Sports and Money

[ohms_law]

i think it stems from the fact that i believe there are too many investors and not enough baseball guys in the ownership role. to investors, its all about the bottom line. to baseball guys, its about the hardware in the cabinet (or on their fingers).

well... it depends alot on who you're talking about I think. There are owner's who are more involved, adn owners that are less involved. Each has thier own view of thier role, goals, and the direction the teams should take...
Anyway, i'm sure that there are specific instances where you're right. It's an overly broad statement to make about "ower's in general" though.

[dps]

I think that the 3rd option is the closest to what I think, but I can't quite vote it either. See, the problem is that in a capitalistic economy, you don't get paid according to your ability to do your particular job, or your ability to generate revenue (except perhaps if you're doing sales work on commission). What you actually get paid according to is your ability to sell yourself.

My stepfather, for example, was a top-notch furniture salesman, but he worked in a store where he just got paid an hourly wage, without any sales commission. He was by far their best salesman out of a staff of about a couple dozen; he was the leading salesman each month for all buy about 5 month during the roughly quarter of a century that he worked there. He was well ahead of their other salesmen in his ability to do his job and to generate revenue, but the one thing that he wasn't good at selling was himself. So he never was their best-paid salesman, and made less than lot of guys in other area furniture stores who were only middle-of-the-pack in their stores. (If you're wondering why he didn't do a better job of selling himself, either by getting better pay at the store he worked at, or by going to work at a different store, it was because he was an alcoholic; the bosses at his store kind of looked the other way if he went on a drinking binge and missed a few days work drunk every now and then. He was afraid that a different employer might not look the other way, and that the place he worked might stop looking the other way if he started asking for higher pay.)

[rollsroyce11991]

I don't like how sports players are getting paid this much but if they can generate the income that they do then i have to say they deserve the money.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I don't like how sports players are getting paid this much but if they can generate the income that they do then i have to say they deserve the money.

They generate the money because of you & me;This rich "sportsmen" thing has only occured really since the advent of general TV & the development
of sports related -TV .Ask any world class Handballer or lacrosse player how much they earn & they will make you feel sorry for them considering the hours of training & sweat they put in...


It would be nice to see (but I know impossible to do) a redistribution of TV revenue to all sports & would lessen the power of these overpaid atheletes (I MEAN DOES a-rod really need 26 mill a year or could he "survive" with 15 ?)

[disposablehero]

...(I MEAN DOES a-rod really need 26 mill a year or could he "survive" with 15 ?)

so the owner should keep the extra 11 million for his heirs instead?

[SFSteveG]

so the owner should keep the extra 11 million for his heirs instead?

Of course not. It's for me!

[Clay Dreslough]

It would be nice to see (but I know impossible to do) a redistribution of TV revenue to all sports & would lessen the power of these overpaid atheletes

Well it's not impossible. They do it (or did it) in the all the Communist countries (China, Cuba, East Germany, the U.S.S.R.). Cuban baseball stars and Russian hoops stars could be famous, and live a good life, but they didn't pull in $26 million. Instead that money went to other athletes like the Olympic basketball and volleyball and swimming and gymnastics teams.

The U.S. does this to a lesser extent. In theory, A-Rod should give about half his income to the feds in income (in fact, he probably gives close to zero because of all the loopholes in the system -- but that's a different story). Then the feds sent money to the states in the form of education and block grants, who do things like build parks that I play Ultimate Frisbee on.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Well it's not impossible. They do it (or did it) in the all the Communist countries (China, Cuba, East Germany, the U.S.S.R.). Cuban baseball stars and Russian hoops stars could be famous, and live a good life, but they didn't pull in $26 million. Instead that money went to other athletes like the Olympic basketball and volleyball and swimming and gymnastics teams.

No its not impossible but the examples you gave were PAST "achievements" (ecept for Chinese athletes) but I would like to see (even though I am an avid sports fan) a redistibution to help lesser sports become major sports in the future from Handball to Squash to Bazooka shooting...

I play Ultimate Frisbee on.

My grilfriend plays on a semi pro team in the UK & South Africa...Very physical sport but needs a little more "bite" to become a good TV sport

[ohms_law]

help lesser sports become major sports in the future from Handball to Squash to Bazooka shooting...

eh, that's just a waste IMO. 4 major sports in the US market is already a streach on fan's time and attention spans. If those sports are ever to be popular, they can become popular on thier own merits. (and that's not even considering the most popular "sport" in the US, NASCAR racing...)

ESPN would love your ideas though, i'm sure.

[SirKodiak]

Yeah, I gave up basketball and hockey so I could watch UFC and curling...
though if they would show international judo matches, I'd have to go to watching 5 sports. In the Olympics, all the events I really want to see, they either don't show or give 5 minutes to it.

[disposablehero]

maybe part of this article on the new rev share rules gets my point across better?

For players, the news is even better. Assuming that owners behave as rational economic beings--and there's plenty of evidence that they behave more like Wilma Flintstone and Betty Rubble with charge cards, but we'll set that aside for a moment--a lower revenue-sharing rate means the monetary value of a free-agent signing goes up. If you think that signing a Barry Zito will bring in an additional $20 million in annual team revenues (thanks to extra ticket sales, increased value of your media contract, and appreciation in the value of your Barry Zito bobblehead collection), and your effective marginal tax rate is 40%, you'd consider it a profitable venture to sign him if you can do it for less than $12 million (60% of $20 million) a year. Cut the marginal rate to 31%, and Zito's value jumps to $13.8 million (69% of $20 million) a year. By percentage it doesn't seem like a lot, but a few commissions like that and your agent can buy himself a new Caribbean island.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=5680