Thurman#1 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 What that school makes is inarguably worth more than $13.3B, no matter how hard it is to quantify. It's worth an awful lot, but it's not worth more than $13.3 B. If it were, someone would be paying that $13.3 B. They're not. Yeah, it would be nice if the world was fair. It's not, and worrying about that is a waste of time. It's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. Is Tom Cruise worth $25 mill a movie? Yeah, to the movie companies desperate for a big opening weekend who know that people come out to see Cruise movies, he is. Does that mean that his work has innate value worth more than 500 times the $25 K a youngish teacher might make? No, of course not, but again, the world isn't fair. If a person is so worried about this, he should probably opt out of the system, stop following football and movies and maybe move to a country that's more socialist in its values. I quoted Musashi today in a different thread but the same quote works well here (and pretty much everywhere, really). "Whatever your determination or will power, it is foolish to try to change the nature of things. Things work the way they do because that is the way of things." Exactly. In America, this is the way of things.
GoBills808 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 It's worth an awful lot, but it's not worth more than $13.3 B. If it were, someone would be paying that $13.3 B. They're not. Yeah, it would be nice if the world was fair. It's not, and worrying about that is a waste of time. It's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. Is Tom Cruise worth $25 mill a movie? Yeah, to the movie companies desperate for a big opening weekend who know that people come out to see Cruise movies, he is. Does that mean that his work has innate value worth more than 500 times the $25 K a youngish teacher might make? No, of course not, but again, the world isn't fair. If a person is so worried about this, he should probably opt out of the system, stop following football and movies and maybe move to a country that's more socialist in its values. I quoted Musashi today in a different thread but the same quote works well here (and pretty much everywhere, really). "Whatever your determination or will power, it is foolish to try to change the nature of things. Things work the way they do because that is the way of things." Exactly. In America, this is the way of things. Your definition of 'worth' and mine differ. And too many sentences there to be lecturing someone on time wasting. I'm far from worried about this. I do find it hilarious that you've chosen to defend capitalism in this way, when a redistribution of the profits to the NFL's working class a la Watkins' proposal is a decidedly non-capitalist motivation to contribute to the topic. Carry on.
Fan in San Diego Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 The number of games is irrelevant. The revenue is generated in those 16 games. Plus playoffs. IMHO I think it is relevant. Sammy only suits up 16 games a year, most of the time not even that. Where an NBA player suits up 5 to 6 times that number per year. Someone who plays 5 to 6 times more should get paid more. To me that is relevant. But everyone has there own opinion.
boyst Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 Did you get that Zebra yet? it's 5k. i've found cheaper ones, actually. never thought to google'm. but they can be had for $2,500
Kemp Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 The sad reality is that the single mom who works 3 jobs doesn't generate nearly the same revenue for her employers that Sammy generates for the Pegulas and the NFL. Curious how you quantify the revenue that Watkins generates for the Bills. If he never played another game for Buffalo, how much money would the team lose?
Rochesterfan Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) There are other things in there. $212M per team though is 51% of $13.3B. The salary cap is based on the shared revenue (which is why the number is smaller).Correct - so they would need to make other modifications to the agreement not just up the percentage. I don't see that happening. Even with the change you get the same issue - the salaries for the top tier would go higher, but most would not be affected. If the players union actually represented all the players and not just the stars - they could correct that and make things more balanced so everyone on the players side shared in the wealth, but it does not. The majority of the players and their short careers will be the reason the players fold again in the next CBA. It will go into the season, but with only a 3 year life span for most players - the majority need the paychecks. Edited July 3, 2017 by Rochesterfan
Kirby Jackson Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 Correct - so they would need to make other modifications to the agreement not just up the percentage. I don't see that happening. Even with the change you get the same issue - the salaries for the top tier would go higher, but most would not be affected. In the players union actually represented all the players and not just the stars - they could correct that and make things more balanced so everyone on the players side shared in the wealth, but it does not. The majority of the players and their short careers will be the reason the players fold again in the next CBA. It will go into the season, but with only a 3 year life span for most players - the majority need the paychecks. I agree with all of this. Even if another $12M a year (as an example) was dumped into each team's salary cap I don't think that the league minimum guys are getting a big share. It's guys like Sammy, in a contract year, that may see an extra $3-$4M a year over the life of his deal. Curious how you quantify the revenue that Watkins generates for the Bills. If he never played another game for Buffalo, how much money would the team lose?That's an interesting question and one it would take an economist to figure out. There have been studies that LeBron is worth billions to Cleveland. Obviously he's an extreme example. If you just take the NFL revenues ($13.3B) and divide it by 1,696 players you are looking at $7,842,000 per player. Obviously Sammy is worth more to the team than Tanner Vallejo. I don't know how the real impact could ever be determined.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 His point was about NFL players generally. ...yup.....but here's a quote I remember to put the surreal world on pro sports pay insanity:....T-Wolves offered Spreewell an annual salary of $14 mil (2005), which he called an "insult".....followed by, "I have children to feed".......clown went belly up and lost everything..........I'd bet the TBD'ers that are making $14 mil would NEVER call it an insult.....
hondo in seattle Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 If the players negotiate more money through the NFLPA, the owners will protect their margins by increasing ticket prices, broadcasting pricing, etc. In the end, we fans will be the ones who pay. I think Sammy already gets enough of our money.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 If the players negotiate more money through the NFLPA, the owners will protect their margins by increasing ticket prices, broadcasting pricing, etc. In the end, we fans will be the ones who pay. I think Sammy already gets enough of our money. ...YOU, a/k/a the average fan on which this league was built no longer matter.....TV revenues and corporate dollars are the bread and butter......if the average guy can scrape together 500 bucks to take a family of four, so be it...if not, so be it....they could care less..............
NoSaint Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 ...yup.....but here's a quote I remember to put the surreal world on pro sports pay insanity:....T-Wolves offered Spreewell an annual salary of $14 mil (2005), which he called an "insult".....followed by, "I have children to feed".......clown went belly up and lost everything..........I'd bet the TBD'ers that are making $14 mil would NEVER call it an insult..... It can be an insult just like a 50k offer to a 75k skill set would be even if a minimum wage earner might roll eyes. The kids line is what really got him the scrutiny
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 It can be an insult just like a 50k offer to a 75k skill set would be even if a minimum wage earner might roll eyes. The kids line is what really got him the scrutiny ....agree.....tough rawhide for us commoners to chew on when a guy making millions is peeing in his Wheaties while we take our bottles and cans back for nickles..........
Kirby Jackson Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 ...YOU, a/k/a the average fan on which this league was built no longer matter.....TV revenues and corporate dollars are the bread and butter......if the average guy can scrape together 500 bucks to take a family of four, so be it...if not, so be it....they could care less.............. It's bigger than that though. The people consuming it at home, or playing fantasy football or whatever are the reason these networks are paying what they are. That demographic is tough to reach. Our interest in the game, not just our wallets, are driving these revenues. So the subtle protest of not buying tickets, or jerseys has an impact but it doesn't force change. If people want athletes to make less money they need to stop consuming the product. Every time we click to read a story on BB.com we are contributing. Additionally, live sports are the last thing driving these TV networks. People can consume other shows on DVR or on demand but it's tough to watch a game 3 days later. Sports will always hold a value to the networks for this reason.
GoBills808 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 It can be an insult just like a 50k offer to a 75k skill set would be even if a minimum wage earner might roll eyes. The kids line is what really got him the scrutiny I think you have to acknowledge here that the difference between $50K and $75K is an order of magnitude different than $14M and $21M in terms of impact on quality of life, though. At some point there exist diminishing returns, and I'd say it occurs well before $14 million a year.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 Curious how you quantify the revenue that Watkins generates for the Bills. If he never played another game for Buffalo, how much money would the team lose? Even if we ignore anything to do with on field production and marketing that are difficult to quantify, he averages about $2M per year in jersey sale revenue. And I'd imagine that alone is enough for my earlier statement to be true.
26CornerBlitz Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 ...yup.....but here's a quote I remember to put the surreal world on pro sports pay insanity:....T-Wolves offered Spreewell an annual salary of $14 mil (2005), which he called an "insult".....followed by, "I have children to feed".......clown went belly up and lost everything..........I'd bet the TBD'ers that are making $14 mil would NEVER call it an insult..... You should be able to feed your kids and many many many others for $14M /year.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) I think you have to acknowledge here that the difference between $50K and $75K is an order of magnitude different than $14M and $21M in terms of impact on quality of life, though. At some point there exist diminishing returns, and I'd say it occurs well before $14 million a year. When does one have too much money? When should one stop wanting more? Who decides that? Every job has a different "ceiling." My job, like many, doesn't have a cap. I can make as much as I can based on what I am able to produce. When should I stop wanting that number to grow? Why should I stop wanting that number to grow? Obviously, $14M is different than $50k or even $250K. Why should the guy at $250k not want $500k? Why should the guy at $500k not want a million? When are these people supposed to stop wanting more? Edited July 3, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
GoBills808 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 When does one have too much money? When should one stop wanting more? Who decides that? Every job has a different "ceiling." My job, like many, doesn't have a cap. I can make as much as I can based on what I am able to produce. When should I stop wanting that number to grow? Why should I stop wanting that number to grow? Obviously, $14M is different than $50k or even $250K. Why should the guy at $250k not want $500k? Why should the guy at $500k not want a million? When are these people supposed to stop wanting more? It's a good question, probably better for PPP where we could hash it out. I'll just leave it at when excess (define it how you will) capital could be better allocated to the benefit of a greater portion of society.
Recommended Posts