upstater1
Hall of Fame Poster
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 26,624
- Reaction score
- 16,899
Oh boy.....
LOL, I think his statement proves his point.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Oh boy.....
My slant is on ownership and revenue sharing.
I agree. He is one of the top 5(?) at what he does in the WORLD. How much do you think the top 5 professors at the most prestigious universities in the world make? The average salary for professors at universities like Harvard make close to 200k. Sound comparable to the average NFL player?
I agree. He is one of the top 5(?) at what he does in the WORLD. How much do you think the top 5 professors at the most prestigious universities in the world make? The average salary for professors at universities like Harvard make close to 200k. Sound comparable to the average NFL player?
The top money earners in academia are the professors who leverage their academic credentials into commercial relationships, from consultancies to board positions. Over the lifetime of their careers, they can make a *lot* of money.
The (relatively high) amount of money athletes make is based on capitalism. Pretty basic supply and demand.
Which had nothing to do with anything being discussed nor the post in which you referenced.
Wrong post. My bad. Don't play post cop, emoney.
In relative terms, yes, but I would argue that owners treat their sport like a hobby and they do not have anywhere near the margins that they have in other businesses. Say the Patriots have 200 employees, with half of them involved in the highly specialized part of the business (i.e. the part that produces all the dough). I'd wager that they make a ton more money as a % than the top half of employees at similarly lucrative businesses elsewhere. It's an apples and oranges comparison but I guess my argument is that you don't have the imbalances between owners and workers that you regularly see in many companies (this doesn't apply of course to industry where the skills of workers aren't as specialized).
You're assigning a "deserves" value one way or the other. You just want these players to use your value numbers rather than their own. In a capitalist society, they don't need to accept your valuation, and they don't have to apologize for their own.
I didn't miss your point. I simply don't hold to it. As for diminishing the struggles of others, their struggles are diminished all the time. Players would be foolish not to try to equate their situation with other labor groups.
I'm not trying to be a post cop or anything, it's just how I follow the conversation. If you reply to a certain post it follows that you are debating a point in that post. But if it's misunderstanding then I'm moving on, sorry.
I'm not sure I agree. The (top) players are in incredibly high demand while incredibly low supply. Although if your point is that maybe some owners will overvalue/overpay for a top player (employee) more than they would normally in another business for a top employee just because of the nature of it, then I guess I can see where you are coming from.
That's exactly what I'm saying. For many of the owners, this is more about getting their face in the papers. They really care about winning. They will pay. Think of Daniel Snyder. I'm sure some guy has come up with some thingie to make him many millions at his business. But he treats it like a business. The Redskins? I'd say there's an extra involved there somewhere.
Regardless, I do agree with the original poster that Vince's statement was inappropriate. You can't compare yourself to a teacher. A teacher may be fired (and a lot of them have been recently) and they'll find themselves in dire straits. A football player, not so much.
Actually, the NFL and how monies are distributed is pretty close to socialism.
Sounds like you're talking about business, finance, international relations, and I'd say that most have a symbiotic relationship with the business world.
In the Humanities and Sciences, you have a lot of research money coming into schools and the professors do not cash out. They don't even have patent rights on inventions or discoveries or even a right to the % on the books they sell.
Woooooaaaaaaah!! $200k??? Not even half of that.
The stats are readily available.
He is . . . but it's also at something that, in the scheme of things, makes no difference whatsoever. He's great . . . GREAT . . . at something totally meaningless and he should be very thankful that we decide to make it meaningful for whatever reason we do.I agree. He is one of the top 5(?) at what he does in the WORLD.
I definitely agree with you on this. It is precisely because this is a capital society and there is no intrinsic value determining worth. It's all relevant to the market.
But what is the market? It's not some objective entity. It's a human creation and it's subject to all sorts of human behavior.
Without Daniel Snyder, Vince Wilfork is thinking quite differently right now.
Look at the NBA. They have overpaid their players and they are in bad shape. Look at Tedy Bruschi: he would have been cut and playing for veteran minimum ages before he retired had he not brokered the smart deal he did. Look at John Calipari in Kentucky: a product of boosters because he is NOT worth the amount they paid him. The market determines how much these players are worth, but that doesn't mean players or agents have a grasp of all the values and parameters involved. So, Vince's statement that $7 million is a slap in the face is really too much.
And there are teacher's and such who bring a lot more value to an enterprise but they don't break the bank precisely because they work for a non-profit enterprise in the business of educating, and they know that every extra dime they take drains money from the school's central mission. There are some smart research guys out there pulling many million dollar projects into universities. They could easily set up shop elsewhere, but that would disrupt their schools, their projects, etc. Market-wise, in any specialized discipline, you'll find a lot fewer experts working on, say, photosynthesizing solar cells than you will div. 1 coaches and prospective coaches making $1 million, but that doesn't mean the market or research behind this field is much smaller than the market for college basketball (it's not). The market would dictate those researchers get paid more: if they only demand it.