. taking the $30M doesn't guarantee you won't win one.

 

[kskboys]

why do CEOs and owners need $50M instead of $30M?

Does that difference keep us from winning a super bowl?

 

[Clarkson]

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.

 

[kskboys]

..na. taking the $20M doesn't guarantee you a super bowl. taking the $30M doesn't guarantee you won't win one.

Well of course, that's obvious. However, if you think maxed out contracts don't keep you from winning super bowls, you are simply not paying attention!!!!!!!

 

[Clarkson]

Does that difference keep us from winning a super bowl?

does $10M different guarantee, or even significantly increase the chances of a Super Bowl?
no.

 

[kskboys]

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.

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!!!!!!

 

[Clarkson]

Well of course, that's obvious. However, if you think maxed out contracts don't keep you from winning super bowls, you are simply not paying attention!!!!!!!

citation needed.

 

[Clarkson]

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!!!!!!

you haven't sacrificed $10M.