NFL

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

Your link for the Saints includes their signing bonuses, which are sometimes prorated and included as roster bonuses that can be lost if a player is cut.

Which isn't applicable to these numbers.

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

It also includes 61 players instead of the roster of 53. For the full 61 players, assuming they made their base salary, which at least 8 of them didn't, the average is ~1.152 Million. Top 25 players average salary ~$2.012 million. If you add the signing bonuses, roster bonuses and incentives that may or may not have been reached assuming a player stays healthy, and doesn't get cut, yes, the salaries appear to be close.

Took you awhile, but you finally got there.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

It's my opinion that while each franchise has a seperate owner, the business is MLB (or NFL/NBA/NHL). You see them as a separate entity. That seem about right?

Exactly right. Each team is it's own brand and business

The minimum is always three minor league clubs. It gets cloudy after that, there are some teams that exist and compete with no major league affiliation. Minor league teams also change hands rather frequently, i've lost track myself to be honest

And just to be clear, i'm enjoying the conversation thus far. Kudos to everyone contributing constructive posts I like the back and forth and wasn't suggesting anyone was making the thread sour. I'm just surprised it has gone on as long as it has so well, on the old boards I remember a thread like this going south in a matter of hours

Oh and I pulled this from a site comparing 2010 baseball salaries and 2009 football salaries:

Major League Baseball
Major League Baseball's average salary per player in the 2010 season was $3,297,828. These numbers only encompass players on the major league roster, but all the teams in Major League Baseball also have an extensive minor league system, which would drastically reduce the average salary.

National Football League
In the 2009 National Football League season, the average player salary was $1.1 million. This number is severely skewed as there are several players on a team making a salary of around $7 million to $8 million, while a larger number make toward the league minimum. The league minimum for rookies in 2009 was $193,000.


Read more: The Average Salaries in Professional Sports

[chippewastud79]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Which isn't applicable to these numbers.

Took you awhile, but you finally got there.

You did get there. Average salaries for MLB players is 3 times as high as NFL players.

[chippewastud79]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Oh and I pulled this from a site comparing 2010 salaries:

League minimum for 2010 was $310,000 not $193,000. Maybe they were accounting for the tax man, but it would be even lower.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Exactly right. Each team is it's own brand and business

Which is why we have the differing viewpoints.

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

The minimum is always three minor league clubs. It gets cloudy after that, there are some teams that exist and compete with no major league affiliation. Minor league teams also change hands rather frequently, i've lost track myself to be honest

Right on. I thought it was like that but haven't followed minor league baseball all that closely for the past decade.

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

And just to be clear, i'm enjoying the conversation thus far. Kudos to everyone contributing constructive posts I like the back and forth and wasn't suggesting anyone was making the thread sour. I'm just surprised it has gone on as long as it has so well, on the old boards I remember a thread like this going south in a matter of hours

Yeah, on a sports message board that I post at from time to time, this thread would've gotten ugly, and ugly fast. Then of course Godwin's Law would've been evoked somewhere a page or so ago and that would've been the end of that.

[yourchoice]

I'm not sure who said it where, and I hope I have am responding in context...but as for minor league baseball, those players (after receiving their signing bonus) don't get paid all that well. And, they do sell tickets, concessions, parking, etc. at the venues. I would guess most minor league teams are really close to break even - or even making a few dollars.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

You did get there. Average salaries for MLB players is 3 times as high as NFL players.

Again, that's not what I'm arguing. I know that the average baseball player makes more than the average football player. Where have I ever said otherwise?

[chippewastud79]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Again, that's not what I'm arguing. I know that the average baseball player makes more than the average football player. Where have I ever said otherwise?

This:

I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player

Followed by this:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Just for kicks, I looked up the average starting salary for a MLB player here, and picked a random team (New Orleans Saints; found here) and added up the salaries of the top 25 players. Came to $99.59007 million (only added it up once, could be incorrect). Divided that by 25, and got $3.98 million. I'm positive it's different for different teams, just wanted to throw that out there.

I simply helped analyze the data, showing that the top 25 players in the NFL on average make 2/3rds of the average of a MLB player of a similar sized roster.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

I'm not sure who said it where, and I hope I have am responding in context...but as for minor league baseball, those players (after receiving their signing bonus) don't get paid all that well. And, they do sell tickets, concessions, parking, etc. at the venues. I would guess most minor league teams are really close to break even - or even making a few dollars.

Single A ball gets paid around 20K, AA and AAA between 30-35k. The contracts are open to negotiation after a year, they don't make anywhere near the 400k MLB minimum but it's also tough to peg a definite salary range. Plus the trend in baseball is changing, quite a few teams are locking up young players early, skewing the salaries a bit. I think most minor league teams do at least break even, agree with you there.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I'm not ignoring it. See?

MLB on the other hand is 30 separate businesses acting in their own best interests instead of what's best for MLB.

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.

[chippewastud79]

Originally Posted by Starscream

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.

Competition is good for sports, not putting a competitive team on the field in an effort to save money is hardly acting in the best interest of any one but the owner. See: Pirates, Bengals, Clippers

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

This:



Followed by this:





I simply helped analyze the data, showing that the top 25 players in the NFL on average make 2/3rds of the average of a MLB player of a similar sized roster.

No, that's not what you did. You ignored a good percentage of their monies received because, well, actually I don't know why you did that. But you did.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Starscream

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.

But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter? So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.

The title of this thread should be NFL Vs MLB. How did that happen LOL.

The players decertified the union and left the negotiation table so the owners had nothing else to do but lock them out. Next time you go to sign a work contract tell the owner you want to see his last ten years of audits so you can decide how much you want to get paid and see where that gets you!

Originally Posted by Bruins Fan

Last lockout some of the stars crossed the line and played, the product was not very good.
It's going to be interesting everyone is a free agent.

That was not a lockout, that was a player strike. This is a owner lockout, will not be anybody playing football untill it is resolved.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter?

(Playing Devil's Advocate) What right then does MLB have to tell the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies, Mets and Dodgers that they have to give up almost a third of their revenue (last time I checked revenue sharing was at 31%) to prop up these struggling franchises?

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.

No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by tx_tuff

The title of this thread should be NFL Vs MLB. How did that happen LOL.

The players decertified the union and left the negotiation table so the owners had nothing else to do but lock them out. Next time you go to sign a work contract tell the owner you want to see his last ten years of audits so you can decide how much you want to get paid and see where that gets you!

The players decertified because they were backed into a corner. And yeah, if you're going to pull a BILLION dollars off the table because you claim you're losing money, do you just expect the players to take the owners at their word, seeing how untrustworthy they've proven to be? The owners were not negotiating in good faith, period.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Ah, but your missing my point about the minors. Aside from the 25 man roster that, each MLB team is also responsible for three other 25 man roster, so every MLB team has far more players to manage on a whole.

And my Yankees/Cubs posts was the second most ridiculous thing posted. Someone chimed in earlier with an ever so insightful comment that no one watched baseball anymore, figured I might as well state something as ridiculous while the thread remained civil

As far as the salary talks, it's just a point to show that the sport is doing well. The MLB operates much differently than the NFL, the fact that they are still able to be successful without having to resort to the NFLs brand of sports socialism is a pretty worthy achievement since most other sports in this country seem to be going down that road unfortunately. All sports are a business and they should operate like any other business in this country imho. If a team or league can't cut it, it should fail

There was one of these after it, so yours still stands as the silliest.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Stephen

But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers. The Panthers especially. Jerry Richardson acted out of his own self interest this past season in preparation for the lockout. Made big cuts, hurt our competitiveness, but it set him up nicely in case there is no NFL this season. That's not just a baseball issue. He's not as cheap as the Pirates, but that's still cheap. See the quote below:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter? So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.

There are always exceptions to the rule, but as long as they are selling merchandise and bringing in fans, then it is good for baseball. Now, if all the teams acted like the Pirates, then it would not be good for baseball, but remember they are (along with a few other teams) the exception to the rule, just like the NFL has exceptions too.