0 96 65.75%

2 16 10.96%

4 5 3.42%

6 7 4.79%

8 3 2.05%

10 9 6.16%

Yes but Mahomes is exempt 9 6.16%

I am gay 1 0.68%

I'll say this:

Generally no, it does not bother me.

It is however pretty annoying to hear MLB players whine about pay cuts and the risk they're taking considering just about everyone in our nation is in a similar situation, but with 2-3 less zeros on the end of their numbers.

Of all the sports, NFL players really are not overpaid, IMO based on the abuse their bodies take.

I think baseball players are overpaid, but maybe that's because I don't care for the sport. And I don't really care if I'm watching the best MLB players, or scrubs, it all looks the same to me.

NBA players are paid insane amounts, but let's face it, there simply aren't many people even capable of dribbling/shooting/jumping like that, especially at 6'6" +. They're simply genetic lottery winners.
[Reply]

The top few thousand best in the world at most professions are highly compensated. Why would athletes be any different?
[Reply]

From a purely personal POV, people's salaries don't 'bother me.'
But what does irk me, from a philosophical standpoint, though I don't have a remedy except to point it out when asked [as here], is that society seems to have a schizophrenia about beauty of free market capitalism, where if you are entertaining us, or offering us frivolities, the sky is the limit. Dude makes a catchy song, and makes millions off it into perpetuity. That's the awesome free market rewarding value. But if people work hard to provide something that actually improves our lives [medicine, energy, surgical technology and procedures, etc], we bitch and moan every step of the way about the greed of businessmen and corporations making money off our need for their ingenuity and innovation.
Basically, if you take the comprehensive long view, we are collectively sending a message that the only people who deserve unfettered wealth are the people who entertain and distract us, and the people who actually improve our lives need limitations on their earning potential because, ironically, we actually need the things they create.
Which I guess is fine, so long as you don't bitch when the only thing motivated people do going forward is find new ways to entertain you in a way that enriches them.
[Reply]

He said athletes.
[Reply]

Of course not.
[Reply]

That’s kinda where I’m at. The optics of guys getting this kind of Jack when 39 million Americans were just thrown out of work.....it’s unseemly. Frankly we’ve seen that truck drivers and nurses and meat packers and grocery store workers are the most essential folks we have in a crisis.


Alas as it’s a free market, if sports takes attendance/ad hits (and that’s inevitable), salaries will trail downward.
[Reply]

The essential nature of everyday tasks is a separate matter. I have a similar philosophical difference when people generally grouse that people like teachers, food workers, truck drivers, etc, are underpaid.

This is partially because people in general aren't willing to do what it takes to pay them handsomely. And this is partially because that unwillingness to pay 'essential' jobs handsomely stems from the fact that, just because something is necessary doesn't make it valuable.

We need 'someone' to pick vegetables, and prep food and teach kids the A,B,Cs, and transport goods across the nation. But we don't need elite or rare talent to do those things. We just need a person of average skill who is committed to showing up day after day. And we have those people as a commodity in abundance. We aren't willing to pay someone millions, or even thousands, to drive from here to there, not because we don't value the service, but because if we don't there are 100 people for each position willing and able to do the exact same thing for hundreds.

We'll pay hundreds for a single ticket to see a sports star or a singer who inspires us, because they are singular talents in our estimation. Would you be willing to shell out $15-20 every time you consume a Big Mac for the satisfaction of rewarding the people who put it on a the grill, or would walk down to the next restaurant and grab a cheaper bite to eat from someone else just as 'skilled' in placing meat on a grill, then putting it on a bun?
[Reply]

99% of the time No I don't care how much anyone makes if they are doing well

When they are complaining about not making enough I am just like :-) pretty much anyone else would love to make what you are "suffering" through
[Reply]

Just as long as the owners are getting theirs. Trickle down and all that!
[Reply]

No, salaries will not "trail" downwards.

TV and streaming are both the future of the NFL and will far outweigh any revenue from stadiums, concessions and parking.

The NFL was already earning in excess of $8 Billion from their TV deals and they'll earn far more after new deals have been negotiated.

Salaries will continue to rise for at least the next decade and probably much longer.
[Reply]

Not in the slightest.
[Reply]

^^^
This. I don't pocket watch and I hope a lot of folks make as much money as possible. :-)
[Reply]

I think people also only think about the major team/individual sports when talking about pro athletes.

There are a lot of “pro athletes” who don’t make shit, because they play in leagues that don’t generate huge profits.

If we’re going to compare what NFL, MLB, NBA, etc players make to teachers or similar professions, then we shouldn’t compare them to the teachers at your local public elementary school. We should compare them to teachers with doctorates at the elite level selective prep schools. Obviously, these athletes will still be paid more but it’s a more accurate comparison.
[Reply]

A lot of these salaries 'bother me', but again we live in a free market so the market determines what people our worth, fair or not fair.

I would argue for a pay for performance model, that way guys that have earned it right out of the gate can get the big bucks early instead of being stuck under some rookie wage scale and the guys that ink the big FA deal and then disappear can have their salary reduced accordingly (there is obviously some ability to do this in football, but in basketball and baseball all parties are mostly 'stuck' with the deal that was signed).

I also realize there is no way this would ever fly as neither players nor owners would go for this model for a lot of reasons. But it would be the most 'fair' to all parties.
[Reply]

I don’t think that’s true at all. The gate is 40-50% of sports revenue and that’s gonna take a massive hit. The MLB negotiations right now are stalled because they can’t calc what the empty seats should cost the players.
[Reply]