The NFL head office released about 200 staff and the Commissioner and others at the top all took a 25% decrease. They fixed their salaries for this year at last year's rates, too. The NBA, NHL, and MLB all are axing jobs, salaries, and scrambling around, as the poor economy hits the main revenue streams for the sports-- those who advertise with them. The NFL even voted to keep ticket prices at 2008 levels (which any fan can tell you is way over what the average American can or wants to spend in the first place, but it is a start).
But I'm reading about Albert Haynesworth getting a $100 million contract from the Redskins in the NFL. I'm reading how Manny Ramirez, a 37 year old player, is rejecting a $25 million one-year deal and a $25+20 million two-year deal.
If the respective clubs can afford to offer one player on their roster this much money, how can we be in a recession? Or, why not keep that $25 million and save approximately 625 jobs in the MLB instead? Or 2,500 jobs in the NFL with the $100 million (I can't find a consensus average American income figure, but most I find are between $35k and $45k, so I'll use a median number of $40k/year).
The NBA is gearing up for 2010 and beyond, as it may wind up running without a collective bargaining agreement. Currently, the NBA players command 60% of the revenue that the NBA brings in, and it is likely they will ask for more.
Average Salaries
NBA, 2007-2008 - $5.3 million
NFL, 2007 - $770,000 (of course, top-tier players are much higher, the lower tier players balance this out)
NHL, 2007-2008 - $1.9 million
MLB, 2008 - $3.15 million
At the low end, the average salary of an NFL player per year is the equivalent of 19 average Americans' salary (assuming, again, the $40k/yearly income). The other main sports leagues pay their players progressively more. NBA players have absolutely no room to complain about the wages they receive.
It is hard to care when the players complain of being "disrespected" or needing to "feed their families." Not with a recession on and the rest of us truly having to make do with less.
-
You were bored and searching for something to read when serendipity brought you to my blog. Many blog responses and emails later, things see...
-
Originally, I used Yahoo! as my home page. However, I never liked how everything sort of got clumped together with ads and other things that...
-
Well, I got "the script" from Renee today. I knew something was up at work with the number of mid-level managers who were present ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60% for NBA sounds really low to me. Without them, there is no NBA.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is for all pro sports, you can't think about their salaries in the way you think about salaries of front office staff. Contracting with those players is like renting a brand or contracting for a business partnership. It is the players namesake itself that is built up to hold a particular revenue generating value. Some of that value has been built by what they do--play a sport with remarkable talent--but just as much it has been built by brand enforcement, partnerships, and associations. The players have their own support staff in the form of agents and sellers who bring value by ensuring and working towards making the player a positive revenue generating brand.
I agree with what you say, and I understand it. However, players could make $1 million and be well above the average folks, paid exceptionally well for their "brand," and would still have access to many other revenue streams that the average Joe simply doesn't have access to (marketing opportunities). At what point is enough enough? Why is someone being disrespected when they are offered $19 million, but totally respected at $20 million? When the numbers are that big, there is no functional difference between the two... and that $1 million saved could keep a number of non-athletes employed.
DeleteIn the current financial setting, it is irresponsible to continue to pamper athletes and movie stars with stratrospheric salaries. If the owners make it clear that every employee of a franchise is going to accept either the status quo or a $1 million cut, the fans would flock to fill the stadiums, regardless of the sport.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rookies coming onto the scene: begin as you mean to end. If you allow them to dictate the T&Cs of their employment, then you're going to be stuck with overly-paid prima donna's who win at the expense of the sport.
The days of bidding wars to escalate the price of talent are over as the seats are emptying because fans no longer can afford to pay the salaries.
Pro athletes worried about "feeding [their] families" is an insulting statement. I am lucky enough to make a good wage and do not have to worry about feeding my family, but there are lots of people right now who are truly struggling. Do they really expect us to take them seriously? What do they need that much money for, feeding caviar to their family pet? That statement spits in the face of those who are truly in need.
ReplyDelete