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

[GhostOfPelluer]

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.

Well, you couldn't buy a $300 million company for $200 million. So, there is plenty difference.

 

[JReed1000]

Well, you couldn't buy a $300 million company for $200 million. So, there is plenty difference.

Boom!!!!

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Well, you couldn't buy a $300 million company for $200 million. So, there is plenty difference.

Exactly. I get a kick out of these people telling millionaires what they can or can't do with money as if they can relate lol.

 

[Chuck 54]

The same reason I can live on 50,000 but am paid 92,000. The league and Players union negotiate how much will go to players every year. This creates parity, keeps small market owners from constant turnover of franchises, and makes sure the owners aren’t the only ones making money.

From there, the owner and front office of each team spends the money as they see fit. If Jerry and company thought they could win with another QB who would be happy with 15 million per year, Dak would be gone, but if they were correct, that 15 million QB would be paid 30 million in a short order, or they’d be switching QBs again. It’s difficult to win without the right QB and without continuity at the position.

 

[Diehardblues]

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?"

Because the moneys there. Billions thanks to us.

Should an actor not ask for 25 million for a film because it sounds absurd. Is it absurd if it’s his name than generated 500 million in ticket sales.

Do musical artist say no to hundreds of million on tour?

The NFL is a Sports Entertainment entity like any other on TV, sports arenas and theaters. The players are the product.

 

[Shuff]

taxes

 

[1LoyalCowboyFan]

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?"

Go look at what Damian Lillard is poised to make with his super max contract. It will blow your mind.

 

[Diehardblues]

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

You really don’t know that going in and why most take the money. It’s not up to these players to build a winner.

I think winning at this level is extremely over rated. The financial success of teams isn’t directly related to winning Anymore . It’s a business for profit. Winning used to be directly related to financial success. Guys used to want to play with Dallas for playoff money and endorsements.

And why we will continue to see players bolt to other teams for the money because their careers on the most part are limited. Make it while you can because the next play, game or season you could blow out your knee, etc. or be replaced with a stud on a Rookie contract.

There’s no loyalty anymore. And why I don’t get too attached with our players. Witten is really only one this era. 15 years is Throwback.

Its not like the NBA where we’ve seen players in their twilight of career who’ve made their money setting themselves up for life go to a team playing for less to get a chance to win before they retire.

 

[glimmerman]

taxes

I could live off the taxes paid on 30 million.

 

[Rockport]

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?"

It’s just common sense. Nuff said.

 

[Diehardblues]

I could live off the taxes paid on 30 million.

Not everyone pays taxes at that level. Most pay much less than you can imagine with tax loopholes. The richest man in the world last year who owns Amazon paid no taxes at all.

It always amazes me how many lower to average income earners we have on the Internet and social media.

 

[JayFord]

Because 20 million a year vs 30 million a year can determime if you make 6 million a year or 16 million

Incentives play a huge part in football contracts....things like wins, stats, pro bowls, all pros team, Super Bowls all play apart I’m how much you’re paid

Only person I know with a fully gaurenteed contract is cousins he’s getting the full 84 million whether he sucks or not

 

[cern]

Not everyone pays taxes at that level. Most pay much less than you can imagine with tax loopholes. The richest man in the world last year who owns Amazon paid no taxes at all.

It always amazes me how many lower to average income earners we have on the Internet and social media.

This is incorrect. AMAZON paid no federal income tax because it reinvests its profits back into the company for a certain amount of time to avoid taxation. Perfectly legal. I did the same with my coltan mines. Amazon also does not have to legally collect sales taxes by having no nexus in states in which it sells. They're masters of tax avoidance. What bezos pays in taxes personally is another matter.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

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

C'mon AB(LOL)....... Starting franchise QBs

Notice what's going with Jammie Winston and Maritola ( ms). Both were high picks but both are also playing on their fifth-year option coz their perspective teams can't decide if they're the long term answer.

 

[glimmerman]

C'mon AB(LOL)....... Starting franchise QBs

Notice what's going with Jammie Winston and Maritola ( ms). Both were high picks but both are also playing on their fifth-year option coz their perspective teams can't decide if they're the long term answer.

Do you think either of those teams would trade us for Dak.

 

[OmerV]

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?"

This is VERY easy to answer.

First is that's just how a free market economy works. People sell goods and services for whatever the market will bear.

Second is the respect of being paid the going rate. No matter the occupation or pay range, people want that. A janitor doesn't want to take $15k a year if the going rate is $20k. A teacher doesn't want to take $45k a year if the going rate is $55k. An engineer doesn't want to take $200k per year if the going rate for his particular field of engineering it $300k. Why would we expect that to be different with football players?

Third is that football players don't get to work at their profession until they are 65. I believe the average career of a football player is something like 3-4 years, and even the better players that are blessed with good health likely only last 10-12. Only a few are fortunate enough to go any longer than that. Accordingly, they have to make their money while they can, knowing that even if they are good players age will catch up and have them retired in their 30's, and injury could even force it in their early to mid 20's, and most will never have the ability to make big money doing anything else. In short, the money made in a short career has to support them the rest of their lives, and they are looking to live as well as they can for the rest of their lives.

And finally, it is a negotiation. The owners are going to force players to take as little money as they can get away with paying, and the only way to combat that and prevent salaries from sinking and shrinking over time is to try and force the owners to pay as much as possible. There is no fairness in the process if only one side is negotiating and the other side just gives in. If player's start giving in and just taking $20MM when they could get $30MM, the $20MM becomes the norm, and owners will start pushing for $15MM. Then what? do the players decide there isn't much difference between $20MM and $15MM and give in again, after which the owners start negotiating at $10MM?

 

[Hawkeye0202]

Do you think either of those teams would trade us for Dak.

LOL....New York minute

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is a great point when one is suggesting that players make as much as owners, but that is never really suggested. Largely because each individual deserves to get paid what the market dictates. Fans don’t have to consume so much football, and if they don’t owners don’t make as much. And owners don’t have to field competitive football teams and can be minimum allowed payrolls AND STILL make money. But they fork over money for top players because that’s how much the market dictates they’re worth

I agree with this, and this is pretty much how it works in the private sector as well. If a team is willing to pay the price for a given player, then it stands to reason that this is what the market is for said player. That is why I've been asking the question, "which team might give Dak 30 plus mil per season over 5 to 6 seasons? I honestly don't think there is one out there but I could absolutely be wrong there. I just don't see it.

 

[Jarv]

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

Doesn't necessarily need to finish last, but let's just say not first.

I get your point, so would a true leader.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What risks do the owners take that’s going to the damage these players will get?

Committing to long term guaranteed contracts, for one. There is always risk in those kinds of deals if you are ownership.