Sammy Sosa says he’s worth $160 million dollars, though the article I read doesn’t say for how many seasons, eight or nine or ten, I’m guessing. The story is here.
Is any athlete worth that much? Is any human worth that much? How much is too much? Is there such a thing as too much? If the Cubs pay him that much, how much will ticket prices be? Am I using the word “much” too much?
Y’know, if you can’t get by on a million dollars a year, you’re just not trying hard enough. 
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
Well, it is a free market economy, so I guess Sammy or anyone else can charge whatever the market will bear. Of course, you are free to say “I’m not paying 50 bucks a ticket so the Cubs can pay him more money to play one game than I’ll make this year” and boycott the games. I remember back in the 70s the fans giving Reggie Jackson a hard time because they thouht he was making too much. It’s a free country.
I agree. ‘Enough’ is however much people are willing to pay him. If the market supports $160 million, then that’s what he’s worth. If it was ‘too much’, he wouldn’t get a contract.
How is that any worse than CEO salaries?
e.g. the figure for the CEO of General Electric.
http://www.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/aflcio.pl?Company=GeneralSP_CEElectricSP_CECo&Page=1
I hit reply too soon.
If Sammy Sosa is earning that much, imagine how much profit is being made by the owner of the team that pays him that much money.
I do think the salary differential in the USA between common workers and large-company executives is exaggerated, but sports really plays a very small part in this disparity.
I’ve always believed that I had the right to charge my various employers/clients whatever the market will bear, so I guess I have to give that same right to others - both sports folks and CEOs.
Arnold:
As I understand it, the Cubs are owned by the Tribune Co. The CEO of that company still makes less than half of 20 mil a year if you include stock options, which nobody will confuse with liquid assets. From the AFL-CIO database that Arnold linked above:
I love the term “raked in”. That being said, IMO it’s Sammy’s perogative to get as much as he can, and I’d rather it go to him than many of the others out there.
friend jab1:
a very interesting topic! to begin, i would like to admit that i am not a sports fan. i have never paid the outrageous ticket prices necessary to support these high salaries. i don’t even watch them on t.v. but i wonder why anyone would pay some of these athletes the kind of money they make.
is dennis rodman really worth that kind of cold hard cash?
“don’t get strung out by the way that i look, don’t judge a book by it’s cover” (tim curry as dr. franknfurter in rhps)
Is there any formula by which we can conclude that Sammy Sosa or ANY athlete is worth that kind of money? No, of course not. I won’t begrudge it to him if he can get it, but there is absolutely no way Sosa can be generating enough revenue for the CUbs to be worth that kind of money.
Anyone who disgrees is invited to answer this question: IF Sammy Sosa gets hit by a truck and dies before next season begins, will the Cubs lose $160 million over the next 8 years?
OF COURSE NOT!
Therefore, it’s obvious he’s not worth anywhere near that much money to the Cubs.
Now, in show biz (and sports ARE part of show biz), seemingly astronomical salaries CAN be a bargain. As stupid as I find Adam Sandler, his movies have always grossed well over $100 million. So, if I were a producer, and he demanded $25 mill for his next picture, I might well conclude that he’s worth it.
SImilarly, based on the increased attendance whenever Nolan Ryan pitched, if I’d owned a baseball team, I might well have found that Nolan RYan was WORTH whatever absurd salary he was receiving.
However, NO baseball player has similar drawing power. NO individual baseball player has enough charisma to draw the extra crowds necessary to justify $160 million.
Umm, I don’t think it works that way.
For one thing, you have to compare Sosa’s salary to a replacement player’s. After all, if Sosa does get hit by a truck, the Cubs need someone to take his spot. Maybe other outfielders with high batting averages and huge home-run totals are commanding $100 million contracts.
Then the question becomes whether Sosa is worth the extra $60 million over (I believe) seven years.
To answer that, you have to consider whether the Cubs need Sosa’s star power to help their marketing. Wrigley Field by itself is going to draw a lot of people, even if trained chimps are wearing the Cubs uniforms, so the answer to this question may be “no.” On the other hand, the Cubs aren’t exactly top heavy with stars to sell to their fans, and Sosa is one of the very top names in the game.
Another consideration is the negative reaction if the Cubs DON’T pony up the $160 mil. Perhaps keeping Sosa won’t bring in a lot of extra money, but letting him slip away will piss off so many fans that attendance starts slipping and merchandising drops off.
Up, up and away!
I’m surprised the subsidies provided to teams haven’t been mentioned yet in this thread. I’m very much a free marketeer so I believe if the market will bear such costs for talent, then Sosa is worth it.
However, baseball is nothing resembling a stand-alone business. With an anti-trust exemption from Congress along with suckers, er cities, ponying up major taxpayer dollars to build opulent new stadiums to juice owner’s revenues this hardly represents a free-marketbusiness.
[rant mode on]
In the metro area I live in, the suckers, er voters, approved the expenditure of $225 million for a new stadium and surrounding development. The new stadium was approved following a rare (twice in 31 years of existence) World Series appearance by our local heroes.
Following approval of the stadium, several key players were traded or allowed to sign elsewhere. The excuse was they couldn’t afford them. The lack of affordability was given as the reason the new stadium was needed in the first place.
This project keeps being sold as beneficial to the city but get this - the city will be paying over $25 million per year for maintenance and debt service while the team will pay $500,000 in annual rent. The suckers, er citizenry, keep being told this will not be a drain on city services.
[rant mode off]
My point is if baseball were a stand-alone business with no goodies from taxpayers thrown its way, I wouldn’t have any problems with the salary structure at all. However, this is certainly not the case.
From a free market perspective, this is a badly broken business.
Clark K[ent] wrote:
I thought trained chimps were wearing the Cubs uniforms. <rimshot>
It seems to me that Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire probably generated close to $160 million worth of free MLB advertising over the past couple of years.
How much will free publicity will they bring to the MLB in the coming few years?
And, if nothing else, at least he’s a major athlete that we can all respect. He’s not beating his wife or killing people outside of dance clubs. He’s an immigrant who is very good at his chosen profession and came to our fair land to prove it. Personally, I love his story, even though I’m not a big baseball fan.
I agree with those who have cited our free market economy, Sosa and others are worth what they we are willing to pay them.
Also, astorian hit on a good point. Why is it athletes that so many complain about, and not other entertainers? Here is the way I see it:
The cast of Friends makes an enormous amount of money, yet they provide only 20-30 half hour shows per yer. So you are getting about 10-15 hours of entertainment for your money.
Sosa and his teammates provide 162 games per year of entertainment, at around three hours per game. That is 486 hours, without making the post season. That is all free to me, I just have to watch commercials during the games. If I want more, I can pay and see Sosa perform live at every one of those 162 games. If that is not enough, I can go to 6-8 weeks of spring training and see him live for even less money, up close. Some of those games are televised too, adding to the almost 500 hours of entertainment piped into my living room.
Compared to other entertainers, athletes’ salaries provide more entertainment per dollar. Again, no justification is needed for making what the market will pay you, but I don’t see why athletes are singled out for complaints.
I would rather the players get the money rather than have the owners keep it, however, I don’t think there is really a free market for players. Due to the collective bargaining agreement only a limited number of players become free agents each year, so the market for players is actually an oligopoly. If the market were truly free then player salaries would come to equilibrium and stabilize at some point, however, player salaries have been steadily sky-rocketing since the 1970’s, when free agency came into play. In order for there to truly be a free market for players, every player’s contract, in both the major and minor leagues, would expire at the same time.
IMO, disreputable has it right: there’s nothing remotely resembling a free market in ML sports. There’s no free entry into the business of having a team; the stadiums are, by and large, provided by the taxpayers (read, extorted by the teams and the leagues); access the airwaves to distribute their product is provided free by the taxpayers.
Especially pernicious is the artificial shortage of ML teams that the leagues maintain to keep the public paying for ever-fancier stadiums just to keep their team in town. Free market, my ass.
WHAT???
If you sign a 3-year contract as a free-agent, you are bound by that contract for 3 years. If you, as a liquor distributor, sign a 3-year contract to supply alcohol to a bar, you are bound by that contract for 3 years. If a basketball player with a potentially bad back wants stability and signs a long-term (7 year) guaranteed contract that averaged what the top stars were making at that time, he has no business complaining 5 years later when his back is fine and he is vastly under-paid. All of that is part of a free-market system.
As for municipal expendatures for stadia,… Disreputable, do you, perchance, live in San Diego? Economic impact of sports teams goes beyond their rent. They employe workers at the stadium; they create tax revinue through ticket sales, concessions, etc. There are intangebles, such as loss of tourism (0.5% drop, which would be one convention, could mean millions in revenue), etc. That being said, the disposable income not spent at the ballpark would instead be spent somewhere else, creating taxes and jobs in that industry.
“The large print givith, and the small print taketh away.”
Tom Waites, “Step Right Up”
I am generally of the mind that sports salaries are excessive, and I just frickin’ HATE that argument that someone is worth whatever someone will pay them… at some point, can’t common sense supercede one’s unbounding faith in the market? ::withdrawing stick from hornet’s nest::
But, in the defense of wealthy people who play games for a living, I once saw an excellent article made such salaries sound more reasonable. The reasoning went along the lines that an owner is not paying for a skillful player, particularly, but for a player that will help to the team win, increasing team revenues.
For example, if a baseball team has a good lineup but marginal pitching staff, investment in a talented starter will probably mean about 5-10 extra wins per year, which could very well make the difference in making the playoffs, which would mean more tickets sold (throughout the year), more games televised, more caps sold, etc.
I’ll try to find the article for a clearer explanation…
I think that, in general, you are right. Better players = winning team = better attendance, more revenue from playoff games, etc. However, I live in St. Louis and Mark McGwire’s 60 some home runs didn’t keep the Cardinals from finishing in the bottom of the league. So, in his case it’s a little harder to say how much extra revenue he generated for the Cardinals. Still, it’s a free market and I think players should get what they can.
Actually, McGwire is a classic example of what a big name can mean to a bad team – which the Cardinals have had the last few years. With McGwire chasing a new record, late-season attendence stayed high and the Cards drew over 3 million. Without that kind of excitement (like in the early 90s) attendence collapsed when the weather got hot in August and even a team with as much fan loyalty as the Cardinals would be lucky to get much more than 2 million.
But I’m less ticked off by pro sports than by some other business demands for tax breaks. Here in St. L we have several textbook examples of developers coming in and demanding tax breaks for shopping malls. The cities will give in – if they don’t, the developer just goes down the road a mile to the next town. And in at least one case, when the tax break expired, the retailer picked up and moved into a bright new strip mall down the road, and a new set of tax breaks.