Why Pro Athletes Make so much Money

[kdb209]

Athletes are GROSSLY over-paid for what they provide to society. They no longer pocess many of the positive qualities that made them quality role models for people. The majority of the ones that make the news do so for being insolent jerks or criminals. If it weren't for trash talking they wouldn't have much to say at all. When athletes start providing the same level of service to society that police, fire and medical professionals do I'll believe they are worthy of their salaries. When we see honorariums like this I will believe they are worthy.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/10/rcmp-memorial050310.html

But hockey players aren't paid by society - they're paid by their teams because they contribute to an entertainment product that people are willing to spent lots of $$$s to watch.

Any comparisons here to teachers, firemen, garbagemen, etc are completely off the mark. Today's professional atheletes are in the entertainment business - you should be comparing them to Bruce Willis, Russell Crowe, etc. You don't see people complaining in the same way that Russell Crowe is overpaid when he gets $20M for a movie.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Unfortunetly no one in this country is paid for what they provide to society...in fact some of the people who make the most money are the worst of the society.

NHL players are employees, they don't own anything, and a employees value is based on how much revenue he will produce for the company and how many other people there are that could do the same job as him. When it comes to pro athletes, or actors for example, the revenue they bring in from what they do is off the charts AND there aren't many people in the entire world that could do the same job...that is why athletes make so much and why they aren't overpaid, even at multi-million annual salaries.

I really wish people would stop bringing actors into the mix because actors are not paid like athletes. For every one on the "A" list that makes a huge amount of money there are 1000 others that work for scale. And scale sucks. Scale barely pays you enough to live in California. But people work in that industry because they hope to catch that break and make it big doing something they love. Those people invest 15-20 years of their professional lives before they get that chance too.

The hope of every actor is to appear in enough movies that you get a shot at being a major star where the big dollars are. Some times it comes, some times it doesn't. If it were not for scale you would not see a lot f movies be made to the same level they are. Oceans 11 and Oceans 12 were made because of scale. Each of those stars took scale just to work together on that project and add to the body of work they have done. The supporting cast is happy to do the same because they get the chance to hone their craft and maybe catch a director's eye. Don Chedal likely doesn't star in Hotel Rwanda without those supporting (and scene stealing) roles in movies like Oceans. That's the nature of the business and one that the whole industry takes pride in. They grow their own as quickly as they eat their own. Not many get a free ride and not many get that massive payday without the little gold statue.

Yeah, there are some that make a huge amount of money for a picture here and there, but that "A" list status comes and goes quickly, especially without Oscar. You get your chance and make the most of it and re-invest that money into more ventures that will make you money. The Tom Cruises and Mel Gibsons of the world are rich not only because they were recognized as being on top of their game for a while, but also because they took that money and invested it wisely into their own production houses. But make no mistake, those people are the exception. There are more guys like Gary Oldman, William H. Macy, etc. that are incredible actors, better at their craft than most, that will never get paid vast sums of money because they way they look or the mercurial nature they possess. For those they work very hard making four or five films a year, bringing the much needed depth and character to quality films, and make in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Good money, but no where near the amount their counter parts in the sporting world make. So please don't bring actors into the equation because their industry is so competely different from that of athletes its isn't even comparable.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Well, with actors and actresses, the salaries are always easier to understand. If said actor's films always do well at the box office, while a compartive film with a lesser actor doesn't, it becomes easier to trace the value of the actor. Plus, there are no 5 year deals in Hollywood. A couple of bombs, and your asking price takes quite the hit. Pro-sports, and hockey in particular, is much harder to estimate the impact of one player to financial success, which is what makes it so hard.

I'm currently reading an economics book that talks about the rising levels of CEOs salaries, and they made the comparison to pro-sport salaries. Interesting enough, the business world knows that salaries are too high, they just don't know how to deal with it. They've tried incentive based contracts, but that usually leads to CEOs managing for their indicators, rather than the long term good of the firm (much like a player who plays for his bonuses).

It's never perfect because you can't really put a $$ value on what someone does. But, the most accurate way to do it is to consider how much revenue an NHL player produces, which on average is around $3M, maybe a little less.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I really wish people would stop bringing actors into the mix because actors are not paid like athletes. For every one on the "A" list that makes a huge amount of money there are 1000 others that work for scale. And scale sucks. Scale barely pays you enough to live in California. But people work in that industry because they hope to catch that break and make it big doing something they love. Those people invest 15-20 years of their professional lives before they get that chance too.

The hope of every actor is to appear in enough movies that you get a shot at being a major star where the big dollars are. Some times it comes, some times it doesn't. If it were not for scale you would not see a lot f movies be made to the same level they are. Oceans 11 and Oceans 12 were made because of scale. Each of those stars took scale just to work together on that project and add to the body of work they have done. The supporting cast is happy to do the same because they get the chance to hone their craft and maybe catch a director's eye. Don Chedal likely doesn't star in Hotel Rwanda without those supporting (and scene stealing) roles in movies like Oceans. That's the nature of the business and one that the whole industry takes pride in. They grow their own as quickly as they eat their own. Not many get a free ride and not many get that massive payday without the little gold statue.

Yeah, there are some that make a huge amount of money for a picture here and there, but that "A" list status comes and goes quickly, especially without Oscar. You get your chance and make the most of it and re-invest that money into more ventures that will make you money. The Tom Cruises and Mel Gibsons of the world are rich not only because they were recognized as being on top of their game for a while, but also because they took that money and invested it wisely into their own production houses. But make no mistake, those people are the exception. There are more guys like Gary Oldman, William H. Macy, etc. that are incredible actors, better at their craft than most, that will never get paid vast sums of money because they way they look or the mercurial nature they possess. For those they work very hard making four or five films a year, bringing the much needed depth and character to quality films, and make in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Good money, but no where near the amount their counter parts in the sporting world make. So please don't bring actors into the equation because their industry is so competely different from that of athletes its isn't even comparable.

Okay, take those 3 words out of my post if you wish, it is still right that the best way to measure an employees worth is the revenue he produces...and for NHL players that would mean you could argue they are underpaid.

 

[discostu]

It's never perfect because you can't really put a $$ value on what someone does. But, the most accurate way to do it is to consider how much revenue an NHL player produces, which on average is around $3M, maybe a little less.

How are you able to determine that each player produces $3 million in revenue? How much of that revenue is due to the large, state-of-the-art arena? How much for the CEO? How much is due to the GM and coach? How much is due to the sales and marketing guys? How much for guy in charge of maintaining the ice surface, in a sport where those conditions can make for a much more exciting game?

You're right, there is no perfect way, but there is no consensus on what the most accurate way is either.

 

[nyrmessier011]

Okay, take those 3 words out of my post if you wish, it is still right that the best way to measure an employees worth is the revenue he produces...and for NHL players that would mean you could argue they are underpaid.

Exactly. I won't argue that salaries are too high presently, but linkage at 54% (which is decieving in the first place because 54% means all teams would have to pay to the capped level to equal 54% of revenues going to players) or a hard cap without a decent revenue sharing program at $37.5M is just not giving the players there worth in comparison to how much revenue they bring in. Howard Stern every morning talks sh*t about the world and see's naked chicks and makes like $5 million a show. Why's that? because he brings in Billions to CBS.

 

[triggrman]

It's not a nitpick, as they are completely different professions. The other professions aren't nitpicking either, as the ones that make big bucks have done so through the process of business ownership and management. They have made their money based on skills outside their field. It's like saying that hockey players earning potential has always been high after their playing career is done, as demonstrated by Tim Horton's ability to leverage his name into a coffee empire.

Pro athletes money comes from their skills as hockey players, nothing more. The earning ability of the average NHL player isn't greater than that of the average ECHL player due to business risks they took, their management skills, their people skills, etc. It's due to their ability to play hockey.

I'm not every arguing that they don't deserve the millions, but to claim that their industry is proportionate to others is just silly.

I think you're missing my point.

In most professions if you are the best at what you do, you are paid at a scale that reflects that. I'm not saying the best in a city or area, I'm saying the best in the world.

Now it doesn't translate well into the service world, I'll give you that, point taken, but trying to find exceptions to the rule are pointless. I did say most, not all.

Let's take landscappers again, since I'm familiar with that. Do you think the top designers don't make millions a year? I can promise you they do.

 

[discostu]

Let's take landscappers again, since I'm familiar with that. Do you think the top designers don't make millions a year? I can promise you they do.

The question becomes, do they work for someone, or do they undergo business risk, as well as undertaking duties such as managing a business.

But, even if we do take that as a valid example, the people in that industry making millions likely represent a small fraction of a percent of the total people in the industry. If we use the same distribution in hockey, you'd have a handful of guys making millions, and a bunch making six figures, and by the time you get to the lowest paid NHL player, you're probably looking at something in the range of 50K.

 

[triggrman]

I'd say the best designers are mostly independent contractors but anyway.

I was taken hockey as every hockey player, junior, tier II, CHL, ECHL, etc. The CHL guys make what 13k-20k a year?

 

[c-carp]

I didn't read the thread so sorry if it has been stated already.

Because we pay to watch. That's the reason.

Amen bro, it is as simple as that.

 

[discostu]

I'd say the best designers are mostly independent contractors but anyway.

I was taken hockey as every hockey player, junior, tier II, CHL, ECHL, etc. The CHL guys make what 13k-20k a year?

So was I (which is why the bottom guys were only making 50K, a good wage, but still above average). Maybe my 50K was off, but not by much, IMO. But the point is, you'd be hard pressed to find an industry that's as drastically top heavy as the NHL. The top 5% of hockey players probably account for about 80-85% of the wealth. You won't find many industries that are that top heavy.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

Because their career is usually pretty much shorter than normal people (max. 20 years) and big healthy risks.

 

[norrisnick]

The answer still is: Because we pay to watch.

 

[SedinFan*]

The answer still is: Because we pay to watch.

It's quite simple. The athletes provide the entertainment, and with revenues upwards of 2 billion (not including that they'll go down most likely with the lockout) the players deserve a big percentage of that pie, allowing them to make millions.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

The answer still is: Because we pay to watch.

Exactly- you nailed in far less words then I



Its really not that hard to understand, it seems though that some people here have such a boner for the players they dont think they are entitled to make what they do.

 

[kdb209]

So was I (which is why the bottom guys were only making 50K, a good wage, but still above average). Maybe my 50K was off, but not by much, IMO. But the point is, you'd be hard pressed to find an industry that's as drastically top heavy as the NHL. The top 5% of hockey players probably account for about 80-85% of the wealth. You won't find many industries that are that top heavy.

An industry even more top-heavy and probably one of the closest comparisons - actors.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The answer still is: Because we pay to watch.

Maybe that explains why people are tuning them out as well? The perceived value is no longer there. Reality has crept into the realm of fantasy and all the troubles that people attempted to escape from in the every day world (politics, greed, criminal behavior, etc.) have worked their way into their decompression chamber. Its no longer the escape it once was and is more and more a reflection of the society as a whole. The sporting world is on the verge of imploding because they don't provide for the custome r what they once did. Hockey is the first of the sports that will have to "evaluate" itself or face extinction at the grandious level that the sport finds itself at.

 

[Gary]

I've posted on this subject before and I agree 100%. How much $$$ is my health worth? Well personally-I'd rather be a average wage earner healthy for life then to be like alot of retired NHL'ers that's for sure. Lindros with all his concussions for example...If you offered me $100 million but told me in return I'd have lapses of memory, and headaches daily to various degrees for life... I'd turn it down in a heartbeat.

 

[c-carp]

Maybe that explains why people are tuning them out as well? The perceived value is no longer there. Reality has crept into the realm of fantasy and all the troubles that people attempted to escape from in the every day world (politics, greed, criminal behavior, etc.) have worked their way into their decompression chamber. Its no longer the escape it once was and is more and more a reflection of the society as a whole. The sporting world is on the verge of imploding because they don't provide for the custome r what they once did. Hockey is the first of the sports that will have to "evaluate" itself or face extinction at the grandious level that the sport finds itself at.

Once they come back we will be back for the most part. People need to be entertained.

 

[RandV]

Maybe that explains why people are tuning them out as well? The perceived value is no longer there. Reality has crept into the realm of fantasy and all the troubles that people attempted to escape from in the every day world (politics, greed, criminal behavior, etc.) have worked their way into their decompression chamber. Its no longer the escape it once was and is more and more a reflection of the society as a whole. The sporting world is on the verge of imploding because they don't provide for the custome r what they once did. Hockey is the first of the sports that will have to "evaluate" itself or face extinction at the grandious level that the sport finds itself at.

And how do you know this? Thats a pretty broad statement to make. There's a lot of demographs out there, and I find it hard to believe that anyone has enough knowledge to cover them all. I mean, Bush wasn't supposed to have an chance of being re-elected right?

Anyways, seems I've started a lot of discussion with the NHL players get payed so much because they're the best at what they do thing, without actually getting involved. I should add, that you can't directly compare things because it's all apples and oranges. You can't directly relate the attributes it takes to be the best, hockey is pure skill and determinations, for other industries its different. But, think of each industry as it's own pyramid. There's only room for a few at the top, and they're gonna make a lot of money, regardless of how they get there. If you want to compare a multi-millionare athlete to your average teacher, then what are the guys makeing 15-20k a year?

 

[ResidentAlien*]

Maybe that explains why people are tuning them out as well? The perceived value is no longer there. Reality has crept into the realm of fantasy and all the troubles that people attempted to escape from in the every day world (politics, greed, criminal behavior, etc.) have worked their way into their decompression chamber. Its no longer the escape it once was and is more and more a reflection of the society as a whole. The sporting world is on the verge of imploding because they don't provide for the custome r what they once did. Hockey is the first of the sports that will have to "evaluate" itself or face extinction at the grandious level that the sport finds itself at.

Theyre tuning them out because theyre not playing at the moment! Ok seriously tho, I dont think "reality has crept into the realm" If it has wouldnt all sports be flailing then?
It could turn out to be just be the oppisite happening in the near future, the more reality creeps in the more release and escape we may need. You or I just dont know.
Dude, you seem like a pretty smart guy, certainly well spoken, and please this is not an insult, but lately you posts have been so doomsdayish and negative....are you gettin any? j/k

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Theyre tuning them out because theyre not playing at the moment! Ok seriously tho, I dont think "reality has crept into the realm" If it has wouldnt all sports be flailing then?
It could turn out to be just be the oppisite happening in the near future, the more reality creeps in the more release and escape we may need. You or I just dont know.
Dude, you seem like a pretty smart guy, certainly well spoken, and please this is not an insult, but lately you posts have been so doomsdayish and negative....are you gettin any? j/k

I'm not just talking about hockey when I refer to sports. Baseball is in serious serious trouble. The large markets are doing okay, but the mid to small markets are suffering at the box office. Same with basketball. Football seems to be the only major sport not taking a significant hit now. To tell you how bad it is, NASCAR is moving up towards the top of watched and followed sports. And its easy to see why. Its cheap and the "athletes" are not paid in the stratosphere. They're good ole boys who drive around in circles and the fans can watch for next to nothing AND bring their own cooler of beer to an event. Going to practice\qualification is cheap and you can take the kids for free. They're marketing and doing things right as the other leagues price themselves out of sight.

As for doomsdayish, I disagree. Just understanding what is coming down the tube at both sides of this. If they don't get together and hammer something out in the next month to six weeks I think the NHL is in for a very long cold winter. ESPN will balk and NBC will have no reason to waste their time on a league that can't get its act together. I think the league is at a crossroads an that they have an opportunity to move off in a bold new direction, but the NHLPA has been brainwashed into believing that they deserve to be paid more than the economics of the game can support. I think they may kill the game and we may never see it get back to where it was two short years ago. If you feel that is doomsdayish that is your opinion. But when I see the potential for hockey to slip from non-premium service cable TV, when the likes of NASCAR and Arena Football are making enroads on network TV, I think the league is close to utter failure and can blame no one but ALL the parties involved.

 

[Epsilon]

Some people on this board really ought to consider moving to Cuba.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Maybe that explains why people are tuning them out as well? The perceived value is no longer there. Reality has crept into the realm of fantasy and all the troubles that people attempted to escape from in the every day world (politics, greed, criminal behavior, etc.) have worked their way into their decompression chamber. Its no longer the escape it once was and is more and more a reflection of the society as a whole. The sporting world is on the verge of imploding because they don't provide for the custome r what they once did. Hockey is the first of the sports that will have to "evaluate" itself or face extinction at the grandious level that the sport finds itself at.

So you're saying that a fan is thinking about watching a game, but says to themself "ah, they make so much money, I'm not going to watch"? That's ridiculous.

How much they make is a result of how popular the league is, not the other way around.

 

[kingsfan]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...e/stories/041305dnspoblackistone.604acd9.html

A column from the Dallas Morning News, mostly dealing with football players and why he feels they deserve to get paid so much.

I'm not saying I agree with him, it just seems relevant to the discussion.

Selected quotes:


and

Those quotes you had with this are crap in my opinion. No offense to you, just to the columnist. He says he'd like to see servicemen and women in Iraq making more, but doesn't real make much of a stand on it. But he then uses the fact that pro football guys could die as the reason that they should get millions. If death could be used as a determining factor for payscale, then pro athletes wouldn't be near the top of the scale.

Like I said before, they get paid what they do because that's what we will pay. Risk factor has nothing to do with it, never did, never will.