09-20-2024, 12:44 PM
(09-20-2024, 11:17 AM)michaeltex Wrote: This may be shouting into the abyss, but...
Has anyone ever done a comparison of player salary vs. revenue generated?
Embiid's extension averages $64.33M/year. That's about $784.5K/game. I have no idea how or if this affects the PHL tax situation.
Does the incremental revenue received over an average replacement validate the investment? Or more basically, does he (or any max $$$ level player, Luka included) generate enough basketball-related revenue to cover their salary? Are they, in effect, taking revenue generated by lower status players as compensation for perceived "star power"? Is their "worth" an artificial construct based on marketing and an owner's desire to be perceived as a "winner"?
I realize that this sounds somewhat Marxist, but my compensation is based on the value I bring to my company through increased revenue or improved margins. Real world measures that are then added to non-numerical evaluations (working safely, plays well with others, responsive to customers, etc.) to determine a value to the organization. Plus, it's the time of year when I have to do all this for my team in preparation for next year, so I'm in that frame of mind.
I guess the only commonality is that both organizations value retention of skills and experience, so (in theory) compensation has to be competitive with similar positions in the marketplace. Only professional contracts are usually public knowledge, so it's easy to compare between teams. Private business, not so much other than broad generalities.
Pro athletics is far too dynamic to make a linear connection between player contract cost and revenue. Owners are in it for the Balance Sheet, not P&L. As long as the operations is somewhat self funding and they're not hemorrhaging money, it's all about the wealth.