What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Star athlete salaries- Mike Trout signs for $430 million!!! (1 Viewer)

timschochet said:
With regard to Ryan and Stafford, I think we can agree that unlike Mike Trout, nobody considers them to be the best at their sport- in fact, I would suspect that most experts would rank them somewhere in the middle of the 32 starting NFL quarterbacks. Their salaries are a product of free agency at exactly the right time for them. And Bryce Harper would be another example of this. 
Click to expand...
Whichever QB signed an extension and got a boatload of money as a signing bonus that year will make these types of lists. The rest of their contracts, Ryan and Stafford won’t come anywhere near the top of a highest paid athlete list based only on their annual salaries. 

 
I wish we didn't know how much athletes get paid some times.  Someone always jumps in with the "no one is worth X...." statement and it's ridiculous.  They are worth it because someone paid them.  It's that simple.

 
Like Patrick Ewing said "We might make a lot of money..but we spend a lot of money too"

People win that much in the PowerBall..at least Trout is the best at what he does.

 
[scooter] said:
Supply + demand + dash of monopoly.

Players like Trout are in short supply. Therefore he is in high demand.

Add in the fact that the major sports leagues have a near-monopoly on consumers (with a tight grip on stadium and broadcast revenue), with a license to print money, and you end up with Trout.

Eventually the whole system will become too heavy to sustain itself, and you'll see teams that are so far underwater that they'll have to declare bankruptcy.

Anyway, I'm not too bothered by this. Let the Angels fans pay for him if that's what they want to do.
Click to expand...
The Angels fans only pay a fraction of it.  Cable subs pay the vast majority. 

 
Arizona Ron said:
I wish we didn't know how much athletes get paid some times.  Someone always jumps in with the "no one is worth X...." statement and it's ridiculous.  They are worth it because someone paid them.  It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Those people sound like socialists. What do they have against our great capitalist system?

 
I think if Yelich was a FA now he woulda signed for more than Harper or Machado. Great player just entering his prime who is no headache, no drama, team player, great in the community etc.  

Trout is at another level and if anyone deserves it it's him.

 
timschochet said:
This is not a baseball thread; it’s meant to be about star athlete salaries in general. I’m a huge Angels fan, Mike Trout might be my favorite player in any sport, so I’m a pretty happy man this morning. 

But $430 million... that is a heck of a lot of money. I can still remember about 20 years ago when Will Clark of the Giants signed a new contract for $3 million a year which broke all records and people were talking about it then. Since then it’s exploded, it’s unbelievable! The other day I thought I heard on the radio that the kid from Duke who is going to be drafted first in the NBA expects to earn a billion dollars over his career- surely that can’t be right can it? These numbers are amazing. 
Click to expand...
It's not my money. I would rather see a great baseball player have the money than the owner of the MLB team. Baseball is the ultimate proof that strong unions are essential. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
And it makes sense that the major American sports would be hugely profitable because in the era of unlimited on demand entertainment options they're one of the few remaining ways that advertisers can get a whole bunch of people to sit through ads.
Click to expand...
FOX is paying WWE a bazillionty for Smackdown Live starting in October. Gonna be awesome.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm not sure what you're looking to discuss.  It's a lot of money and way more than it was 20 years ago because the sport has become hugely profitable. And it makes sense that the major American sports would be hugely profitable because in the era of unlimited on demand entertainment options they're one of the few remaining ways that advertisers can get a whole bunch of people to sit through ads. And by extension the cable providers need ESPN and the RSNs because that's a large part of how they keep subscribers in this age.  FS West is paying the Angels $3 billion for their rights over a term basically concurrent with Trout's deal, and obviously the Angels have other big sources of revenue as well.
Click to expand...
Ads during the games barely keep the lights on.   The regionals struggle to even turn a profit after paying their studio and in game crew and production. 

Not a dime of the ad buy goes to the teams. 

For all intents salaries now are bought and paid for by people that don't even watch a second of the product.  

 
xulf said:
How the heck do you not know Zion Williams' name?

But, I think it is very possible he earns that money with endorsements.  John Wall is making (or will be making) $40M+ per year.  Once he gets to his second contract on a max deal it will probably be up to $50M a year or more.
Click to expand...
Lol, it's Zion Williamson. I didn't know about him till he blew his shoe out, but I admittedly don't follow college basketball.

 
Ketamine Dreams said:
Exactly. The question is will we stop caring so much? Will the price of attending games etc get so high that we lose interest?
Click to expand...
With the secondary ticket market. I don't think this is possible.  If a team wins, then people will pay top dollar to go.  But when they stink, the tickets on the secondary market will be very reasonably priced.

 
culdeus said:
Ads during the games barely keep the lights on.   The regionals struggle to even turn a profit after paying their studio and in game crew and production. 

Not a dime of the ad buy goes to the teams. 

For all intents salaries now are bought and paid for by people that don't even watch a second of the product.  
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're talking about here. Ad revenue goes to the RSNs and the national broadcasters.  RSNs and national broadcasters pay the teams a ton of money so they can get the ad revenue and so cable providers want them. That's the connection.

 
Ketamine Dreams said:
Lol, it's Zion Williamson. I didn't know about him till he blew his shoe out, but I admittedly don't follow college basketball.
Click to expand...
Yes - I know his name.  That was my joke (took to page 2 for someone to call it out  :excited: )

ETA - probably a dumb joke  :sadbanana:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer said:
Wait....if Trout's salary is based on cable subscriptions, what happens when everyone cuts the cord and goes to streaming?
Click to expand...
That means they're paying for MLB.tv for the most part. Probably even better for the teams as it cuts out one middleman.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Not sure what you're talking about here. Ad revenue goes to the RSNs and the national broadcasters.  RSNs and national broadcasters pay the teams a ton of money so they can get the ad revenue and so cable providers want them. That's the connection.
Click to expand...
The ad buy is literally peanuts on rsn. 

The revenue is all from the cable provider which explains why some are just direct feeds from Comcast or whatever.  

Ads just pay the production cost. If that.   The whole business model is hinged around the cable sub fees.  

 
culdeus said:
The ad buy is literally peanuts on rsn. 

The revenue is all from the cable provider which explains why some are just direct feeds from Comcast or whatever.  

Ads just pay the production cost. If that.   The whole business model is hinged around the cable sub fees.  
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Doesn't really change the point though.  The teams have gobs of money because the TV deals, which have immense value because of our changing viewing habits and the unique appeal of live sports.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Fair enough. Doesn't really change the point though.  The teams have gobs of money because the TV deals, which have immense value because of our changing viewing habits and the unique appeal of live sports.
Click to expand...
I think this is the right answer for the wrong reason which boils down to semantics really.  I think the RSN know they have the cable providers by the balls because the people that watch live sports are loyal subscribers.  

Live sports viewers themselves, for RSN are very low value from an ad buy.  For example, in Dallas there are only 40,000 viewers that watch 1.5 innings a night (30 minutes) on average.  There are just 60,000 viewers that do this even weekly, but season wide that number explodes to the millions.  RSN are very lucky that that group of people are more loyal to the thought they might want to watch a game, than the actual team.  

I don't think viewing habits have changed as much as they have concentrated.  Again, semantics.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

woodstock
This Article Is Righteous And Prescient About So Many Things, Oh, and Nü-Metal And Twilight Are The True Outsider Art, The Only Rebel Poets
Replies
16
Views
1K
Dan Lambskin
Dan Lambskin
dickey moe
The Jerky Boys (err...Boy) are/is back
Replies
16
Views
905
ShamrockPride
ShamrockPride
Buckychudd
Brain Scientist Disses CTE - Football Link
Replies
3
Views
804
Jayrod
Jayrod

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top