Any comments on this? According to this article, with MLB revenue increasing, the players share has actually lowered and therefore, the players and players union will demand higher salaries. Interested in input on this.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AmKGGbIXTDyMwd2KsCSXiBY5nYcB?slug=jp-freeagency111307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
2007-11-13 02:56:11 · 10 answers · asked by alomew_rocks 5 in Sports ➔ Baseball
When schools in America get bigger budgets the teachers do not necessarily get a raise. Underpaid already, they have to have a union help them with raises.
Everyone says that it's a shame sports figures make millions and teachers and firemen and cops have financial hard times. I think about it this way: Are you earning $100,000 or more a year? Then there is no reason for anyone to pity your hard times. If a ball player wants me to believe that getting $5,000,000 a year (for 8 months of work) is a bad situation, he will have to water board me because I ain't buying. How 'bout the millionaire players NOT take a raise and let a few teachers and firemen and cops and others afford more than one baseball game a year.
2007-11-13 03:50:31 · answer #1 · answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that maximum athletes are overpaid, yet will placed that aside to respond to the question. you could make a case that A-Rod is the most overpaid, even if he hits .three hundred with 40 5 HRs and 120 5 RBI - 33 million isn't properly worth that production once you should get 1/2 that for a million/4 of the fee. yet my decision is Carlos Beltran who's making someplace contained in the community of $18-19 million (which he were given very last 3 hundred and sixty 5 days too) and doesn't even play. discuss 0 returns. Conversely, Kung Fu Panda makes a cool $400k and is in all probability a suitable 3 finisher for MVP and a candidate for the batting call.
2016-10-24 03:59:56 · answer #2 · answered by mayne 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read it earlier, it is interesting. I don't think Passan wrote it very well (which is unusual, as he's a pretty good writer), or at least did so with a puzzling agenda to fulfill.
I'd spell it out this way:
Player payroll as a percentage of total revenues is trending low, probably the lowest in the last 20 years. There is nothing wrong with this -- but it indicates that the owners (as a group; every team has its own budget) have a lot of bandwidth, a lot of surplus cash to throw into the free agent market, so don't be surprised if some FAs get unbelievable contracts. And it's not even a great market this year -- yeah, there's ARod, and Bonds, and Lowell, but the Yankees will keep Rivera, and that's pretty much it for the top talent. There are plenty of spare parts whom are PROVEN spare parts, and many of them are going to cash in big anyway. The owners can afford it, and some of them will lay out some very long green. There's only one trophy per season, and it cannot be bought; not reliably anyway.
As for "risk", please! Owning a MLB team is like having a license to print money, with the benefit of being much more enjoyable to watch. Yes, it's a big capital outlay to get in the door, but just count the bankruptcies; you won't get past "zero".
2007-11-13 03:28:40 · answer #3 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
They should make more, the product they provide is bringing in more then they should make more. The owners should also make a Lion's share of the money, they put up the money for the team, they took the risk so they should make more in rewards but they need to keep the product happy and pay the players as well.
2007-11-13 03:09:59 · answer #4 · answered by bdough15 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
UNDERPAID ??????????? In almost any other industry a payroll percentage of 44% of GROSS REVENUE would quickly put that industry out of business and someday may very well do the same to MLB
Unless one knows exactly what's on a clubs balance sheet one cannot determine how much profit(if any ) the owner(s) of that club actuallly MADE
2007-11-13 03:48:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should be happy they are making as much as they are for playing a GAME. They aren't underpaid, and since they have made GREAT strides in salaries, they should do the right thing and let owners make some cash now so that they can make their teams better, which will in turn make competition better, which will in turn make the game better, which will in turn help the players out in the long run.
The best move here is to sit tight and let the goodie train come to them in about 10 years. They certainly could use some good publicity about now.
2007-11-13 03:00:29 · answer #6 · answered by Legends Never Die 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
ALL Pro Atheletes are OVER-paid. It's pitiful in a society where pro athletes and entertainers make more than teachers, doctors, police, firefighters, even those that run our government...it's ridiculous.
2007-11-15 19:13:15 · answer #7 · answered by chicagomike25 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who plays for the Marlins
2007-11-13 06:28:12 · answer #8 · answered by G-mack 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The entire sports picture is so bloated it's pitiful.
The fans are the one to feel sorry for, they are paying thru the nose, for a bunch of millionaire playboys who would be digging ditches if it wasn't for sports!!!!
2007-11-13 03:10:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the owners are making more money then the players should make more money!!!
2007-11-13 03:05:47 · answer #10 · answered by J Dub 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋