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

[aikemirv]

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.

You forgot the Earned Income Tax Credit!

 

[kskboys]

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

Of course. However, the coaching and rest of the team are huge factors in super bowl contention. And that's where the extra 10 mil comes in. That 10 mil can buy a team those 2-3 players that can make a difference.

Why do you you think players restructure? Easy, so the team can use that money to acquire the players who can push them over the top.

Pats have consistently acquired those type players, and being able to pay Brady under market value is a huge reason why they were able to. Blount, Reavis, Andre Branch, Danny Shelton, those guys all helped tremendously to win super bowls. There's a good chance that the don't win w/o these guys.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.​

This is correct, which is, and has been, my point throughout. It's ridiculous to expect that a player, like Dak (or whomever, just fill in the blank) should simply get a 5% increase over the last guy who signed a contract last, simply because he's the next in line. You go to a steakhouse, say Bob's Chop House on Lemon in Dallas and you order a Prime Porterhouse, you expect to pay in the area of $100 bucks for it but, you know that you are getting as good a steak as there is. On the other hand, if you go to a Sizzler, down the road, you don't expect to pay that kind of money for a steak because you know that the quality is not the same. I mean, you may end up getting a decent meal from Sizzler but it's not going to be nearly the same. Would you expect to pay $100 bucks for that Sizzler Steak, simply because that's what Bob's would cost? Of course not, that would be silly, just as it is to expect any player to get paid top dollar simply because they are next up. It makes no sense.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

LOL.... Anyone signing an NFL contract is in the same boat. I mean, they aren't moving a shovel. They aren't working for a commission on a sale that may never happen. They aren't walking into burning buildings. That door swings both ways.

 

[kskboys]

you haven't sacrificed $10M.

It's not about the exact amount. And I prolly have.

If I were a top tier sports player, I'd want a good sum, don't get me wrong. However, if I were happy on the team I was on and was offered, say, 5 years 100mil by them, but 5 years 110 mil by another team, I would most likely stay w/ the team I knew I'd be happy on.

If the difference is 10 mil/season, which would be 100 mil compared to 150 mil, I'd prolly be forced to take the bigger amount.

However, this argument is about exactly 10 mil. That was just an example.

 

[aikemirv]

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.

Yep, it should be stated as why would an athlete need 18.9 mill versus 12.6 million and that's just in a state with no Income tax.
In Virginia it would be 11.4m versus 16.8m

 

[kskboys]

This is correct, which is, and has been, my point throughout. It's ridiculous to expect that a player, like Dak (or whomever, just fill in the blank) should simply get a 5% increase over the last guy who signed a contract last, simply because he's the next in line. You go to a steakhouse, say Bob's Chop House on Lemon in Dallas and you order a Prime Porterhouse, you expect to pay in the area of $100 bucks for it but, you know that you are getting as good a steak as there is. On the other hand, if you go to a Sizzler, down the road, you don't expect to pay that kind of money for a steak because you know that the quality is not the same. I mean, you may end up getting a decent meal from Sizzler but it's not going to be nearly the same. Would you expect to pay $100 bucks for that Sizzler Steak, simply because that's what Bob's would cost? Of course not, that would be silly, just as it is to expect any player to get paid top dollar simply because they are next up. It makes no sense.

Yeah, right now we're dealing w/ a very strange market, where players how have not proven themselves to be top tier are demanding top tier dollars.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I’m not as certain of this anymore. It appears that financial success generating revenue isn’t as directly related to winning or success on the field.

Was actually speaking in terms of the comparison to the Jimmy Teams or the Coach Landry Teams.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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

If you are asking that question, then it's likely that it is not, and never was. I mean, take 5 minutes to read the thread.

 

[Rayman70]

its basically powerball lol. Players think its lottery time so they want jackpot money. No other reason really. That said, players have really short careers and NFL players have zero heathcare. So I can see why they would fight for those extra mil.

 

[Rayman70]

the next CBA needs to have a decent healthcare package as part of the final agreement. Otherwise, If I am the players, I don't agree to the deal. I would make THAT a priority.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yeah, right now we're dealing w/ a very strange market, where players how have not proven themselves to be top tier are demanding top tier dollars.

You are seeing that as an expectation more and more. This, to me, is destine for failure, I don't think it can last, if in fact it is even a reality. I honestly don't see how it could.

 

[tyke1doe]

Not true. Unless you are really stupid and spend the principle, both last your lifetime plus.

And there's really not much you can do w/ 300 mil that you can't do w/ 200 mill.

Unless you want to own a team or buy something that costs $300 million.
But in general, I agree with you.

 

[OmerV]

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.

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.

 

[AshyLarry06]

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?"

What you are failing to consider is that these max-contract NFL players are taking a physical beating that 99% of the world does not receive during their careers. Thus, many of them are hampered later on in life and even if they aren't, at the very least they need to be prepared in case they are handicapped down the road. I don't blame em one bit for asking for 30 mil or as much as they want for that matter.

 

[Rayman70]

Instead of these "moneyball' type of contracts, I would rather see smart deals for the team and player that provided a healthcare package in lieu of the extra up front money. The player as well as the club is better off. Every contract should offer healthcare as part of the deal. I think it should be mandatory.

 

[Rayman70]

What you are failing to consider is that these max-contract NFL players are taking a physical beating that 99% of the world does not receive during their careers. Thus, many of them are hampered later on in life and even if they aren't, at the very least they need to be prepared in case they are handicapped down the road. I don't blame em one bit for asking for 30 mil or as much as they want for that matter.

healthcare in lieu of the max deals is the answer. Wont happen until the new CBA is done.

 

[IrishAnto]

LOL.... Anyone signing an NFL contract is in the same boat. I mean, they aren't moving a shovel. They aren't working for a commission on a sale that may never happen. They aren't walking into burning buildings. That door swings both ways.

Not really!
Are Stephen or Jerry going to suffer brain damage due to multiple concussions?
Did any owner suffer paralysis due to a dirty hit?
The list could go on...

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

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?"

These kinds of topics really perplex me

Why do owners ask for more money when they re-up the contract with the TV networks?

Why do the prices of jerseys, hot dogs, parking, beer etc...go up?

Why....in this day and age...with all we know about the dangers of the game...do players get compensated by the league instead of the owners during the postseason? The game "checks" they receive for postseason games is a JOKE! Especially when compared to what they make per game during the regular season.

Why do teams (and fans) want to "use" players up for peanuts...then cut them when it is time for them to get their market value?

Be clear...the owners are NOT being taken advantage of here. They are BILLIONAIRES...who earn money off their product long before a guy gets to the NFL...and will earn money long after the guy retires.

So I wish we would STOP asking "why" .hen it comes to players compensation. Or at least...if we are going to ask why as it pertains to the players...we should also be asking the same thing about the owners.

I am NOT the biggest Dak Prescott fan...but I do know that he saved a whole lot of jobs in this organization. When Romo went down...Garrett, the coaching staff, scouts etc...were probably updating their resumes. The only reason any of them are still here...is because unlike when Romo has been hurt in the past....we actually won games. And it was completely on accident. This organization was "so smart"...that Kellen Moore was the backup...so the ONLY reason Dak got a chance...was because Kellen got hurt. If we thought he was a franchise QB in waiting...we would not have waited until the 4th round to draft him!

I did not see any threads complaining about how little Dak was making...as he was winning games and making the playoffs. There were tons of QBs making 20+ million during that time...that were not nearly as successful. We were very happy with Dak making ~500k while saving the jobs of millionaires....and raising the value of a franchise that is owned by a billionaire. But it is NOW time to pay the piper. THIS is the cost of doing business!!!!

 

[ESisback]

IM a teacher, and I should not be valued more than pro athletes. Why? Because there are hundreds of thousands of teachers. How many NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL players are there? Is my job more important , on a societal basis, than the pro athlete? Ultimately, yes. BUT, in our current worls, pro sports is far more important to most people's individual lives than me and what I do with my 30 students each day.

I spent 4 years in the military, much of society could do that. Im a teacher, many in society could do that. What is it? 1/10 of 1% can be a pro athlete? I can tell you that I care a whole lot more about the start of the NFL season than I do who the cop is in the city I live. Why should 1 job be viewed as more important than another? I am a teacher, but I often feel useless because I cant fix my AC when it goes down. Society has made a deal with each other. We need the guy that works at Kmart, the hardware store, the mechanic, the plumber.... we need everybody. We all play a role in the world in which we live, and while the Kmart person cant do my job, we need that person nonetheless.

I get it, and I agree for the most part. I’m just tired of entitled athletes crying about their struggle, followed by highly paid actors posing as journalists advocating on their behalf.