Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's the modern athlete with their entitlement attitude. They make more in a year than many of us make in a lifetime.
Does Longoria know that it's our tax dollars that subsidize the places where he works at? He thinks those owners build those stadiums with their own money? Even if they did, where does he think those owners get that money from?
I think the issue players and the union have is that the percentage of revenue being spent on players (the product if you will) has fallen below past levels. The owners continue to rake in the big bucks and the players want a fair portion of those earnings passed along to them. It's hard to sympathize with anyone making millions, but I can see the argument they're making.
The owners continue to rake in the big bucks and the players want a fair portion of those earnings passed along to the.
How do you define "fair?" The players want as much money as they can get from the owners and the owners want to give as little of their money as possible to the players. There isn't any "fair" here, there is only greed and negotiations, winners and losers.
How do you define "fair?" The players want as much money as they can get from the owners and the owners want to give as little of their money as possible to the players. There isn't any "fair" here, there is only greed and negotiations, winners and losers.
I'd argue the players and owners both win while we fans, most likely the working-middle class, are the losers because we continue to spend money on a product that does not appreciate us.
This applies to all the sports but they need to realize if all the leagues folded, we would be okay. We don't need (insert your sport here) to function.
How do you define "fair?" The players want as much money as they can get from the owners and the owners want to give as little of their money as possible to the players. There isn't any "fair" here, there is only greed and negotiations, winners and losers.
Basically, yes. The players could get 90 percent of the revenue that comes in and the players and the head of the union would justify it as "fair". Both sides want to pocket as high of a percentage of the revenue as possible.
It's the modern athlete with their entitlement attitude. They make more in a year than many of us make in a lifetime.
So do most people in the upper echelons of the entertainment business. Top-drawer film actors and rock stars make as much or more than major sports figures much of the time. I have no problem with top-draw sports figures wanting to be paid in accordance with such folks in other branches of the entertainment business. Especially given the amount the owners rake in.
I'd argue the players and owners both win while we fans, most likely the working-middle class, are the losers because we continue to spend money on a product that does not appreciate us.
Bingo!
From one who remembers paying $2.75 for a box seat.
I wonder what Mickey Mantle's $100K in 1957 would be in 2019 dollars. Betcha a lot less than what some of the guys make today. And Mantle's salary was exceptional. Only a few back then making 6 figures as I recall.
I'd argue the players and owners both win while we fans, most likely the working-middle class, are the losers because we continue to spend money on a product that does not appreciate us.
Attendance took a drop last season, down 6.5%, the lowest it has been since 2003. If that trend continues we should see owners start to behave like they appreciate the fans more.
Catering to the middle class has not been important for some time, the reverse has been true. The desire for new stadiums has been driven largely by the desire to have a venue with more exclusive, expensive private seating for wealthy patrons. Sky boxes, field boxes, exotic foods...all aimed at extracting bucks from the rich.
Still, it is part of a market economy and if the middle classes stop showing up, the wealthy won't be enough to make the nut. The only way MLB will start paying more attention to the non wealthy fans is if they get hit in the wallet. This may be starting.
From one who remembers paying $2.75 for a box seat.
I wonder what Mickey Mantle's $100K in 1957 would be in 2019 dollars. Betcha a lot less than what some of the guys make today. And Mantle's salary was exceptional. Only a few back then making 6 figures as I recall.
Yeah, I remember my dad taking me to NY Giant baseball games at the old Polo Grounds in upper Manhattan. We would take the subway and when we got there my dad would go to a window and buy tickets. This would’ve been in the early 1950s, when I was between 5 and 10 years old. I don’t know how much he paid, but it couldn’t have been much. We didn’t have much. It was a real treat. It was also a time gone by. I’m glad I have the memories.
I wonder what Mickey Mantle's $100K in 1957 would be in 2019 dollars. Betcha a lot less than what some of the guys make today. And Mantle's salary was exceptional. Only a few back then making 6 figures as I recall.
Mantle's salary adjusted for inflation would be roughly $885,000 today.
And your $2.75 box seat would be less than $25 today if inflation was all that was at play.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
