What compensation do players DESERVE?

So in the light of this CBA fiasco, I've been thinking... what do NFL players really deserve as far as compensation goes? We all know that pro atheletes are way overpaid... but by how much?

From a pure supply and demand perspective, NFL players are quite valuable. Very few can do what they can do. Most working Americans have jobs that anyone could do with a little bit of training. The average person could not play in the NFL, regardless of how much time they spend practicing and working out. However, the average person could also not be a Doctor, no matter how much time they spend studying.

So lets say that the average NFL player should make something comparable to the average Doctor... about $200k per year.

Now, players put their health at serious risk and most will not have a long career. So they must make enough money during their career to have a long retirement. An NFL athelete must make in roughly 10 years what a Doctor makes in 40 years to support the same standard of living. So to live like the average Doctor, the average NFL player should make $8 million over a 10 year career.

The average NFL salary is something like $800k per year. So you might say that NFL players are not overpaid. However, this does not include signing bonuses which routinely exceed that $8 million mark. Some player's base salary is more than $8 million for a single season. This also does not factor that a player that has a 10 year career will receive a retirement pension of roughly $50k a year.

Bottom line... players are overpaid. Especially rookies drafted in the first round that rarely live up to their hype.

Thoughts?

Rookie allotment decreased will raise players' salaries. Owners aren't really pulling out of the extra pool to raise players' salaries and owners want 1 billion more and extra games.

Owners are really asking for a lot. Players are not asking for much except to keep it the way it is and get some help for retired players.

Overpaid in the sense on how it relates to your average person? Yes. But overpaid in the sense that there talents are allowing the league they play in to be so successful that they can easily be paid these high prices. No

as mush as they are being paid is nothing compared to how much money the owners are cashing in off their talents. they are paid this much b/c owners can afford to pay them. It's supply and demand.

I don't have a problem with how much they make or how much the owners make off of them. Just give me some football.
.

if the argument is that a person's pay should be relative to their importance to society, then, yes, all athletes are overpaid. on the other hand, if you believe in the almighty power of "the market," then athletes are paid exactly what they deserve.

[ Edited by HessianDud on Mar 14, 2011 at 10:08:10 ]

Originally posted by HessianDud:
if the argument is that a person's pay should be relative to their importance to society, then, yes, all athletes are overpaid. on the other hand, if you believe in the almighty power of "the market," then athletes are paid exactly what they deserve.

Hmm. Good point. Fortunately, I don't!

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
if the argument is that a person's pay should be relative to their importance to society, then, yes, all athletes are overpaid. on the other hand, if you believe in the almighty power of "the market," then athletes are paid exactly what they deserve.

Hmm. Good point. Fortunately, I don't!

i don't really either. but i find it ironic that in a country where a lot of people beat the capitalism, free market, invisible-hand drum the most popular sport is a perfect example of economic socialism and one of the favorite past-times is to complain that athletes make too much money. i mean...silly, right?

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
if the argument is that a person's pay should be relative to their importance to society, then, yes, all athletes are overpaid. on the other hand, if you believe in the almighty power of "the market," then athletes are paid exactly what they deserve.

Hmm. Good point. Fortunately, I don't!

i don't really either. but i find it ironic that in a country where a lot of people beat the capitalism, free market, invisible-hand drum the most popular sport is a perfect example of economic socialism and one of the favorite past-times is to complain that athletes make too much money. i mean...silly, right?

Yup!

Originally posted by HessianDud:
if the argument is that a person's pay should be relative to their importance to society, then, yes, all athletes are overpaid. on the other hand, if you believe in the almighty power of "the market," then athletes are paid exactly what they deserve.

_______

Yes, any employee should be paid what the market will bear.

However "importance to society" is subjective. I'd say clearly professional football is important to society since people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a ticket several times a year, frequently sell out games and watch enough of the product that multi-billion dollar TV agreements can be agreed to.

Theoretical, I know. Just pointing it out. "Importance to society" and "the market" are almost always one in the same.

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
if the argument is that a person's pay should be relative to their importance to society, then, yes, all athletes are overpaid. on the other hand, if you believe in the almighty power of "the market," then athletes are paid exactly what they deserve.

_______

Yes, any employee should be paid what the market will bear.

However "importance to society" is subjective. I'd say clearly professional football is important to society since people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a ticket several times a year, frequently sell out games and watch enough of the product that multi-billion dollar TV agreements can be agreed to.

Theoretical, I know. Just pointing it out. "Importance to society" and "the market" are almost always one in the same.

that sounds like the invisible hand, and i don't believe in invisible hands.

the average person would also not be able to tell the difference between the best 2000 football players vs the next best 2000. If you are in that top 2000 then you make the NFL money you explained. If you are in the next 2000 well then you probably work at costco to supplement whatever semi pro checks you get which probably average less than 6 figures a year.

So there is a certain level of replaceability that the NFL players are exposed to as well just like the rest of us. And the great difference in compensation between NFL players vs other league players also points out how overpaid the talent in the NFL is

Minimum wage

Originally posted by danimal:
the average person would also not be able to tell the difference between the best 2000 football players vs the next best 2000. If you are in that top 2000 then you make the NFL money you explained. If you are in the next 2000 well then you probably work at costco to supplement whatever semi pro checks you get which probably average less than 6 figures a year.

So there is a certain level of replaceability that the NFL players are exposed to as well just like the rest of us. And the great difference in compensation between NFL players vs other league players also points out how overpaid the talent in the NFL is

i don't think that is true at all. even if people would still watch football if the players weren't as skilled, I think we can all tell the difference between Randy Moss and P.J. Fleck.

44-46 percent is fair.........

that is 4 Billion that Has to be spent on salary

That is 125 million per team salary floor.......

That is 126.5 or so salary cap

That averages to 2.3 million per player

plus all health insurance for all players be paid present and past

they should be taken care of for injuries and any in the future that could have come from playing.....

Along with a pension for players who have been in the league 7 years or more........

16 game schedule in an 18 week or 19 week span

more byes to heal and more weeks for revenue which they can split with the above model............

[ Edited by LundyLove on Mar 14, 2011 at 17:45:41 ]

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by danimal:
the average person would also not be able to tell the difference between the best 2000 football players vs the next best 2000. If you are in that top 2000 then you make the NFL money you explained. If you are in the next 2000 well then you probably work at costco to supplement whatever semi pro checks you get which probably average less than 6 figures a year.

So there is a certain level of replaceability that the NFL players are exposed to as well just like the rest of us. And the great difference in compensation between NFL players vs other league players also points out how overpaid the talent in the NFL is

i don't think that is true at all. even if people would still watch football if the players weren't as skilled, I think we can all tell the difference between Randy Moss and P.J. Fleck.

About 7 inches!!

And a few million in the bank account

Originally posted by danimal:
the average person would also not be able to tell the difference between the best 2000 football players vs the next best 2000. If you are in that top 2000 then you make the NFL money you explained. If you are in the next 2000 well then you probably work at costco to supplement whatever semi pro checks you get which probably average less than 6 figures a year.

So there is a certain level of replaceability that the NFL players are exposed to as well just like the rest of us. And the great difference in compensation between NFL players vs other league players also points out how overpaid the talent in the NFL is

That is crazy talk!

The Highest paid positions are paid like so because of the huge drop off in talent. It is almost impossible to replace a Brady or Revis on a team bc their talent level is so rare.