share

Born 2 Soon...

RUDEBOY
RUDEBOY's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/24/2009
Posts: 626
Points: 670
Offline
Born 2 Soon...

After checking the NBA boxscores monday nite..I looked at players salaries for this season..Then decided to check players salaries from back in the day..I looked up salaries for the 1985 season...My oh My!! The salary cap was 4.23 million For a team..Not a Player but a Team!! The Lakers had the highest team salary at 8 million..Times have change..So the league had to adjust to the changing times..Some players like Kobe,Lebron,Wade and Shaq bring so much money for the NBA,their own teams and sellouts for other teams when they come to town.. ..Their worth can never be estimated..Popular players can bring in spectators who don't follow basketball.The casual fans who have seen them in commercials or on billboards..Or heard by word of mouth how great he plays...Today's salaries must be set that teams can pay players and still earn money..Teams give max contracts to players..Who aren't worth it..Then 3 years later have to break the team up in order to trim payroll..Becuz they're losing money...Players like Dr. J can only imagine what they'll be making if they were in the league today...

Here's the league's highest paid players that season

1.Magic lead the league with 2.5 million...
2.Moses Malone..2.1 million
3.Kareem 2 million
4.Larry Bird 1.8 million
5.Jack Sikma 1.6 million
6.Dr. J...1.4 million
7.Patrick Ewing 1.2 million
8.Ralph Sampson 1.25 million
9.Mitch Kupchak 1.16 million
10.Marques Johnson 1.10 million

That 2 million Magic was getting paid.. is now the league minimum..lol..At the time that was alot of money for a professional athlete..

So that means old timers from the 60's & 70's were getting paid what fast food workers,factory workers or the ladies from the WNBA get now..Around $30,000 to $40,000 a year..Thats funny becuz alot of players today make $35,000 by the end of the 1st quarter..


OldSkoolBasketball
OldSkoolBasketball's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/18/2009
Posts: 1863
Points: 2540
Offline
I still think athletes make

I still think athletes make too much money these days.

DanEboy
DanEboy's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/25/2008
Posts: 2473
Points: 6477
Offline
It is the same story for

It is the same story for baseball and football. I remember reading about how some baseball players in the '50s actually turned down major league jobs because they could make more money laying bricks. My how the times have changed.

Blazermann
Registered User
Joined: 08/27/2009
Posts: 656
Points: 1084
Offline
for star players

players like lebron and obe bryant yeah i said obe they are under paid becuz the money the team get from having them on there roster so sum player are still under paid today

llperez
llperez's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 11966
Points: 11951
Offline
totally different era's

totally different era's obviously. The league makes a LOT more money now, so the players see a lot more of it. But they will start getting less now. Regardless of what happens in the next deal, the players are making more then the owners in some cases. There are owners who are losing money by having a team, So you will see guys getting less and less. The Hawks didn't even offer Joe johnson a max deal before this year.

apb540
apb540's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/08/2009
Posts: 2324
Points: 1811
Offline
flawed system

The NBA reallllly needs to straighten things out wit the new CBA because these long guaranteed contracts are killing the league. Not only does it hurt the teams because if a player doesn't pan out they are screwed for years but the guarantee of millions of dollars, especially for non-superstars, really damages their motivation.

darkman97
Registered User
Joined: 12/16/2008
Posts: 231
Points: 151
Offline
Well it goes for any profession

You can look at alot of fields of profession and see a big jump in saleries between 1985 and 2010. My very first job as a early teen I was getting $4.25 per hour and this was the 1990's. Now that same job is paying more than double that. If you look at it they are getting alot of money but they are making their bosses even more money. Your real worth as an employee is depended on how much you better the company and most are doing the job. Can't hate on that.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
i agree with llperez22 times

i agree with llperez22 times have changed...itsliek min wage has gone up since back then as well. yeah they get paid alot but look how many peple come to see them and how much money they bring in. i dont have a problem with them getting so much because of all themoney they bring in. if they dont get that money then who should get it?..the owners? coach?..its like all entertainers they should be getting the lions shares of the money

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
and back then that was still

and back then that was still alot of money. think back when bread was a nickle and someone is making 7$ a hr. now that woudl suck but back then that woulnt be bad at all.

nba00
Registered User
Joined: 08/02/2009
Posts: 73
Points: 26
Offline
$1M before is bigger than $1M now

Having 2 million dollars at that time is like having 20 million dollars now.
Well right now, a lot of players are really overpaid. You see it when you watch the highlights you can see a lot of empty seats, so you start to wonder why are they being paid by that much if no one cares how they play. Attendance is how you can really measure the support of the people to their team.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
are they really overpaid

are they really overpaid considering the money they bring in? attendance. then the food the people buy and the merchandise the parking. the tv ratings, should the owners get more money then and the plyers get less?..cu that extra money has to go somewhere

DanEboy
DanEboy's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/25/2008
Posts: 2473
Points: 6477
Offline
^ Are they really

^ Are they really overpaid?!?!?! How much does it cost to go to a game nowadays? The prices are ridiculous. And the reason the prices are out of hand is because the owners, in every sport, are afraid to tell these guys NO. Most fans can't afford to take their family to a game. Basketball and Baseball owners continuously lose money because of the salaries they pay these guys. Yes, they are overpaid.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
etertainment is made for

entertainment is made for what most families can do. its made for who can afford it..its supply and demand. if they keep making money with the prices they have then why would they lower it? if you have youre own business and you make money seeling things at 10dollars athen what reason do you need to lower it?..just because other people cant afford it?..the world doesnt work that way. people tend to forget this is a business.. this isnt a thing just for people to come watch and have fun. its A BUSINESS. no one has to like it but they do have to deal with it. if its that big of a problem pople will just not come and the pay has to go down. look at the wnba and the d leauge.. those players dont get alot of money and ou know why?.. because no one wants to go to those games.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
we can say actors are over

we can say actors are over paid with some of there 20million a film or rappers,singers, simon from american ideal for getting offered 100million to host but the thing is people buy tickets to see them act,perform. people watch to see simon berate people. entertainers bring in alot of money. if a player is getting 10million a year take a guys how much people make off of there jersey's, toys, gatorade plus tickets to watch them play?...lebron as an example makes what 17million a year...how much money you think all his jersey's,drinks, toys,shoes make?...awhole lot more then the money he brings in im sure? when someone is willing to pay you all that money you can bet they are making at least double off of you. i mean id love to go to games for 5dollars and sit up close but if im a owner im not lowering the cost if i can keep it like it is and make money because my business isnt to not make money its to make it. im sure alot of people doing regular jobs could live making less money then they do. i bet most wont say..hey imma give back money because i think i make too much. the players could make alot less and live comfortably but where would all those extra millions go then?

DanEboy
DanEboy's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/25/2008
Posts: 2473
Points: 6477
Offline
Then why is the NBA losing

Then why is the NBA losing money Quincey????????????? Because they pay the athletes too much money. It is a BUSINESS, like you said. You didn't have to capitalize it. But the sports business is unlike most other businesses. I can't think of too many businesses where the employee out earns the employer as much as athletes do.

We are the ones who are to blame for continuing to overpay for it. Actors, singers, etc.. are all overpaid. The part that gets me is when an athlete turns down millions of dollars because he FEELS he is worth more.

I am all in favor of 'get what you can while you can' but sometimes it is just ridiculous.

If the owners would simply say no to outrageous contract demands, what would these athletes do to make that kind of money? It is all a greedfest and egofest on both parts.

This CBA is going to be real interesting....

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
did you stop to think that

did you stop to think that the owners are keeping too much money?..the players arent the only ones making money off the nba. we just happen to know about there contracts which they earn by peopel comming to see them. do you watch nba games to see the owners? even with losing many owners make more then the player who makes the most money ont here team. are you considered overpaid( if you work) if you ask for a raise?. is it ok for someone whos making 8dollars a hr to think you are overpaid if you make 20dollars a hr? peopel always say players players players but never think about how greedy the owners are and how much money the owners are getting making?..some of which use loop holes to not have to pay all there tax on it. and some of these owners say they are losing money but when someone tries to by the team from them they wont even entertain the idea of selling it?..if youre losing so much money from a business then why wouldnt you sell it to make a profit and why are so many people so eager to try to buy a team or a part of a team??...would you by a business that is losing so much money?...i think theres alot more to it then what we as fans know. the only things we know is what we read or se eonthe news. we know what the owners want us to know and for most people, what ever they hear first or if its the only thing they hear then thats what they tend to go with as whats really going on

DanEboy
DanEboy's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/25/2008
Posts: 2473
Points: 6477
Offline
Look at all of the owners

Look at all of the owners Quincey. These guys make their money in other areas, the areas that allowed them to buy the franchises. Most are losing money. They just like being able to say that they own a team, it is all status quo.

And if you read my post I said that it is a greedfest all the way around. We as fans suffer for it.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
Players Have No Perspective

Here's another perspective. Instead of asking whether you think the players make too much money, why don't we ask them? Of course that isn't going to happen, but if you go back to the NBA strike during the 1998-99 season, you might get the answer anyway. The Union President was Patrick Ewing. His annual salary during that strike season was $16 million!

Now I ask you, does a man earning 16 million dollars per year who goes on strike really have any perspective?

And let's not forget the infamous statement of Latrell Sprewell, who was in the last year of a contract earning 14.6 million per season, when he was given a new contract extension from Minnesota. He was offered a 3 year, 21 million dollar contract and Sprewell said that was disrespectful because he had to feed his family. For those of you who are mathematically challenged, at the age of 34, Sprewell turned down $7 million per year for the next 3 seasons.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
i dont see the problem with

i dont see the problem with the money they make because they bring more money in. they bring in hundreds of millions...you add up every players contract and they still bring in more money then they make so how can anyone make a justified arguement on that?..you should be making what you are worth and to the business of the nba the players are worth more then anything else because they are the ones bringing in the money. if a busiess is bringing in say 500million a year why are the players over paid for making 15millin a year?..is it there fault that the owners have to pay the beer seller and jersey sellers and lights food etc which may cause them to lose some money?

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
i dont see the problem with

i dont see the problem with the money they make because they bring more money in. they bring in hundreds of millions...you add up every players contract and they still bring in more money then they make so how can anyone make a justified arguement on that?..you should be making what you are worth and to the business of the nba the players are worth more then anything else because they are the ones bringing in the money. if a busiess is bringing in say 500million a year why are the players over paid for making 15millin a year?..is it there fault that the owners have to pay the beer seller and jersey sellers and lights food etc which may cause them to lose some money?

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
whos to say whats too much..

whos to say whats too much.. what if someone whos very poor says you shouldnt make as much money as you make?..you could live off of less money then you make so why not accept less?..some will try to say its different because they arent making millions but you arent making millions because no one wants to pay to see you work

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
Are They Really Worth That Much?

As I mentioned above, anyone who makes $16 million per year and goes out on strike is out of his mind.

As for your argument above that they bring in more money than they earn, that's questionable. Despite a huge TV contract, NBA teams will lose approximately $400 million this season. The math seems to indicate they aren't bringing in the kind of money that can support those huge contracts.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
pretty good article on the

pretty good article on the owners fattening there wallets while taking money fromt he players

2180
views2
votesBuzz up! Get Breaking News Alerts

Share Comments 32 Last week in his first Super Bowl press conference, rookie NFL players union head DeMaurice Smith tackled the league's looming labor strife head-on. He charged that with the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) set to expire in 19 months, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is using dubious arithmetic to cry poor. He charged that the latest offer to the players would reduce their share to 41 percent of applied revenues from some 59 percent -- in effect, cutting their pay by 18 percent. He also charged that owners have written "lockout language" into TV deals that will provide for them even if games aren't played. Asked the likelihood of a lockout, Smith said, flatly: "On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 14."

Over at the NBA, where the CBA expires after the 2010-'11 season, ownership is taking an even tougher stance, one that would fundamentally change the salary structure and annihilate the union. Commissioner David Stern appears intent on achieving a hard salary cap. No more flexibility, no more Bird exception, no more fully guaranteed contracts. The NBA wants a reduction of the total salaries paid to players by 30 to 40 percent. The goal is to make the terms of a new deal retroactive, which means a huge claw-back of player salaries. Faced with this potential sturm und drang, the National Basketball Players Association has responded with a silence that has been almost ear-splitting.

CBSSports.com columnist Ken Berger observes that Stern and "the owners want to go farther than changing the rules," they want to fatten their wallets in direct proportion to the thinning of the players' wads. And if the players don't like it, one team executive suggested that 'LeBron can play football,' and Dwayne 'Wade can be a fashion model.'" If you think this is no big deal, consider this: Normally players get about 57 percent of what's called "basketball-related income", roughly $3.6 billion. Stern wants to reduce this percentage to well below half, and for owners to deduct expenses off the top of revenues -- draining nearly a billion dollars from the player salary pool.

Unlike Goodell, Stern doesn't talk of shared sacrifice. Nor has he made conciliatory gestures to the players. Goodell speaks of making "the pie grow" so that "everyone benefits" -- players and owners alike. Stern has adopted a My-Way-Or-The-Highway approach: one NBA executive calls the league's latest proposal "a photocopy of Stern's middle finger." In light of this scorched earth policy, you might expect the union to refuse to engage in talks. Instead, it has issued a milquetoast statement about the need to study the league's demands and discuss them with the players. Discuss what exactly? How the players would prefer to get screwed?

Since the mid 90's, the union has caved on pretty much every demand the league has made: A rookie wage scale, a maximum salary cap, a luxury tax, even an escrow fund. During that time, the league hasn't made a single sacrifice. Stern complains that "the expenses we've taken under the existing collective bargaining agreement are simply too high to allow the majority of our teams to be profitable." Yet there is no talk among owners of revenue sharing or reducing the salaries of coaches or NBA suits. The burden of redistributing what Stern calls an "imbalance" falls entirely on the players. While the players are being asked to cover the cost of mismanagement, the owners scurry to protect their profits, which are often private and hidden. Which is why their impending showdown is shaping up as the most pivotal NBA labor confrontation since the Oscar Robinson lawsuit, which spanned six years and established free agency, a concept that appears to be going the way of the two-handed set shot.

In 1995 I helped spearhead an effort to decertify the union, whose executive director, Simon Gourdine, was making back-room deals with the league without either the advice or consent of the players. Though Gourdine survived the challenge, by the next summer a group of players unhappy with his handling of negotiations pressured the union's executive board to fire him, which they did by a vote of 16-0. During the lockout of 1998, things got so heated that the players again considered decertifying their union, which would have been followed by an antitrust suit, the so-called "nuclear" option -- abandoning the bargaining process for a three-to- five-year court battle. A handful of player agents openly questioned the union's ability to negotiate. That go-round I argued that agents and players should stay the course and support the union. I argued that we all needed to band together behind Billy Hunter, the union's new leader, and give him a chance to prove himself. In the end, the players backed off their threat and the union prevailed.

Twelve years later they face the same underlying issue, one that must be weighed carefully: Are they better off allowing the union to represent them "collectively" in CBA talks, or facing down the owners on their own? Is the playing field too lopsided? Is the final result already rigged? Would NBA players simply relive the NHL work stoppage of 2004-'05, which resulted in the cancellation of an entire hockey season. In that so-called negotiation, player pay shrunk by 25 percent while owners got a salary cap and, most importantly, a rise in franchise values, the prime reason they forced the lockout in the first place. The league also got rid of Bob Goodenow, the once-swaggering head of the players association.

Given the NBA's hard-line stance, the players must decide whether they have the skills and the resolve to defend their basket. Will young marquee players like LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Chris Paul and Kevin Durant form a united front? If they don't, the owners will score at will. Which begs the question: Has the union jumped the shark? If so, why even have one? Major league baseball players have a long history of successful collective action, basketball players, a strong sense of individualism. The awful truth: NBA players would be in a stronger position without a union. Current salary restrictions would be illegal, and free-agents could shop around for teams in a genuinely unrestricted market.

The countervailing argument is that marginal players would fare worse under such a system. But take note that recent rule changes that were supposed to help mid and lower-paid players clearly have not. In fact, there has been an opposite effect. More and more players are playing for the minimum salary. Under the proposed hard cap, those on the bottom would be even worse off. The harder the cap, the more money that top players will siphon off their less-talented teammates. Given that reality, it's hard to argue against a free market with true free agency.

I propose that labor talks should be suspended indefinitely to allow for a thorough discussion among the players and their union. The union should seek outside expert advice of labor lawyers, antitrust attorneys, and agents, and then openly discuss any recommendations. We must stop the further erosion of players' rights once and for all.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
Players Have No Perspective on the Real World

I don't care how the numbers are juggled, NBA players are some of the fortunate few on the entire planet and they should be very thankful for their good fortune.

Here's another perspective. Instead of asking whether you think the players make too much money, why don't we ask them? Of course that isn't going to happen, but if you go back to the NBA strike during the 1998-99 season, you might get the answer anyway. The Union President was Patrick Ewing. His annual salary during that strike season was $16 million!

Now I ask you, does a man earning 16 million dollars per year who goes on strike have any perspective on the real world? The answer is obvious.

And let's not forget the infamous statement of Latrell Sprewell, who was in the last year of a contract earning 14.6 million per season, when he was given a new contract extension from Minnesota. He was offered a 3 year, 21 million dollar contract and Sprewell said that was disrespectful because he had to feed his family. For those of you who are mathematically challenged, at the age of 34, Sprewell turned down $7 million per year for the next 3 seasons.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
if they players are greedy

if they players are greedy then the owners are even more greedy. all they want to do is take without giving on there end and they arent even the ones people come to see. many workers still get paid when there union rep has them go on strike because they are still undercontract

DanEboy
DanEboy's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/25/2008
Posts: 2473
Points: 6477
Offline
LeBron can go play football

LeBron can go play football and Wade can go be a fashion model....hilarious! everything else bored me.

This just proves my point that all sides are greedy and we, the fans, the ones that pay all of their salaries, are suffering for it.

It is all a &$#%#&@! contest.

Edit- urinating contest....jeez

DanEboy
DanEboy's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/25/2008
Posts: 2473
Points: 6477
Offline
I will say Quincey that the

I will say Quincey that the owners are the ones who are putting up their money, and lots of it, in a risky business. They have a lot more to lose financially then a player.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
but the nba isnt a risky

but the nba isnt a risky buisness. look how much money teams payed to own them years ago and look how much the teams are worth now?..look how many starts try to or already bought some nba teams( jayz,nelly,the williams sisters,jordan etc) to me and you ...yeah they are greedy because both of us would be soooooooo happy to just get 1million a year to play ball. but liek all business you have to get what you are worth. im pretty sure everyone else in the world wouldnt ask to get less then the leauge min. in a way its like my saying for faithful men. you are only faitful as youre options. it doesnt apply to all peopel but some it does. its easy for a guy to say they wouldnt mess with some girl because that some girl isnt beyonnce or kim kardashin she is ugly betty. its easy for us to say the players ask for too much because we dont have it

llperez
llperez's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 11966
Points: 11951
Offline
less fans are showing up

less fans are showing up now, many teams are struggling financially. Half the trades are done with clearing salary in mind. The teams will start paying less money to players regardless of the new cba. We already witnessed it last off-season when Ariza thought he was worth 8 mill per, boozer realized he wasn't getting a raise, artest got the mid level exception, joe johnson was offered an extension for less then the max, guys like rondo and gay are fighting for extensions insteads of having moeny literally thrown at them.

I have no problems if the players make the most money, but owners shouldn't be in the red either and arenas shouldn't be half empty becasue fans can't afford to show up. So yeah, they are slightly overpaid right now. And the economy has a lot to do with that.

the lake show
Registered User
Joined: 01/13/2010
Posts: 8202
Points: 1200
Offline
i was just about to say the

i was just about to say the economy... i hae no problem with them getting the money they are getting as long as the fans continue to come.if the owners can afford to pay them they will will continue to get the money that they make. people. i just wonder why no one is going after the owners.if the players accept less money thats billions in the air that go right in the owners pocket. im not sure what trevor was thinking because he wasnt getting that type of money. and teams agreed because no one offered that type. you best believe if it was a better player then the better player would have gotten that money. boozer wasnt gonna get that raise as well because he didnt play well enough to get the raise. and is joe really a max player along the likes of lebron wade? i dont think so. i say hes a notch or 2 below those guys.

RSS: Syndicate content