Up here in the New York City area, the talk has started that the Yankees will have to renegotiate with A-Rod because he’s going to opt out of his current contract at the end of the year.
The 10-year $252 million deal still has three years remaining on it after this year. So, talk radio yesterday was buzzing with contract discussions and of course you get the “these guys get too much money to play a darn game” callers. Are professional athletes overpaid? Are they getting way too much money to play a game? Absolutely not. A ton of people feel this way and let’s see if I can change their minds.
You hear a lot of people talk about how pro sports are a business, and they are right. These aren’t “just” games. Ask Madison Avenue advertising executives if the Super Bowl is “just a game.” The amount of money being thrown around – particularly in the NFL – is just insane. Why aren’t the players entitled to their share? The television contracts, the advertising revenue, the gate receipts and other income streams make these sports billion-dollar industries.
In just about any company, if you are generating X amount of money for that company you deserve a piece of that pie. If a guy working for Apple can show that he’s personally responsible for bringing in $5 million in profits, you can bet that he wouldn’t settle for a $30k salary. The same goes for professional sports; guys like Donovan McNabb are worth mountains of cash to their teams as well as their leagues. People aren’t lined up for season tickets to watch Jeffrey Lurie sit in his luxury suite at the Linc. How fun would that be?
The bottom line is that these athletes are doing a job. And that job just happens to be playing a sport. We love to watch them do their jobs. No one wants to watch me do my job as a publicist. Who would pay $80 to sit and watch me type on my keyboard and make phone calls for three hours? I wish they did, but they don’t (although I am holding out hope that that day comes. I’ll tidy up, I promise). We want to watch Donovan throw the ball. We want to watch Brian Westbrook break tackles for 60-yard touchdowns. We want to watch Brian Dawkins separate a tight end from his head. And we pay our hard-earned money for it. When was the last time you saw someone walking around Philly wearing a white-collared shirt with “Lurie” or “Banner” written on the back? Again, this isn’t “just” a game. If these players didn’t get their cut, owners would be worth 10x (at least) what they are now. Would that be fair?
I remember seeing a David Letterman show with agent Drew Rosenhaus during the Eagles T.O. saga. Letterman finally asked the question (paraphrasing): “But aren’t these guys just playing a game?” The audience cheered, meaning they agree with him. What a stupid question from someone whose salary is based on the same principal. David, aren’t you just sitting at a desk and asking vapid celebrities stupid questions? The difference is that people tune in to watch you do that job, and advertisers pay money to be in front of those people. Personally, I don’t care about Matt Damon’s hijinx and practical jokes on the set of his recent film, but apparently some people do. And what does Damon get paid for a film? Isn’t he doing a job as an actor? What service are television and film stars really doing for society when compared to, say, a doctor? Like it or not, it is what it is, and the fans dictate those contracts, not the owners or athletes.
My case is easily illustrated when you look at different leagues. Why don’t Arena Football League players make much money? Because no one watches. WNBA? No one watches. It’s not just about playing a sport, it’s the size of the business and revenue. As of 2006, the Yankees were worth $1.026 billion. A guy like Derek Jeter deserves his share, and he gets it.
This brings me to the point of college athletics, and I know I’ll get disagreements here. Is football “just a sport” to Florida State University? Is basketball “just a sport” to Duke? No way. These programs generate tons and tons of cash for the schools and you can make the argument that these athletes are exploited. Yes, many get a free education, but is roughly $120k over a four-year education remotely compensation? Even if you make the case that it is, I think they should be allowed to get that free education after they play their sport. Meaning, let them go to classes and be full-time students at a later date when they can properly take advantage of it. Division I sports take up a ton of time and the full load can be difficult to juggle. Is it achievable? Yes, but if you really want to compensate someone with a free education (while they, you know, make you millions of dollars), let them do it at a time when they can focus completely on their classes.
I’m not saying that college athletes should be compensated like professionals, that would get into a weird gray area that I’m not going to touch. But there seems to be an outrage when a young kid with no money is given a suit by a booster just to appear at the Draft. So what? Giving these kids some walking-around money (at least) would help eliminate the petty NCAA violations that go one on behind the scenes.
Athletes are not overpaid, and in some cases, you could make the argument that many are underpaid based on the revenue they generate (I’m not talking about you, Pat Burrell). Take a look at the price tag on your season tickets, then tell me if you think I’m right.
micahw@feverpitchmedia.com
