Will Smith makes $20M a movie, because he makes the Producers of that movie $500M.
Supermodels get paid, because they make Millions of Dollars for Designers.
It is fair that they get paid so much money, because we are the ones that are paying them basically.
We chose who is popular, who is in demand, who is .. everything.
If Millions of Fans didn't pay money to go see Will Smith, then Will Smith doesn't make any more movies. Period.
Just like if the Fans didn't pay Millions of Dollars to go Watch Basketball, then the players don't have a case, in which to ask for that much money.
Would Amare consider signing with Sacramento? Of course not. Who would?
Of course there's always gonna be badly run teams. But when one team can spend $90 mil and another can spend $50...I mean that ain't even fair. All that is is a competition of whose owner is richer.
i think the difference is, with movies, actors demand. in the NBA, players are given offers, and its up to them to accept or not. so if they make the ceiling of what can be offered lower but adequate and considerable, then id be happy.
i guess what im trying to say is lower the max salary allowed, and enforce a hard cap so that players wont go to teams who have lots of money to spend to demand more money. every team should only be allowed a certain number to spend, period.
We are going to still watch the games no matter if LeBron James or Kobe Bryant exists or not. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant are given the privilege to be able to make hundreds of millions on the owner's platform. Without that platform they're playing in Europe for a fraction of their current salaries, selling cars or something else that's not going to allow them live their lavish lives.
I've had enough of the Lakers and Celtics and other teams who don't care if they go over salary cap and pay a huge luxury tax every year, just so they can have a stacked team and buy their way into the playoffs. I want to see a more competitive league. I don't want the same teams in the playoffs ever year or only a handful of teams able to win the championship.
So if this means a hard cap or non-guaranteed contracts or whatever, I'm more than happy to go without the NBA for a while for needed changes to happen. There is always the NFL and college basketball/football for my sports fix. I just hope they do it right this time and make the NBA the envy of the sports world.
But you're right, but at the time you think Jack Nicholson is paying the same money for floor seats to watch some Tier-2 athletes run the floor? These guys are the best in the world, and are rightfully paid like it. These guys make the Networks HUNDREDS of millions of Dollars. They make the Owners HUNDRED of millions of dollars. Without the best of the best, then the fans don't pay the money they do and the advertisers don't pay the money they do.
Look at the NBDL. Those guys are good. But not the BEST, and they are paid accordingly. I know I wouldn't pay the same money to go to an NBDL level game.
I'm not trying to say that they SHOULD be paid as much as they are. I think a 50-50 split of revenues would be fair.
But I also don't believe what the Stern says about the state of the League and how Dire everything is.
A person close to James said Tuesday that the Cavaliers' superstar would strongly consider playing overseas if he was offered a salary of "around $50 million a year."
While $50 million a year seems outlandish, it is within the realm of possibility, considering the reported $250 million contract David Beckham received two years ago to join Major League Soccer, the $33 million Michael Jordan was paid by the Chicago Bulls for the 1997-98 season, the strength of the euro in comparison to the dollar, and the fact that European clubs are not bound by a salary cap.
These guys are going to make that money no matter what.
Again, over and over again I repeat, there is no other business in the world that treats its professionals like pro sports athletes in North America. No right-thinking person would support it in any other arena and no one would accept it of their own job or career. Again, the market will bear the salary costs. The owners claim that they need $800mm more doesn't make any sense when you consider league revenues and the costs required to generate those revenues (let's say $6 to 1 as a rule).
You are all supporting these changes based on the erroneous belief they will effect parity. They won't. The NHL is a perfect example but there are abstract macro-economic reasons why it won't matter. Just be prepared for the disappointment that unintended consequences bring...
Regarding NBDL, it's not purely due to talent level that they are paid the wages they earn. More important is market share. If all the NBA players suddenly retired and the NBA collapsed (and assuming the NBDL is able to capitalize logistically), the NBDL will start to bring in more money. It's all supply and demand.
IMO, 50-50 is already too much for the players. If you think of it as a business arrangement, the teams would be taking 100% of the risk and investing 100% of the capital in order to make 50% of the gross income. I don't know what the gross expenditures are, but it's more than 0 and that's what the players are risking/investing. No matter if the team is pulling in a loss, the players keep making their money.
i dont think the players will be shortchanged incase the max salary is reduced or if a hard cap is put in place. mind you, these players get endorsements which allow them to rake in even more millions.
implementation of a hard salary cap at a figure lower than the league's current cap, but not until the 2013-14 season, according to sources familiar with the offer
easing in a more restrictive financial landscape over a three-season cycle as opposed to trying to impose a hard salary ceiling with immediate effect next season.
the next two seasons would employ a salary-cap system with luxury-tax penalties not unlike the system currently in place.
immediate rollbacks of 15 percent, 20 percent or 25 percent to current contracts depending on salary levels, as part of the league's oft-stated desire to reduce payroll by roughly $800 million leaguewide on an annual basis.
lower salaries for rookies than they currently make based off the league's rookie scale.
new rules that make it hugely advantageous for marquee players to stay with the teams that draft them. The new rules would grant teams the ability to offer even more years and dollars to a designated "star" player than current rules allow
under the NBA's proposal, would not be able to unilaterally "tag" a player to be their designated star, as NFL teams can by using their "franchise tag" to prevent one chosen player from becoming a free agent. Under the NBA's proposal rejected by the union last week, teams would only be able to designate one player for preferential contract treatment if the player agreed to it.
the ability for each team to shed one contract outright before next season through a one-time amnesty provision that wipes that contract off a team's books -- even though the player must still be paid -- reminiscent of a similar provision in the summer of 2005.
About the Will Smith analogy, the actors in those movies, I assume, make less than 57% of the gross revenue that the film makes, so what is an appropriate financial slice for the actors, or in this case the players. Is 57% too much or too little?
Have the players ever actually made a counter offer? It would be nice to see some of those.