Athletes and income inequality

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 59
  • Views: 767
  • Politics 
Bigs23 said:
The market sets the price.
Click to expand...
That's true of hedge funds too. Ken Griffin worked really, really hard and his hedge fund performed well and now he's worth like $20B. And that's money sitting in the hands of an asshole.

It's true of bitcoin too. We've got a bunch of bitcoin millionaires (and I'm guessing a few billionaires even after SBF and CZ went down) who think they are really smart because "line goes up."

Athletes (and pop stars, for that matter) tend not to be educated. They're too busy playing ball, which is how they get to be superstars. Should it worry us if we have a class of billionaire or near-billionaire athletes who control way more resources than they really know what to do with? And again, the problem (ironically) is even worse in Europe. Virtually every Premier League team (well, the not-poor ones) has at least a player or two making $15-20M and barely playing. And guys like Ronaldo and Messi get paid a lot, and they are not very nice people. Ronaldo was estimated by Forbes to be a billionaire and one would imagine Messi is not far behind.

And Neymar is an extraordinary asshole -- a rich, entitled, fascist, tax-cheating POS.
 
Patb78 said:
The main reason rookie salaries are less than veterans’ is based really on performance. Kids were coming out of college football and basketball demanding (and getting) more than the established veterans were making. The established players started to object. Also, quite a number of these big salaried rookies bombed and the team was stuck. Now each of the three leagues have set rookie salaries based on when the player was drafted. The salaries aren’t minimum wage, but they are significantly below what the established stars are making. After his rookie contract is over, if the player has indeed proven he can play at the professional level he will receive a lot larger contract. There is no limit on endorsement money.
Click to expand...
That was definitely the story that the teams were selling and the union full of veteran players was happy to go along, but the owners didn't have to pay those salaries. The draftees were unproven back then when the owners were giving big salaries just like the draftees are unproven today.

And it's American football. There aren't a lot of alternatives for the players if ownership offers something below what the draftee is asking for. They can sit out, go to Canada or maybe go back to college but either way they aren't making American money.
 
Zoo_View said:
1). Don’t golfers get paid for performing well? They don’t get paid for performing poorly. Miss the cut on the PGA Tour and you make nada.

2). Don’t millions more watch the NFL, NBA, and MLB than watch the PGA (or the Saudi Tour)?
Click to expand...
Actually golfers now do get paid I think even if missing cut. But you got to be eligible to play, which is not easy. NFL football averages around 20 million in Sundays. Golf between 2 and 3 million..that is actually more than average NBA game and little less than baseball. My point is simply that the top golfers earn silly money but after you get past them not so much.
 
superrific said:
That's true of hedge funds too. Ken Griffin worked really, really hard and his hedge fund performed well and now he's worth like $20B. And that's money sitting in the hands of an asshole.

It's true of bitcoin too. We've got a bunch of bitcoin millionaires (and I'm guessing a few billionaires even after SBF and CZ went down) who think they are really smart because "line goes up."

Athletes (and pop stars, for that matter) tend not to be educated. They're too busy playing ball, which is how they get to be superstars. Should it worry us if we have a class of billionaire or near-billionaire athletes who control way more resources than they really know what to do with? And again, the problem (ironically) is even worse in Europe. Virtually every Premier League team (well, the not-poor ones) has at least a player or two making $15-20M and barely playing. And guys like Ronaldo and Messi get paid a lot, and they are not very nice people. Ronaldo was estimated by Forbes to be a billionaire and one would imagine Messi is not far behind.

And Neymar is an extraordinary asshole -- a rich, entitled, fascist, tax-cheating POS.
Click to expand...
It is what it is? Capitalism.
 
heel79 said:
Actually golfers now do get paid I think even if missing cut. But you got to be eligible to play, which is not easy. NFL football averages around 20 million in Sundays. Golf between 2 and 3 million..that is actually more than average NBA game and little less than baseball. My point is simply that the top golfers earn silly money but after you get past them not so much.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but they are playing golf.
 
superrific said:
I didn't say they were responsible. But this exact argument can apply to anything or anyone. We have an insatiable appetite for social media; hence Facebook being worth $500B and Zuck worth $80B or whatever the current numbers are.

If we are going to view income inequality as a policy issue worth discussing, then athlete salaries, I think, will have to be part of that story.
Click to expand...
It’s definitely “income inequality” but they earned it based on our Capitalist economy. Don’t want the Owners getting it all.
 
Patb78 said:
The main reason rookie salaries are less than veterans’ is based really on performance. Kids were coming out of college football and basketball demanding (and getting) more than the established veterans were making. The established players started to object. Also, quite a number of these big salaried rookies bombed and the team was stuck. Now each of the three leagues have set rookie salaries based on when the player was drafted. The salaries aren’t minimum wage, but they are significantly below what the established stars are making. After his rookie contract is over, if the player has indeed proven he can play at the professional level he will receive a lot larger contract. There is no limit on endorsement money.
Click to expand...
Oh
I get QB Couch or whatever. I just think "minumim wage " should a mill or 1.5 Now that would apply to like 30 players-and take 30 mill in the salary cap $30 mill instead of 60 mill for a veteran QB would be okay with me as a result
 
superrific said:
That is a fair answer, but doesn't that answer imply that income inequality is not an issue to worry about? It's just capitalism.
Click to expand...
We all know the game is rigged for the wealthy. Other than few legacies the game isn’t rigged for athletes.

It’s the “unearned” generational wealth that is the issue, imo.
 
superrific said:
That's true of hedge funds too. Ken Griffin worked really, really hard and his hedge fund performed well and now he's worth like $20B. And that's money sitting in the hands of an asshole.

It's true of bitcoin too. We've got a bunch of bitcoin millionaires (and I'm guessing a few billionaires even after SBF and CZ went down) who think they are really smart because "line goes up."

Athletes (and pop stars, for that matter) tend not to be educated. They're too busy playing ball, which is how they get to be superstars. Should it worry us if we have a class of billionaire or near-billionaire athletes who control way more resources than they really know what to do with? And again, the problem (ironically) is even worse in Europe. Virtually every Premier League team (well, the not-poor ones) has at least a player or two making $15-20M and barely playing. And guys like Ronaldo and Messi get paid a lot, and they are not very nice people. Ronaldo was estimated by Forbes to be a billionaire and one would imagine Messi is not far behind.

And Neymar is an extraordinary asshole -- a rich, entitled, fascist, tax-cheating POS.
Click to expand...
And, that differentiates him from Musk and the Techbroligarchs?
 
mpaer said:
Oh
I get QB Couch or whatever. I just think "minumim wage " should a mill or 1.5 Now that would apply to like 30 players-and take 30 mill in the salary cap $30 mill instead of 60 mill for a veteran QB would be okay with me as a result
Click to expand...
The salary basically depends on the player’s place in the draft. When it came to setting these rookie contracts the owners were definitely looking for a save us from ourselves clause. But also, a team is under tremendous pressure to sign their first round draft pick so the kids coming out of college had that on their side. There were cases in the NBA and NFL where these unproven college players were making more than the established stars. That had to be fixed.
 
Still not sure what point you are trying to make Super. If it is to simply acknowledge that super high athlete pay (and entertainers) add a significant portion to the uber wealthy. That is probably true and could be proven with data.

If that is your point, and we also add that sports stars and entertainers are probably the biggest percentage of AF's that reach that group. It is like natural DEI. It is also achieved totally fairly in the free market.

Do you remember the "pet" rock chatski of the 70's? It probably made 100s of $Millions in today's dollars. There are probably 100k+ women making 6 or 7 figures on Onlyfans-- everything from chatty pretty flirty girls all the way to video porn.

In all those cases, it is fine that money was made because people choose and want to buy it. Even for the dumb people that happily paid money for a rock with a rope leash to pull on ground.
 
Geisterfahrer said:
Missing the forest for the trees imo. Athletes’ window to make bank is very narrow and in any event is driven by the owners/teams economic power and the insatiable public appetite for sports. Our priorities are absurd but how are the athletes in any way responsible? To get paid they have to achieve and maintain excellence. They’d be doing the exact same things if they were getting paid $500k instead of $10M.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the window of opportunity point is really valid when an athlete can make more in 3-5 years than the average American makes in a lifetime.

The average family income in the US is still under $90K. At that rate, a family will make under $4M in 40 years of work. Rookie NBA contracts usually pay our more than that.
 
Isn't it basically a volume equation, there are so few Pro sports teams, in only takes a small percentage of the population to be willing to pay for the tickets and merch to ensure that the owners and the players are all rich.

It doesn't bother me that they make so much, it's not like they are easily replaceable. I head a quote once, the harder it is for your employer to replace you, the more they have to pay you. I believe that is true in general.
 
UNCatTech said:
I don't believe the window of opportunity point is really valid when an athlete can make more in 3-5 years than the average American makes in a lifetime.

The average family income in the US is still under $90K. At that rate, a family will make under $4M in 40 years of work. Rookie NBA contracts usually pay our more than that.
Click to expand...
Owners pay players a FRACTION of what they can pay players.

A FRACTION.

Owners are fighting CTE for a reason. It’s not to benefit fans or players.
 
No it does not bother me.
Its labor against capital...on a grand scale.
If anything it's a golden lottery ticket for kids coming from humble backgrounds.

Edited to add: I do think there's a bit of a sports bubble. Ticket pricing and facilities subsidies are the two early warning signals.
 
Last edited:
The owners writing the checks (predominately white dudes) would be getting even richer if the money going to the players (predominately people of color) was smaller.

So while yes I agree some of the money is out of control, it’s not like Patrick Mahomes is stealing money from the people in the soup kitchen. He’s just getting his share of the profits that would otherwise be going to ownership.

There is a ton of money in sports and the split between ownership and labor (players) seems about right to me. This is largely due to collective bargaining being a successful framework.

On a separate note, we need college sports to get to a point where the players are considered employees and thus collective bargaining can take place, ASAP. That will help get college sports out of this current phase where it’s the Wild West.
 
Patb78 said:
The salary basically depends on the player’s place in the draft. When it came to setting these rookie contracts the owners were definitely looking for a save us from ourselves clause. But also, a team is under tremendous pressure to sign their first round draft pick so the kids coming out of college had that on their side. There were cases in the NBA and NFL where these unproven college players were making more than the established stars. That had to be fixed.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree
I just think the "minimum wage" should be a lot higher.Tons of guys are on "minimum wage" in the NFL-like I think half or more. Now granted that is like $450,000-that number should be higher given the revenue flow...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top