Sports payrolls..

[Syringer]

Was looking through some numbers here right now and uncovered some interesting things..

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2006
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/basketba...alaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005-06

*There are 5 teams in baseball (~25 guys) with payrolls higher than the top NFL team (~50 guys)
*The difference between the NFL's lowest payroll and highest is $60mil to $100mil, basketball it's $30mil to $94 mil...and in baseball it's $14mil to $192mil, almost 14 times higher
*The Knicks would rank #7 in the NFL and #8 in the MLB in terms of payroll for their 12 "superstars"
*Yankees payroll in 1990 was $20 mil, and has since doubled and then some about 3 times
*Eagles and Bengals are near the bottom in the NFL in payrolls, and the Raiders are #3
*From 00-05 there have been 3 instances with NFL teams' payrolls going over $100mil, in baseball there have been 18, and one instance of $200mil

 

[IceBergSLiM]

football pallyers play 20-23 games a year.

stop comparing apples an oranges.

 

[Thraxen]

They need fewer games. Baseball seasons are too long and thus too boring.

 

[vi edit]

If you really want to shake things up, throw hockey in there.

 

[Pastore]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
football pallyers play 20-23 games a year.

stop comparing apples an oranges.

I don't care how many games a year they play, football players train MUCH harder than MLB players. And both "work" all year round so length of actual season doesn't matter much either.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
football pallyers play 20-23 games a year.

stop comparing apples an oranges.

I don't care how many games a year they play, football players train MUCH harder than MLB players. And both "work" all year round so length of actual season doesn't matter much either.

how do they train much harder? its a different sport they train much differently I dont know how that you can qualify 'much harder'.

all pro athletes train year round.

They get paid proportionally if you divide salary by # of games played and length of games. Baseball games go on hours. Football you are getting paid to play 60 minutes per game. The practices mean nothing its the games that they pay the money for. The franchises dont make money off of practices.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Pastore
both "work" all year round so length of actual season doesn't matter much either.

QFT

But if we don't pay them so much, how will they ever afford their private islands and gold-plated, diamond-encrusted shark tanks? 🙁

 

[rivan]

They need to pay players/owners less and lower ticket prices. Get people who love the game playing instead of people who love the money.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
football pallyers play 20-23 games a year.

stop comparing apples an oranges.

I don't care how many games a year they play, football players train MUCH harder than MLB players. And both "work" all year round so length of actual season doesn't matter much either.

how do they train much harder? its a different sport that train much differently maybe I dont know how you can qualify much harder.

all pro athletes train year round.

They get paid proportionally if you divide salary by # of games played and length of games. Baseball games go on hours. Football you are getting paid to play 60 minutes per game. The practices mean nothing its the games that they pay the money for. The franchises dont make money off of practices.

no offense, but it really sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.

football games are "60 minutes" officially, but just like baseball, go on for 2-3 hours. the reason baseball can be played so many times per year is because it is NOT a physically demanding game. there's VERY little running, almost no physical contact and the vast majority of the game is spent sitting or standing around and waiting.

football has plenty of stoppages too, but every play is full intensity, with tons of tackling and way the hell more running. football players also practice every day for several hours and their practices typically include far more conditioning and strength training than baseball.

and the players ARE paid for practices, it's part of their job. saying football players "only" play 16 games a year makes it sounds like they are idle the rest of the season, which is totally untrue. they work just as many days as any baseball player, although in my opinion, their sport is much "tougher".


Edit -> oh, and for the issue at hand, yes, baseball should have a salary cap if for no reason other than to level the playing field. tons of other sports do it and it works out fine.

 

[preslove]

The long ass season in baseball means more revenue. I wouldn't support a salary cap and the same # of games. That's just transfering $ from the players to the owners.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: rivan
They need to pay players/owners less and lower ticket prices. Get people who love the game playing instead of people who love the money.

why? I get the impression that many pro athletes do love to play. and would and have played for free (aka there whole life before mlb) If team b is going to pay me to play a game i love more than team a then wtf would I not tak emore money. its capitalism. everyone wants to get paid in this world.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
football pallyers play 20-23 games a year.

stop comparing apples an oranges.

The NFLPA is far weaker when compared to the MLBPA and NBPA. That is the main reason for salary caps and the lack of guaranteed contracts.

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: Syringer

*The difference between the NFL's lowest payroll and highest is $60mil to $100mil, basketball it's $30mil to $94 mil...and in baseball it's $14mil to $192mil, almost 14 times higher

This is the part that has always bothered me. Right now, the NFL is the most competitive league and you can see that the payrolls are competitive too. Baseball doesn't only need a cap, they need a floor as well. If you are going to have a competitive league, you can't have cheap owners who don't care about winning.

Here's my solution:

Implement a $26mil floor and have a soft cap at $78mil. If you pay over $78mil you pay into a pool for the low revenue teams $1:$1. Then you have a hard cap at $106mil.

This has a avg of $1mill/player floor, $3mill/player soft cap and $4mill/player hard cap. Obviously I don't know what MLB's revenue is, but that ratio can be adjusted to where the players are getting 55% or whatever the union negotiates of the pie. I think if they implemented a system like this, Lower payroll teams would be willing to spend more because they will have a realistic shot at a championship. The result of that will be more fans in places like KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh, etc. Another byproduct will be that teams will be able to keep more of their homegrown talent.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: preslove
The long ass season in baseball means more revenue. I wouldn't support a salary cap and the same # of games. That's just transfering $ from the players to the owners.

exactly. everyone would be up in arms if steinbrenner was banking 300m a year.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: rivan
They need to pay players/owners less and lower ticket prices. Get people who love the game playing instead of people who love the money.

Here here!

Thats why I like collegiate level sports so much.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
football pallyers play 20-23 games a year.

stop comparing apples an oranges.

I don't care how many games a year they play, football players train MUCH harder than MLB players. And both "work" all year round so length of actual season doesn't matter much either.

how do they train much harder? its a different sport that train much differently maybe I dont know how you can qualify much harder.

all pro athletes train year round.

They get paid proportionally if you divide salary by # of games played and length of games. Baseball games go on hours. Football you are getting paid to play 60 minutes per game. The practices mean nothing its the games that they pay the money for. The franchises dont make money off of practices.

no offense, but it really sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.

football games are "60 minutes" officially, but just like baseball, go on for 2-3 hours. the reason baseball can be played so many times per year is because it is NOT a physically demanding game. there's VERY little running, almost no physical contact and the vast majority of the game is spent sitting or standing around and waiting.

football has plenty of stoppages too, but every play is full intensity, with tons of tackling and way the hell more running. football players also practice every day for several hours and their practices typically include far more conditioning and strength training than baseball.

and the players ARE paid for practices, it's part of their job. saying football players "only" play 16 games a year makes it sounds like they are idle the rest of the season, which is totally untrue. they work just as many days as any baseball player, although in my opinion, their sport is much "tougher".


Edit -> oh, and for the issue at hand, yes, baseball should have a salary cap if for no reason other than to level the playing field. tons of other sports do it and it works out fine.

I do know what I'm talking about. i played football and baseball for years all through school. Yes football is physically demanding when you are actually on the field. I agree. But at the same time in football you have unlimited subs. Players can come out for play. If your offense is dominating the defense might be just standing the sidelines all game. It goes both ways.

Baseball players practice daily as well. year round in the batting cages too. football players dont have practices daily until they report for training camp in july/august.

there is a direct corrolation to games played and mmoney generated. Salaries have a direct corrolation to that number. thats all there is too it.

 

[MrChad]

How much money does each NFL team generate with revenue sharing? How does that compare to say the Yankees (highest payroll in baseball) or the Marlins (one of the lowest payrolls in baseball)?

 

[bigdog1218]

The last thing baseball, or any sport, needs is a salary cap. The salary cap ruined football and every other league thats introduced it. Over expansion in baseball is the main cause for the huge increase in salaries. Players that wouldn't even be in the majors 20 years ago are now getting multi-million dollar contracts because talent is so thin.

And your points are absolutly horrible and show you know absolutly nothing since you compared two leagues with salary caps in place with a league without a cap. If you did know anything you would realize that the NFL has a $102 million cap, so obviously it would be hard for teams to spend more. You would also realize the nfl has a minimum salary, which is what baseball needs. Consider a team like the Marlins, who have a $14 million payroll and recieved $32 million from revenue sharing last year. That's the problem, crappy owners, too many teams, idiots like you. The salary cap is a horrible idea.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: MrChad
How much money does each NFL team generate with revenue sharing? How does that compare to say the Yankees (highest payroll in baseball) or the Marlins (one of the lowest payrolls in baseball)?

tell us.

edit: isnt revenue sharing the communist way?

If I as a franchise own bought a franchise what incentive do i have to develope it into a world class team that wins consistently if all my money jsut goes to the losers?

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
The last thing baseball, or any sport, needs is a salary cap. The salary cap ruined football and every other league thats introduced it. Over expansion in baseball is the main cause for the huge increase in salaries. Players that wouldn't even be in the majors 20 years ago are now getting multi-million dollar contracts because talent is so thin.

And your points are absolutly horrible and show you know absolutly nothing since you compared two leagues with salary caps in place with a league without a cap. If you did know anything you would realize that the NFL has a $102 million cap, so obviously it would be hard for teams to spend more. You would also realize the nfl has a minimum salary, which is what baseball needs. Consider a team like the Marlins, who have a $14 million payroll and recieved $32 million from revenue sharing last year. That's the problem, crappy owners, too many teams, idiots like you. The salary cap is a horrible idea.

How has the salary cap ruined football?

 

[yosuke188]

As much as I would love to see a salary cap in baseball, it's just not going to work. I really don't want to get into thw hole TV contract thing, you can research it if you wnat to know.

If you consider NFL as perfect (bussiness wise), then MLB is far off. The main difference is 16 nationaly televised games per year during Prime Time TV hours v.s. 163 locally televised games per year on weekdays, including some day games.

 

[mordantmonkey]

so you think the owners should be taking a larger share of the profts?

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
football pallyers play 20-23 games a year.

stop comparing apples an oranges.

I don't care how many games a year they play, football players train MUCH harder than MLB players. And both "work" all year round so length of actual season doesn't matter much either.

how do they train much harder? its a different sport that train much differently maybe I dont know how you can qualify much harder.

all pro athletes train year round.

They get paid proportionally if you divide salary by # of games played and length of games. Baseball games go on hours. Football you are getting paid to play 60 minutes per game. The practices mean nothing its the games that they pay the money for. The franchises dont make money off of practices.

no offense, but it really sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.

football games are "60 minutes" officially, but just like baseball, go on for 2-3 hours. the reason baseball can be played so many times per year is because it is NOT a physically demanding game. there's VERY little running, almost no physical contact and the vast majority of the game is spent sitting or standing around and waiting.

football has plenty of stoppages too, but every play is full intensity, with tons of tackling and way the hell more running. football players also practice every day for several hours and their practices typically include far more conditioning and strength training than baseball.

and the players ARE paid for practices, it's part of their job. saying football players "only" play 16 games a year makes it sounds like they are idle the rest of the season, which is totally untrue. they work just as many days as any baseball player, although in my opinion, their sport is much "tougher".


Edit -> oh, and for the issue at hand, yes, baseball should have a salary cap if for no reason other than to level the playing field. tons of other sports do it and it works out fine.

I do know what I'm talking about. i played football and baseball for years all through school. Yes football is physically demanding when you are actually on the field. I agree. But at the same time in football you have unlimited subs. Players can come out for play. If your offense is dominating the defense might be just standing the sidelines all game. It goes both ways.

Baseball players practice daily as well. year round in the batting cages too. football players dont have practices daily until they report for training camp in july/august.

there is a direct corrolation to games played and mmoney generated. Salaries have a direct corrolation to that number. thats all there is too it.

high school sports aside, pro football players train year round as well, doing at the least conditioning and strength training if not actual football drills. they'd be in pretty rough shape come spring training if they didn't... the point of all that, of course, is that professional athletes, regardless of the sport, are training all the time.

as for the games to money generated argument, i don't have the statistics to argue either way. i would speculate that if you look across sports - including baseball (162 games), hockey (82 games), football (16 games), basketball, soccer, tennis, etc - you'll see a very broad range of income generated that, at best, will only be loosely correlated to the number of games played. and that generated income will be, at best, only loosely correlated to the player salaries. there's too many other factors to consider to make that as the argument against having a salary cap or even why certain sports deserve more money.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: z42
Right now, the NFL is the most competitive league.

But it's not the most competitive league. The NFL has its Tennessee and its Packers and its Texans and its 49ers, just like baseball.

The problem behind the salary discrepancy is that not all owners want to win as badly as George.

The real question is what came first the horse or the cart?

Did the owners lose interest in competing because Steinbrenner can spend $200 million a season and they can only afford (some number smaller than $200).

Or were they never interested in competing just making as much money as possible.

The real problem (at the heart of it all) are the fans. They will continually go to their team's games even though their teams stink. If the owners thought for one second that the only way for them to make money was to field a competitive team, then they would probably have to spend more money to do so.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: z42
Baseball doesn't only need a cap, they need a floor as well. If you are going to have a competitive league, you can't have cheap owners who don't care about winning.

Here's my solution:

Implement a $26mil floor and have a soft cap at $78mil. If you pay over $78mil you pay into a pool for the low revenue teams $1:$1. Then you have a hard cap at $106mil.

This has a avg of $1mill/player floor, $3mill/player soft cap and $4mill/player hard cap. Obviously I don't know what MLB's revenue is, but that ratio can be adjusted to where the players are getting 55% or whatever the union negotiates of the pie. I think if they implemented a system like this, Lower payroll teams would be willing to spend more because they will have a realistic shot at a championship. The result of that will be more fans in places like KC, Tampa, Pittsburgh, etc. Another byproduct will be that teams will be able to keep more of their homegrown talent.

Having said what I just said, I still like your solution.