In pro sports should a % of players salaries be tied to wining?

"9. Players should receive two paychecks -- one from their team and one from the league. Money from the league should be dispensed every week to the players on winning teams. I’ve written about this previously, and the system for paying players for victories would be a bit complex. A special-teams player wouldn’t receive the same amount as the starting quarterback. I won’t bore you with the details again.

But the reality is the best way to motivate players in today’s era when the games are dominated by money is to tie a portion of the money to winning. This is the missing ingredient in all of professional sports right now. Fans care more about winning than many of the players do."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/w...-truths-123109

No.

As far as I understand it, the players on teams that make the playoffs already receive a salary bonus that increases the further they get in the playoffs. That's enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

No.

---

why?:) (Other than the obvious things like opening up the players even more to tapering by sport betting cheaters...)

Because players only want to win if they are getting paid to do so. They aren't competitive.:rolleyes:

This would never happen. Plus, players (atleast in the MLB and NHL, I'm assuming its the same in other proffessional sports) receive 'playoff shares'. So there is some financial incentive to winning. (Aside from what winning does to your value as a player)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989

Because players only want to win if they are getting paid to do so. They aren't competitive.:rolleyes:

---

i think I know what you are getting at, for example if a player gets drafted by a crappy team he might hold out longer because he would like to be paid for his services?

It wouldn't be fair, or you would have to abolish all mechanisms which prevent player movemnt.. no draft, no restricted FA'cy, no salary caps.

Why .. all these mechanism are in place to form some balance to the competition, by doing so you are preventing player from earning money.. making it not fair ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosensgo101

This would never happen. Plus, players (atleast in the MLB and NHL, I'm assuming its the same in other proffessional sports) receive 'playoff shares'. So there is some financial incentive to winning. (Aside from what winning does to your value as a player)

---

good point,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

It wouldn't be fair, or you would have to abolish all mechanisms which prevent player movemnt.. no draft, no restricted FA'cy, no salary caps.

Why .. all these mechanism are in place to form some balance to the competition, by doing so you are preventing player from earning money.. making it not fair ..

---

very true, who would ever voluntarily go to a crappy team??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

It wouldn't be fair, or you would have to abolish all mechanisms which prevent player movemnt.. no draft, no restricted FA'cy, no salary caps.

Why .. all these mechanism are in place to form some balance to the competition, by doing so you are preventing player from earning money.. making it not fair ..

---

I agree with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

very true, who would ever voluntarily go to a crappy team??

---

nope, in additon, if the quality of the team is the basis for the pay, neither should they be forced to.

how would shitty teams recruit players?

they wouldn't have any leverage or ability to sign anyone but more shitty players.

Really all this would accomplish would be to give more reward bad players on good teams and more punishment to good players on bad teams.

how would you like to be the team kicker that misses the game winning field goal?

not only did you cost your team the win like normal....but also their paychecks ;)



Like Kaden's shirt says

"Ruff Day"

What if there was a salary cap in baseball?
Would that effect the haves and have nots?