The percentage he recieved of the revenue he created was immorally small.
Ogopogo, I'm surprised you're not up to speed on how much Detroit was ripping Howe off.
You have to compare him to other hockey players of his era. Compare what Howe was making to what Rocket or Beliveau were making at the same time for a (slightly) inferior product.
Those other players demanded more from their teams. Howe signed the deal and, if you believe the sensationalized movie 'Net Worth', he even chose his own salary.
Howe didn't negotiate a better deal. Why should the GM say "Gordie, I see you wrote in $12,000 on the contract, let me make it $25,000 for you"? If Daniel Briere wanted to sign with your team this summer and he demanded $5 million a year would you be happy if your GM said "How about I top you up to $6 million? We have the cap room". That would be a crappy GM.
Are employers morally obligated to give employees a chunk of the pie? Employers hire employees they need for the least the employee will accept. If Howe was willing to play for triple what he would have made doing anything else, that was a fair deal.
Owners of businesses have no moral obligation to overpay for employees' services. Howe was treated fairly by the Red Wings.
If I'm not mistaken the Detroit brass was telling Howe that he was making the same amount as the other guys in the league because salaries weren't public at the time.
It's not overpay. In a free market if a person in a company is responsible for a significant portion of revenue, then they are either paid accordingly or they will be at a competators. Because the NHL was not a free market then, Howe did not have the opportunity to earn pay relative to revenue he generated. That is unjust, unfair and uncapitalist.
.
The NHL was part of a free market. Gordie was free to go and do anything else with his life, he did not have to "suffer" as an NHL hockey player all those years. He could have been a lawyer, accountant or anything else.
Employers are not obligated to pay according to revenue generated. There is no legislation anywhere that states that.
Howe could easily have asked his teammates what they were paid if he felt things were unjust. He is simply guilty of being a poor negotiator.
So, when arguably the greatest player ever is being paid less than inferior players, and being lied to about it...he's not being screwed?
Being lied to isn't very nice but, that's hardly an uncommon thing in contract negotiations. I suspect that 90% of the negotiations that go on today, both sides lie, cheat and steal to get a better deal. I would loved to have heard the tall tales during the Ryan Smyth negotiations in Edmonton.
Howe agreed to the amount he was paid. If someone else was paid more, good for them to negotiate that deal. Someone else's contract has no bearing on Howe's contract - that is a union/agent tactic to artificially inflate player salaries.
Howe may have been very naive in the art of negotiating but he was not screwed. Even the Bible talks about this issue.
Kevin Lowe could not look Smyth in the eye and say "Jarome Iginla is making $50,000 a year" because Iginla's salary is out there for everyone to see. The players have a union so that stuff like that can't happen. The owners had complete control over the players, especially at that point in his life. Gordie Howe can barely string a sentence together, how the hell was he supposed to go out and be a lawyer or a doctor?
That is life. If Howe was unable to do anything else professionally - welcome to the real world!
I really don't think making triple or quadruple what he could have made working in a pothash mine in Saskatchewan was a hardship for the man. If he was naive and getting hammered in negotiations, he should have talked to some of his teammates to verify if what he was told was, in fact, true.
The owners didn't have control, Howe could have walked away and worked in the mine at any time. He liked playing hockey for a healthy salary. Nobody forced him to sign the deal.
Lowe could certainly have said to Smyth "I am not going to pay you a dime over $4.75 million - final offer" knowing full well that he was willing to go to $5.25. It is the art of negotiation and Howe wasn't very good at it. He still made a great living doing what he loved. He was not screwed.
Come on. Why are you being so naive? Why are you comparing today's market to the players of the 50's. Smyth can make the money he wants in the NHL - he can choose his team and the market dictates what he's worth.
The players had absolutely no power or rights back then. If they complained they were sent to the minors or had their careers ended.
Saying that he could have walked away and worked in a mine is a pretty dumb arguement.
I doubt you would be laughing if you had won multiple Art Ross & Hart trophies but found out a journeyman defenceman on your team was making three times what you were and that the owner of the team had blatantly lied to you for years.I have walked away from jobs in the past, I am sure you have too. Anybody can walk away from anything when they are unsatisfied with the way they are treated.
The fact is, Howe was happy making great money playing hockey. Somehow you think the only thing he could have possibly done to earn a living is playing hockey. He could have done anything - just like anybody else in the world. In fact, he had it much better off, he was making 3 or 4 times what he would have made at a job so he could have taken 4 years off to go to University.
Saying that NHL players in the 50s had hardships is foolishness. If they wasted their money that was their own fault. Give me triple what I make today to play hockey and I will laugh all the way to the bank.
Getting back to the original question...
I go with what my eyes have seen.
Howe > Mario.
Not by alot...but if you're listing top 3 players all time that I've seen... Gordie is there and Mario is outside looking in at # 4.
Howe could do it all for longer than anybody.
You rank Mario ahead of Orr? I'm guessing Orr is #5 on your list.....
So your approach is that it is impossible to be screwed if laws aren't broken.
There is a huge difference between lies of opinion, ie, We'll only pay you X amount, when in fact Z amount, which is higher than X, would be agreed to. And lies of fact, ie, player y only makes n dollars, and so 10% over that is fair, when in fact, player y makes m dollars where m is 30% higher than n. In the first case there is no verifiable truth of the opinion, and opinions can change. In the second case, there is an absolute truth, the contract of player y, that is being maliciously denied to the person negociating a contract.
To use an analogy, if you were to by a used car in Vancouver under the pretence that the milage was put on in Vancouver. Latter to find out that it was shipped out from Eastern Canada, where massive salt usage in winter degrades the condition of the at a significantly higher rate, and then painted over and given cosmetic touch ups. Would you feel screwed over?
So, you say owners don't have to pay based on revenue generated. Lets try this scenario. You work as a research scientist at a drug company, you earn $300,000 a year. Damn good pay. You invent a drug that nets revenue that is measured in the 10s of millions. The company gives you neither a raise nor a bonus. Would you A) Be happy that you make $300,000? B) Feel slighted by the companies unwillingness to recognize your contribution?
While yes, Gordie Howe could have found work elsewhere. He was not obliged to play hockey. But he wanted to. If, in order to do the job you wanted to do, you had to tolerate being manipulated and lied to by your employers, would you not feel screwed over?
Fair market is an amount that two parties agree to.
It cannot be a fair market without competition.
There is plenty of competition; Gordie could have worked in the mine, been a lawyer, a doctor or owned a business.
The confusion for many people is that they think hockey is the only way for these people to make a living. They can do anything just like you or me.
There is competition for my services - it doesn't just have to be a software company or a bank.
Fair market is an amount that two parties agree to. Gordie and the Wings did just that. Gordie is guilty of not doing his due diligence and being naive.
Your right, the individual has options, but the occupation of hockey player cannot be paid fair market value unless their is competition for services.