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

[Manwiththeplan]

Owners take all the risk. Players do not. I am not trying to make the point that players don't have skin in the game because they do but owners really do bare the overwhelming burden of risk and because of this, they make more money.

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

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Hey, if a player simply says: "I want the most I can get because I"m greedy and I don't care about anyone else,", I can respect that. It's the ones who spew some crapp about feeding their family and such who are just stupid. And the really stupid ones insist on some maxed out contract, and then complain when the team is losing.

It's more aggravating to me when some quarterback says "it's not about the money" when they're in line for a huge contract, then reject an offer that is JUST a little bit below the top existing contract, and hold out until they get like $300,000 more on a 4 year deal than the previous record. Like $30,075,000 a year instead of $30,000,000 a year, the $75,000 is 2% more, insignificant overall, just so the guy can boast about being "the highest paid player" which won't last but MAYBE a year, if that.

Quit lying dude, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!....

 

[CouchCoach]

Simple answer, comparisons. Why do we thing keeping up with the Joneses came about? Why does a billionaire seek more? Because his comp now is someone worth 10B. not 1B like it was before he reached that plateau? Why in the hell does someone spend 250M on a boat? And why does that someone need to make the public aware of that?

That question most of us ask ourselves, "how am I doing"? Doesn't that usually involve some comparison to another or others?

The quest for money isn't about meeting needs, it's about satisfying wants. And while it is true money cannot buy happiness, try convincing the wealthy they would be just as happy being poor. Why it is money that separates them from the common and ordinary and gives them an elitist attitude and inflated sense of worth. Money makes them better than those beneath them.

Many people stack their money to measure their stature. That saying "he who dies with the most toys, wins" has been around for a good while for good reason. It's all about keeping score, "how am I doing"?

Now, add people who didn't grow up with much, had to scrape by, had to watch their Mom work two jobs to put food on the table and clothe her children. Money means something more to them than I will ever know, thank God.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Dak doesn't need a huge contract just like Jerry didnt have to buy that power plant. That's not greed that's just common sense in today's world. More is better cause more will last longer. The end.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Owners take all the risk. Players do not. I am not trying to make the point that players don't have skin in the game because they do but owners really do bare the overwhelming burden of risk and because of this, they make more money.

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

 

[CouchCoach]

It's more aggravating to me when some quarterback says "it's not about the money" when they're in line for a huge contract, then reject an offer that is JUST a little bit below the top existing contract, and hold out until they get like $300,000 more on a 4 year deal than the previous record. Like $30,075,000 a year instead of $30,000,000 a year, the $75,000 is 2% more, insignificant overall, just so the guy can boast about being "the highest paid player" which won't last but MAYBE a year, if that.

Quit lying dude, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!....

Flacco is the poster boy for this. He didn't want to get so much that he caused the team to not be able to field a true competitor and not only did his 20M deal do that, they had to actually let some players walk.

I hate the hypocrisy of some of these aholes. At least be a man about it, I do respect Lawrence for that, he never didn't say he was out to get all he could. He took a chance willingly taking the tag and then went for his reward. And he never made it about saving money for the other players or BS like that tube steak Flacco did. He simply went about getting his and they can worry about theirs. And he did it in a way that irritated some here but I would have done the same thing. Used every bit of leverage I could to get my deal.

I do not think we know just how fleeting and overblown the whole teammate and loyalty thing is, it's all temporary. These guys, for the most part, aren't going to war with each other, just a couple of battles and then one moves on. It is not about team as it once was because they're not forced to remain with the team.

One way I've become a more realistic fan is to assume they do not care as much about winning as I do or you do. Think any of those players, unless it was personal for them, are as pissed as some of the posters here are after a loss? Football is all about business and that's not just the owners.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

10 million is 10 million. It may mean nothing to someone with a billion but your career be gone tomorrow. Make as much as you can.

 

[Red Dragon]

Why does an owner *need* to make $250 million in a single year as opposed to $200 million?

Because, again, the owner isn't confined by a salary cap. His income doesn't affect the team's chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Whereas an NFL player's income is confined by a salary cap. If he gets paid an extra $10 million/year, then there is less money for the other 52 players on the roster. And the team may therefore be less able to sign free-agent talent.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

It's more aggravating to me when some quarterback says "it's not about the money" when they're in line for a huge contract, then reject an offer that is JUST a little bit below the top existing contract, and hold out until they get like $300,000 more on a 4 year deal than the previous record. Like $30,075,000 a year instead of $30,000,000 a year, the $75,000 is 2% more, insignificant overall, just so the guy can boast about being "the highest paid player" which won't last but MAYBE a year, if that.

Quit lying dude, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!....

When has someone ever said it’s not about the money?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Because, again, the owner isn't confined by a salary cap. His income doesn't affect the team's chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Whereas an NFL player's income is confined by a salary cap. If he gets paid an extra $10 million/year, then there is less money for the other 52 players on the roster. And the team may therefore be less able to sign free-agent talent.

Teams find ways to manipulate the cap every year.

 

[cern]

a lot of wealthy people are also quite philanthropic. many athletes donate to their favorite charities and do things for kids like paying for educations or feeding and clothing the less fortunate. money makes that all possible. not all these athletes seeking big contracts are selfish pigs. a lot of them do a lot of good for others. in every sport. not just football.

 

[CouchCoach]

a lot of wealthy people are also quite philanthropic. many athletes donate to their favorite charities and do things for kids like paying for educations or feeding and clothing the less fortunate. money makes that all possible. not all these athletes seeking big contracts are selfish pigs. a lot of them do a lot of good for others. in every sport. not just football.

In every walk of life we find people that do use their wealth to help others.

We also don't really know about their family situations unless it's a situation like Tyron Smith and his siblings, that the Joneses allowed to go public. Speaks volumes to me about character, the good that people do but what speaks louder is their need for people to know the good they do.

 

[jrumann59]

Why is it anybody's business what a person makes?

Because its for the children??????……..

 

[Bullflop]

Just a guess here but is it 'cause they're putting their health at risk?

Also, that the cost of living has risen considerably?

I'll venture to say yes, equally, to both!

Their careers also very short.

 

[glimmerman]

A shame the whole team didn’t act like that. But if a QB said ya know what, I only need 20 mil. So keep that other 10 and pay some other players. Then another player at another position would ask for more than he should get. It’s greed.

 

[eromeopolk]

$10M extra earns the QB almost $1.8M annually at 9% on a deal not compounding which is a heck of a lot more.

$10M allows for Jerry to add $1BN in net worth having a established QB for another 7-8 years. So for a 1% investment to make $1BN and extra $10M is nothing.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

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?"

simple, because he can get it

 

[IrishAnto]

Owners take all the risk. Players do not. I am not trying to make the point that players don't have skin in the game because they do but owners really do bare the overwhelming burden of risk and because of this, they make more money.

Quite frankly there is little risk once you're in the NFL owners club (the main reason there is a salary cap).
Just look at the Boys!
Jerry has made a pig's ear out of the football side of things for nearly a quarter of a century but still makes a shed load of money.
Where else could your main product be so bad for so long and you still make millions?

 

[jrumann59]

Quite frankly there is little risk once you're in the NFL owners club (the main reason there is a salary cap).
Just look at the Boys!
Jerry has made a pig's ear out of the football side of things for nearly a quarter of a century but still makes a shed load of money.
Where else could your main product be so bad for so long and you still make millions?

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.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

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

It doesn't have to be either/or