How much do athletes deserve to make?

[5lidyzer19]

All of this of course to say that the main grievance for teachers is never the content - it's the parents, the fact their hands are tied in so many ways, the poor quality of students, the disrespect shown by the students, etc. I can see that if you are in college or went to college, then you probably were not privileged to be in the classes with the worst students. You probably had competent classmates and the teacher probably didn't have any discipline issues in your classes. The problem is that not every class is like that.

Non-teachers criticizing teachers or teaching is like people with no children telling parents how to raise kids.

I actually know exactly what you're talking about. People I went to school with were borderline animals. They basically had a sole purpose of disrupting and had no concern for learning (terrible parents). Not only am I less than 5 years removed from school, but as I said I did an internship in an accounting position at a district wide administrative office. The superintendent was constantly dealing with (for a lack of a better term) blind and foolish parents. Principles always had their hands tied because little Johnny could never do anything wrong.

It actually was incredibly amusing to me to see things from the other side and have the pleasure of watching adminstrators snap from "meeting with the parents professionally" to "saying what they really felt once they left".

Perhaps I'm not cut from the caring cloth, because if I was a teacher, I would recognize that some people are unwilling to learn. I would go to any length to help and mentor those who tried and cared, but I wouldn't have a personal care in the world for those who didn't realize that I was there to help them reach their life goals. Sure, I would put on a good show and act as a professional at all times, but internally, I wouldn't lose any sleep over the hopeless students. I know most people who are teachers are caring people with good hearts so they may not have such a cut throat attitude as me though to easily sweep it aside.

The point is that a high school teacher is dime a dozen and that's one reason why their pay is low. A GOOD teacher is a rare find, but you know one when you see it.

You may not like hearing that and teachers may be on the front lines every day but I was mainly addressing those who say a teacher should make more than athletes. It's not going to happen. Not now. Not ever.

 

[Pantokrator]

I actually know exactly what you're talking about. People I went to school were borderline animals who basically had a sole purpose of disrupting and had no concern for learning. Not only am I less than 5 years removed from school, but as I said I did an internship in an accounting position at a district wide administrative office. The superindendent was constantly dealing with (for a lack of a better term) blind and foolish parents. Principles always had their hands tied because little Johnny could never do anything wrong.

It actually was incredibly amusing to me to see things from the other side and have the pleasure of watching adminstrators snap from "meeting with the parents professionally" to "saying what they really felt once they left".

Haha! If only they could say it in front of the parents. But then they'd get sued and all that junk.

 

[AllByDesign]

Neat post... lets expand a little...

The answer to this question was the same one I answered my first day on HF boards.

There are two types of employees. Those who are overhead expenses and those who generate the revenue. People who "make it rain" always receive higher compensation.

Couldn't agree more. This isn't a rule of our economic structure... in fact it is quite far from it. While salespeople, agents, and investment planners do bring home the bacon for their efforts.... inventors, songwriters, artists, chemists, scientists are often left with little at the end of the day. Their efforts are as integral to the system, and in a sense... no one could "Make it rain" without the idea.. product or art to supply.

Sports stars generate the revenue. Since Steve Yzerman is my childhood hero, I will use him as my example. What dollar value did he represent to the Red Wings? How many $200 jerseys were in the stands with Yzerman on the back? How many fans came night after night after night for YEARS paying $100 for tickets, $20 for parking and $8 for beer because Steve Yzerman was an attraction inside that arena? How many additional viewers tuned in on TV allowing the Red Wings to sell advertising space and TV rights to their games? What value does Crosby have to the Penguins?

Absolutely... Yzerman, Crosby, Gretzky, Ovechkin supply the "candle-power" that excites the fans and motivates people to spend the ducats. They deserve a larger piece of the pie... no doubt...

So who is the Yzerman of the Florida Panthers? Who does the tiny Wild Fans look up to in St. Paul? Of course the imaginations of Leaf fans are dazzled by.... James Reimer? Phil Kessel? OKay how about St. Louis, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Dallas, Buffalo or Montreal? Those Ranger fans... whose jersey have they been buying? Will they flock to get the latest Brad whatshisname jersey this week?

There are a few teams that can boast having more than one "Yzerman" on their team... some have that one player, but most have no one of Super-Star calibre.

There are less than 1000 people in the ENTIRE world who can play hockey at an NHL level.

Yes... way less! Some outside of that 1000 even squeak by without anyone noticing... yeah.. I'm looking at you Matt Cooke!

I don't know many people that can shove 400 hotdogs down their gullet in a 5 minute span... but there are a couple of em! Does that justify a large rase for their talent? Nope.

The NHL has about 2 dozen players that could boast a talent far superior to the 450 of their union bretheren. How Jeff Finger can earn $4 Mill... or Brad Richards can get $6 mill is beyond me. Brad Richards is a decent hockey player... but 60 mill over 9 years ... yikes.

Now....

I realize that I am picking on your points a little. I mean no harm.. they were well thought out and articulated. Not far off base either. My mind looks at the over-all picture.

The players reap 58% of overall hockey revenue. We are not talking about profit.. we are talking about revenue. This is crazy.

It isn't about taking pitty on the ~30 billionaires... its about the NHL as a business model. Less than a third of the franchises are profitable. A third are in the break even ballpark. More than a third are losing multi-millions a year. I am a rainmaker where I work... I get paid very well, and I make millions each year for the one who signs my cheque. At the end of the day, if the owners of my company are not making money... for whatever reason that is, regardless of MY efforts... I will be unemployed. Much like the NHL player.

 

[5lidyzer19]

I realize that I am picking on your points a little. I mean no harm.. they were well thought out and articulated. Not far off base either. My mind looks at the over-all picture.

No hurt feeling here. I love debate and I liked reading your post. Good stuff.

There are a few teams that can boast having more than one "Yzerman" on their team... some have that one player, but most have no one of Super-Star calibre.

But this drives home the point even further. The teams that don't have star players don't sell out (usually. Obviously strong markets can be outliers). Even if they do sell out, the tickets are worth less money. There's less people for parking, consessions, tv ratings ect. We see a team like Florida has a lower franchise value (in part) because they don't have a star. If Florida had drafted Crosby a few years ago, their situation would be markedly different.

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

What consumers are willing to pay to watch -> what owners are willing to pay employees -> player salary <- willingness of owners to hire skilled labor <- what players feel they are worth as a % of revenue

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Why the Hell not?. If youve' done your own due dilly over location, demographics, population, competition etc and have half a brain you should be able to figure it out & project into the future as to your chances of success or failure. Plunk down the franchise fee, roll up your sleeves and get at er'. The "brand" itself is never enough, of course not, or is it a case of "TheMoreYouKnow the LessLikelyYouAreToSucceed"?. And want it that way for tax purposes or "other" reasons as seems to be the case with about 60% of the leagues ownership groups.....

Success in business isn't 100% predictable, even the most successful businessmen have to live with failure. The word "entitled" rubs me the wrong way because there's not really any law or rule that says "if you run this business we guarantee for you that you will make a profit".

A good number of McDonald's franchises go out of business, it's a much smaller % than with small restaurants that don't have the "brand" to back them up, but it happens.

Similarly, it's obviously very much possible to run up losses with a NHL team, even with "due diligence" done, because like in any other business there's cost and revenue factors beyond your control. Ironically the cost of labor is a pretty easy to calculate factor in the NHL given there's a salary cap. And all teams know the CBA, all teams knew the cap could and most likely would increase with time...

 

[StoneColdFlower*]

Taylor Swift made 45m last year, Carry Underwood 30m. I have no problem with what athlete's make.

Especially since Taylor Swift is crap and is worth 0.45M. I used to laugh at country fans for loving her so much when their genre has much better music, both in the past and present. And then I think about all the good metal bands that Limp Bizkit used to outsell and I kind of understand their ignorance.

 

[Drake1588]

There are two factors. One, highly-paid athletes, like CEOs, are judged to be at the very top of their professions, some of the few dozen or hundred best in the world at what they do for a living. Yet somewhere, there toils the world's best 'sanitation engineer' so clearly this isn't the whole story. So secondly, you have to couple the athlete's position among his or her peers with the success of the business and sport as a whole.

How much should an athlete earn? It's different for a hockey player, compared to a baseball player, compared to a lacrosse player, compared to a tennis player, and to some extent a function of the amount of revenues that the sport or league in question pulls in each year.

This is determined by fans, by what fans are prepared to pay to watch athletes, and how readily fans gobble up televised coverage of sports, which leads to advertising revenue.

Somewhere in that mix the answer is the midpoint between what owners are prepared to pay athletes, what the league structure permits them to pay, what the exploits of athletes generate in terms of revenues for the sport, and competition between owners to put out the best product possible and thereby drive revenue growth.

My biggest beef is with the 'compensation' that is earmarked for college athletes, primarily in football and basketball, relative to the size of the business. It's amazing that the universities get away with it. By now, you would have expected college athletes to have unionized. Hiding behind the amateur status of the participants, and the sanctity of the college experience, the universities are making an absolute killing.

 

[AllByDesign]

But this drives home the point even further. The teams that don't have star players don't sell out (usually. Obviously strong markets can be outliers). Even if they do sell out, the tickets are worth less money. There's less people for parking, consessions, tv ratings ect. We see a team like Florida has a lower franchise value (in part) because they don't have a star. If Florida had drafted Crosby a few years ago, their situation would be markedly different.

I think we are in perfect allignment on this point. The "creme de la creme" earn their stipend. My issue on salaries have no bearing on the elite of the league.

My cause for concern is the pay scale of the "supporting cast". Or for teams that pays a player like a susperstar because they have no superstars, so the next best player gets the pay scale.

I should be clear that I do not blame the players for this. If someone was offering me way more than my value, I would not struggle with any scruples on accepting the rate of pay. The issue is with the collective bargaining agreement. The ~58% of revenue is an issue, and the lack of the right to terminate contracts. Football has it right. Sign a man based on his prior performance and expect him to maintain that performance for the duration of his tenure. Feel like slacking after getting the big pay day? You find yourself unemployed very quick. This also allows managent to better change direction of the ship abd solve problems before their team completely tanks. Ask Brian Burke how long it takes to change the look of a team? The poor little Killions out there have been without quality product for a decade.

 

[Dado]

The "creme de la creme" earn their stipend. My issue on salaries have no bearing on the elite of the league.

The cap on single player contracts is, IMO, wrong. Just as Crosby "deserves" a billion times more than an average teacher, he also "deserves" a thousand times more than the average hockey player.

Scrubs making half a million a year is pretty silly.

But hey, that's the "C" in "CBA"....

 

[AllByDesign]

The cap on single player contracts is, IMO, wrong. Just as Crosby "deserves" a billion times more than an average teacher, he also "deserves" a thousand times more than the average hockey player.

Scrubs making half a million a year is pretty silly.

But hey, that's the "C" in "CBA"....

I always thought "C" was for Cookie....

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

The "natural" payscale of a NHL team in absence of a CBA is an intriguing question.

Cycling is very interesting in this regard, a top rider like Armstrong or Contador will make a few million, a top support rider may still make over 100k but after that it quickly drops off to values around 40-50k. And that in a physically extremely tasking sport that all but requires risky PED use at the top level and demands total loyalty to the team's star from support riders.

I think you could easily find players willing to play as 4th liners in the NHL for less than 100k if we assume room and board, travel etc. is covered.

 

[Dado]

I think you could easily find players willing to play as 4th liners in the NHL for less than 100k if we assume room and board, travel etc. is covered.

Without a doubt. Hell, how long did Keane play in Manitoba after his NHL days were done? How many guys toil in the AHL "as long as possible", even after it's clear they're not going to get a shot?

There are plenty of guys who would play at typical normal-people salaries, just for the love of the game....

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Without a doubt. Hell, how long did Keane play in Manitoba after his NHL days were done? How many guys toil in the AHL "as long as possible", even after it's clear they're not going to get a shot?

There are plenty of guys who would play at typical normal-people salaries, just for the love of the game....

But the level of play probably would drop, a 4th line NHLer could be a top scorer in Europe and make over 100k there, it would open the door for the rise of unaffiliated minor leagues in America too.

 

[ebox99]

Owners willingly sign the contracts, therefore athletes deserve to make exactly what they earn. A market price/wage is automatically deserved, because by definition it's something that both sides agree on. Any other definition of a "fair/deserved" price/wage is arbitrary and illogical, in my opinion.

This is a capitalist view, obviously, but really the only two options for setting a price/wage is:
a) The free market
b) The government (elected, dictator, whatever) setting the price/wage, arbitrarily
c) Some combination of the two, like the government altering prices so they're higher (say, through excise taxes) or lower (say, through subsidies)

And to me, the free market is far more "fair" than anything where the government is involved, as a free market price/wage is by definition the two sides agreeing on a price/wage that makes them both happy, not some ruler with the threat of force telling you how something will be. Plus, free markets (or at least relatively free markets) have consistently been shown to be far more stable than highly controlled markets/economies..

Leagues don't run them selves like a 'free market'.

Numerous handouts to build stadiums have occurred. If public money is used to help increase team revenue shouldn't the public have an equivalent input on how manage team expenses - like players salaries?

NY Times article on public paying off old stadiums:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html

Point, I'm trying to make is, a lot of these teams have been subsidized with public money but public have no say in how to recover the money.

If an owner and player makes a deal then logic would dictate that according to free market forces it's a fair deal. But, history has shown that lots of teams have been subsidized by public money so owners would in reality have less money to give out if they had to pay for their own stadiums. Indirectly, the pubic is subsidizing player contracts.

So the argument of free market is not accurate cause leagues operate with a duality of free market and public support.

Also, the argument of 'stop being a fan of the team' is good but if my city chooses to build a 1 billion stadium then everyone in that city has to pay out. This is regardless if you are a fan or not. Free market should dictate that non fans should not have to absorb any costs of building a new stadium. If non fans do pay for a new stadium shouldn't the non fan have a say in expenses of the team - like players contract or other expenses?

Shouldn't fans and non fans have a right to dictate conditions to players and owners? Like no lockout or players salary scale?

Lastly, some argue about athletes pay in-comparison to actors and singers. I wonder how many blockbluster movies have been subsidized with public money. How many singers been subsidized with public money? these actors and singers operate in a true free market. If they stink so will their salary.

Athlete salaries are in-directly subsidize with public money so comparing them to singers and actors is not a fair comparison.

In a free market - taxpayers should get a return on their investment while owners and players should make money. Right now the only group making guarantee money is the players.

 

[Sokil]

arena's are subsidized because *drummroll* player salaries are taxed, tickets and merch are taxed, property is taxed, etc. by the state

not to mention having a team in a location generates revenue for local business, which allows for spending and *ding* more taxes


its a public investment, the public doesnt need a say in these things

 

[ebox99]

arena's are subsidized because *drummroll* player salaries are taxed, tickets and merch are taxed, property is taxed, etc. by the state

not to mention having a team in a location generates revenue for local business, which allows for spending and *ding* more taxes


its a public investment, the public doesnt need a say in these things

So, a BILLION dollars couldn't have gone to improving the education system thereby creating a more skilled work force that will lead to a solid tax paying base...

In a free market - these teams/owners/players should be able to run their own business without public money. All they have to do is lower their player costs and build a less expensive stadium. If they want to build a 1 Billion dollar stadium then get a bank loan. They are going to pay taxes regardless if the public subsidizes them or not.

Cities/State/countries are debt ridden and they focus on bailing out leagues, banks, corporations...while education, food production and health care erodes.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

"Deserve's got nothin to do with it..."

-William Munny

 

[ebox99]

Pro sports stadiums don't bolster local economies, scholars say

http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html

 

[ponder]

Leagues don't run them selves like a 'free market'.

Numerous handouts to build stadiums have occurred. If public money is used to help increase team revenue shouldn't the public have an equivalent input on how manage team expenses - like players salaries?

NY Times article on public paying off old stadiums:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/08stadium.html

Point, I'm trying to make is, a lot of these teams have been subsidized with public money but public have no say in how to recover the money.

If an owner and player makes a deal then logic would dictate that according to free market forces it's a fair deal. But, history has shown that lots of teams have been subsidized by public money so owners would in reality have less money to give out if they had to pay for their own stadiums. Indirectly, the pubic is subsidizing player contracts.

So the argument of free market is not accurate cause leagues operate with a duality of free market and public support.

Also, the argument of 'stop being a fan of the team' is good but if my city chooses to build a 1 billion stadium then everyone in that city has to pay out. This is regardless if you are a fan or not. Free market should dictate that non fans should not have to absorb any costs of building a new stadium. If non fans do pay for a new stadium shouldn't the non fan have a say in expenses of the team - like players contract or other expenses?

Shouldn't fans and non fans have a right to dictate conditions to players and owners? Like no lockout or players salary scale?

Lastly, some argue about athletes pay in-comparison to actors and singers. I wonder how many blockbluster movies have been subsidized with public money. How many singers been subsidized with public money? these actors and singers operate in a true free market. If they stink so will their salary.

Athlete salaries are in-directly subsidize with public money so comparing them to singers and actors is not a fair comparison.

In a free market - taxpayers should get a return on their investment while owners and players should make money. Right now the only group making guarantee money is the players.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html

Unfortunately this is a deeply rooted flaw in our political/economic system, far from something that is exclusive to pro sports teams, it's something you see in MANY aspects of life. Simply put, the people in charge of government budgets are spending other people's money, not their own, so they don't care about spending it wisely to the extent that an individual cares about spending his/her own money wisely. Many, MANY businesses/individuals see this large sum of money controlled by a bunch of idiots (the government) who aren't gonna be too careful with how it's spent, since it isn't THEIR money, and these individuals/businesses/unions/whatever think to themselves "I'll bet I can convince this dumb government to give me some." And they're right, more often than not they CAN convince the government to give them some taxpayer money, because they really care about getting it, and the government isn't so concerned about giving it away. The government isn't just giving away money to sports teams, they're giving it away to the financial industry (the so called bailouts), to people too lazy to work (the people on welfare/EI who really shouldn't be there), to farmers (agricultural subsidies), to endless government employees (would the free market really pay you $30/hr to drive a bus?), to construction companies (who easily jack up prices on government contracts), to artists (why do artists get $10,000 grants to paint paintings?), to doctors (who again, will easily jack up prices when they're charging the government to way beyond what individuals would pay), etc. I'm sure we could come up with literally thousands of examples of the government giving away money to the private sector, either through incompetence, corruption, pandering for votes (basically corruption), or a combination of the above. In almost every situation where you find an interface between the government and the private sector, you will find the private sector extracting money from the incompetent/corrupt government, and this money ultimately comes from the tax payers.

There are endless, endless examples of both individuals and businesses getting free money from the government that they really don't deserve, it's far from exclusive to pro sports teams. In my opinion the solution is not to say "since the government gave this sports team all that taxpayer money, the sports team should do what the taxpayer wants," the solution is to say "**** you government, stop burning tax payer money on all this Pejorative Slured crap!" However, a large percentage of the population is either uneducated or simply uninterested in these issues, or they're actually receiving some of this free money themselves, so there isn't the public uproar about ridiculous government overspending that you'd expect.

I do agree with you that athlete salaries will be somewhat inflated due to governments giving private sports teams free money, but I disagree with your solution. Instead of saying "let's keep giving them this free money, but next time we give it to them, we'll make sure to have some clause in the contract about having some say over how it's spent," what we should (IMO) be saying is "no more free money for you."

 

[Hoser]

I do agree with you that athlete salaries will be somewhat inflated due to governments giving private sports teams free money, but I disagree with your solution. Instead of saying "let's keep giving them this free money, but next time we give it to them, we'll make sure to have some clause in the contract about having some say over how it's spent," what we should (IMO) be saying is "no more free money for you."

That's the only way the situation will ever change. Governments never receive a return on the so-called 'investment' in a pro sports facility, therefore they shouldn't fund them. When on the whole they refuse to keep propping this situation up we will see a fundamental shift in player remuneration out of necessity.

 

[Granlund2Pulkkinen*]

It's a Catch 22.


Argument 1: Why should a guy get paid millions of dollars to play a game?

Argument 2: Why shouldn't players get a large sum of the money that owners and franchises bring in on revenue considering they are the "product".