Sports payrolls..

[j00fek]

itll never happen

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: 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?

I was hoping someone else would look it up.

And yes, we have a much more "communist" sports market here in the US than, say, the football leagues in England. There are far less restrictions on payrolls and league membership in the UK, making it much closer to a free market system.

 

[ElFenix]

ummm... so? nothing you've shown really says that there needs to be a salary cap. if small town owners say they can't compete then they should do what any other business person who can't compete does: sell.

and the players' union would probably never go for it, and they are by far the most powerful union in sports.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: brikis98


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.

I already said that several posts up but thanks for agreeing

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.

no there is not. hockey teams have lower slaries because they have less fan base. if you have 1 million games a year it doesnt matter if only 120 ppl attend/watch each game market size x # of games = team budget = team salary when those values(market size and # of games) increase the team budget increases and salaries do as well. its quite simple

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MrChad

I was hoping someone else would look it up.

And yes, we have a much more "communist" sports market here in the US than, say, the football leagues in England. There are far less restrictions on payrolls and league membership in the UK, making it much closer to a free market system.

the owners of football teams are more like partners in a company. the owners of baseball teams are closer to being completely free. but they're still in it for major league baseball or maybe we'd have a nice feature like sending the crappiest team down to AAA and promoting the best AAA team. now THAT would be interesting.

 

[o9z]

Big f-ing deal that football players don't make what baseball players do.......Garbage men work "harder" than computer programmers when talking about physical labor and make peanuts compared.

Distinguishing between jobs is absurd. Do you want to start a post about the CEO of Wal-Mart raking in too much compared to you who scoops crap out of Hog Barns?

As one poster said....Apples to Oranges.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
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?

Because if your team has no real competition than the fans and the players will lose interest very quickly.

Besides the true money comes not only from having the best team, but from having the best team with a huge fan base. There are really only a handful of markets that can compete with NY around the country. If your team were really allowed to run rampant, then it would end up with only those markets having teams (reducing the paying fan immensely).

This would result in significantly fewer TV dollars as well as other advertising money for your team.

In the long run it is beneficial to have many, many teams spread throughout the country each of whom have the potential to be competitive.

 

[o9z]

And also...the number of games does figure in. 162 games of baseball = A TON more revenue for each team. Think of all the consessions, etc. Mroe revenue = more room to pay employees. Should it go to the players or to the Chiefs? I say pay who is attracting the fans, not the upper management!

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: brikis98


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.

I already said that several posts up but thanks for agreeing

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.

no there is not. hockey teams have lower slaries because they have less fan base. if you have 1 million games a year it doesnt matter if only 120 ppl attend/watch each game market size x # of games = team budget = team salary when those values(market size and # of games) increase the team budget increases and salaries do as well. its quite simple

yes, but we're discussing if baseball players should make more money because they play more games. my argument is that all athletes are "working" year round and games played should not (and is not) the only factor to consider for payroll.

moreover, the hockey fanbase argument only strengthens my point: hockey's payroll isn't that high even though the play a lot of games. so, again, the # of games is not the relevant measure of how much a payroll should be.


EDIT --> forgot to mention the most important point. none of this is relevant to a fan's desire of having a balanced league. and having one team with a $200+ million payroll and another with a $15 million payroll is NOT balanced.

 

[mugs]

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.

Games = revenues

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: 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?

I was hoping someone else would look it up.

And yes, we have a much more "communist" sports market here in the US than, say, the football leagues in England. There are far less restrictions on payrolls and league membership in the UK, making it much closer to a free market system.

That's the problem. I would love to see leagues be more free market. The Brewers would have died years ago if there was a freer baseball market.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: 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?

I was hoping someone else would look it up.

And yes, we have a much more "communist" sports market here in the US than, say, the football leagues in England. There are far less restrictions on payrolls and league membership in the UK, making it much closer to a free market system.

That's true, but there are only a handful of teams that can compete for the UK championships every year and there are European championships that are seen as bigger and better than the league or the British cups.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: mugs

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.

Games = revenues

Mugs, just let the stupid people rant. 'Tis their way.

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: 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.

I would have to disagree with your examples. There are always going to be teams that are mismanaged and are bad. I could easily point out that Tenessee and the Raiders were two of the top teams a few years ago. The difference between MLB and the NFL is that we all know at the beginning of the year that the Yankees, BoSox, Mets, and Angels will be vying for the playoffs. We are also pretty sure that KC, Pitt, Tampa, will have no chance. Sure there are teams like the Marlins who win, but they had a moderate payroll that year.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: brikis98


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.

I already said that several posts up but thanks for agreeing

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.

no there is not. hockey teams have lower slaries because they have less fan base. if you have 1 million games a year it doesnt matter if only 120 ppl attend/watch each game market size x # of games = team budget = team salary when those values(market size and # of games) increase the team budget increases and salaries do as well. its quite simple

yes, but we're discussing if baseball players should make more money because they play more games. my argument is that all athletes are "working" year round and games played should not (and is not) the only factor to consider for payroll.

moreover, the hockey fanbase argument only strengthens my point: hockey's payroll isn't that high even though the play a lot of games. so, again, the # of games is not the relevant measure of how much a payroll should be.


EDIT --> forgot to mention the most important point. none of this is relevant to a fan's desire of having a balanced league. and having one team with a $200+ million payroll and another with a $15 million payroll is NOT balanced.

then one team should leave the league and i dont think it should be the 200 mil team. shouldnt punish teams for doing well and being managed well

 

[MrChad]

Interesting. Compare the list of baseball teams sorted by revenue, and the top teams are as you would expect. Sort by operating income, and the cheapest and worst performing teams bubble up to the top. Source.

Despite having far fewer games, football revenues are incredibly high. Source

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: 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?

I was hoping someone else would look it up.

And yes, we have a much more "communist" sports market here in the US than, say, the football leagues in England. There are far less restrictions on payrolls and league membership in the UK, making it much closer to a free market system.

The reason why football in the UK can do that is that the teams are rotated in and out of the top levels of the league based on performance, at least that is my understanding. Each team is responsible for their own product only, and not necessarily the league's product as a whole. In the US, sports leagues don't practice this. It probably would be a much better model in the sense that the best 16 teams would be much better than those in the lower league.

It isn't communist, it is capitalist. Owning a sports franchise is like owning a McDonalds franchise in some ways. You still have to pay to promote the product with TV ads, etc. You still have to ensure that each franchise is producing the "quality of product" so that the brand keeps to a certain standard in the mind of the public.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

then one team should leave the league and i dont think it should be the 200 mil team. shouldnt punish teams for doing well and being managed well

i'd rather level the playing field in both directions - have minimum payrolls and max payrolls, as suggested earlier (and as implemented in several leagues). and, like european soccer, i wouldn't be opposed to the worst teams being dropped to a lower league too.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: z42
It isn't communist, it is capitalist. Owning a sports franchise is like owning a McDonalds franchise in some ways. You still have to pay to promote the product with TV ads, etc. You still have to ensure that each franchise is producing the "quality of product" so that the brand keeps to a certain standard in the mind of the public.

Yes, but McDonald's doesn't redistribute the earnings from well-performing franchises to prop up its failing stores. I understand what you're getting at though.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: z42

Originally posted by: 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.

I would have to disagree with your examples. There are always going to be teams that are mismanaged and are bad. I could easily point out that Tenessee and the Raiders were two of the top teams a few years ago. The difference between MLB and the NFL is that we all know at the beginning of the year that the Yankees, BoSox, Mets, and Angels will be vying for the playoffs. We are also pretty sure that KC, Pitt, Tampa, will have no chance. Sure there are teams like the Marlins who win, but they had a moderate payroll that year.

The angels and the mets have only been good for a couple of years. The braves used to kill the mets every single year, now the shoe is on the other foot. The angels used to be a laughingstock. Remember the movie angels in the outfield. Basically, only the yankees are consistantly dominant. And they go on streaks of dominance. They haven't won one since 2000. And since 1996 they haddn't one one since 1978. I would rather the league just contract and getrid of KC, Pitt, and Tampa.

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: preslove

The angels and the mets have only been good for a couple of years. The braves used to kill the mets every single year, now the shoe is on the other foot. The angels used to be a laughingstock. Remember the movie angels in the outfield. Basically, only the yankees are consistantly dominant. And they go on streaks of dominance. They haven't won one since 2000. And since 1996 they haddn't one one since 1978. I would rather the league just contract and getrid of KC, Pitt, and Tampa.

True. But the Braves were also one of the top spenders (I should have included them in my list) and the Angels used to have a much lower payroll before the new owner. I do agree with you for the most part, that talent has become to diluted and a few teams could be contracted if they weren't willing to spend the minimum. The problem is, the league and the players union will never let that happen. My suggestions for a salary structure is an attempt to make the best solution that is still somewhat realistic.

We could really argue about whether a salary cap would change much in MLB, I would agree that it probably wouldn't make a huge difference. But it would help a lot of the teams in small markets have a better chance of turning around a bad team. And I really think that it would bring a lot more fans to the game in those areas if they felt their team had a chance to win. KC and Pittsburg used to be huge baseball teams with a great fan base.

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: z42
It isn't communist, it is capitalist. Owning a sports franchise is like owning a McDonalds franchise in some ways. You still have to pay to promote the product with TV ads, etc. You still have to ensure that each franchise is producing the "quality of product" so that the brand keeps to a certain standard in the mind of the public.

Yes, but McDonald's doesn't redistribute the earnings from well-performing franchises to prop up its failing stores. I understand what you're getting at though.

It is a very strange industry, since you can't have a "winner". If one team succeeds and all the rest fail, who are they going to play? If one team has all the talent it becomes a sideshow a-la Harlem Globetrotters.

 

[cyclohexane]

because any joe shmoe can learn to tackle well, given he works hard enough. Only a handful of people in the country can throw 100mph pitches accurately.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
because any joe shmoe can learn to tackle well, given he works hard enough. Only a handful of people in the country can throw 100mph pitches accurately.

wow, what an ignorant and absurd statement.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: 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

Who cares?

No one puts a gun to the head of each owner requiring them to pay that much. Given that fact, obviously each owner believes he is better off paying them that much rather than not paying them that much.

Ref: the Katie Couric thread for more details about why this is a silly thread. And, I'll say it again, if you think baseball players earn too much, take their job from them.