View Single Post
10-17-2012, 02:38 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,316
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
No and no. Not even Hollywood pays it's actors 50% of it's investments.
-Average production budget of a major Hollywood film is $100mil (in 2007).
-Of that ~$100mil, Marketing is the biggest expense, at $36mil on average, unless it's a special-effects-driven movie, in which case Spec-Eff is clearly the biggest expense.
-Actors on average run about 20-25% of a movie's budget.

Not my point. Pro sports operate in a completely separate sphere than any other business is allowed to, by law. They are immune to MANY anti-trust anti/competition/ anti-monopoly laws, many labor laws, and are functionally. And, like I said before, pro sports EASILY have the highest % of wages going to the employees of any successful industry in existence, and it's not even close.

You absolutely can't compare pro sports to anything else.
Compare the salaries (not gross income) of the top 1% of employees in all professions and I submit team professional sports is not at or near the top of the list.

Of course if/when an industry attempts to select the best of the best for the 700 jobs openings, the cost is going to be significantly above industry average.

Professional sport is not immune to existing laws, with baseball and antitrust law being the exception.

However existing law recognizes agreements between professional sports leagues and player unions in the form of CBAs as having precedence over the right of the individual in certain aspects.

For example, the salary cap is anti-competitive conduct by definition, yet is not subject to anti-trust law because it was legally agreed to by both parties.

There are many examples that disprove what you are suggesting re: professional sports and the law.

Holdurbreathe is offline