View Single Post
11-11-2012, 09:21 PM
Registered User
DAChampion's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,089
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
They're the owners, they have the rights to do so, that's something peoples should understand.
That's actually not correct.

In order to have things like salary caps, entry level contracts, trades, escrow, etc you need a labour union to agree to these things. They are illegal in the private marketplace.

What you have in the private marketplace are employers competing for employees and vice versa. This drives up wages in a high-talent field like the NHL, where we saw before the last lockout 72% of revenue went to players.

If the owners want to go back to free markets I'm sure the players will agree to this at anytime and thus claim 72% of revenue, however, the owners prefer socialism. Given that they prefer socialism, negotiations will be part of the process.

Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
The players taking more than 50 % of the revenue is also something ridiculous especially in a professional sport.
Wrong, in high-talent fields it is common for employee compensation to run higher than 50% of revenue. I previously gave the example of Wall Street on this thread, where investment banks like Morgan Stanley spend 51% or 52% of their revenue on compensation. When employers have to compete for high-talent individuals, wages go up and up.

DAChampion is offline