How much is it worth today
 

Did some reading recently on salaries in 1922 and here are some interesting facts.

In 1922, Babe Ruth made $30,000.00 which in todays dollars is worth $400,000.00
My gr at great uncle Elmer Miller made $6500.00 playing center field and in todays dollars, this would be worth $87,500.00

The question is after looking at these numbers, why do we pay some players 10 to 15 million dollars per year and are they really worth that amount of money considering what they contribute to society? My strait answer to this question would be no as most do not even have finished degrees from college and when it comes right down to it how much do these people contribute to our society. Even physicians who are critical to keeping us healthy do not make this kind of money that we pay players for playing a game. My opinion is that MLB salaries are way out of line considering the player's contribution to society. Thoughts?

Add in the fact that the average salary for a player in 2014 is 3.3 million dollars and the minimum salary os $500,000 dollars.

They get paid that much because owners make much more money, plain and simple. If owners made half as much money as they do, then player salaries would be half as much. Back in 1922, they didn't have tv rights, radio rights, the souvenir sales, all of the sponsorship dollars, the attendance, etc., so there wasn't the money available to pay them much more. There also wasn't a player's union.

Yes and...
 

And so are hedge fund managers, most CEO's, actors, actresses, politicians in Washington DC (Both Parties); television personalities; etc.

I assume you are using some sort of CPI inflation calculator which is designed by the government to deceive you into thinking inflation is not as profound as it it is. Take a look at the Babe's salary relative to other things like an ounce of gold, land prices and other investments and I think you'll find a less dramatic comparison to today. The difference beyond this will likely be due to increased baseball revenues today and a lack of free agency in the 1920 s

Looks like Ruth was a steal!

It was also interesting looking at Ruth's salary compared to other team members. He was making $30,000 and the next closest salary was $8500. Guess that happens when you hit the home runs compared to a pitcher who throws every 4 th days and puts huge pressure on his arms.

They are entertainers. Forget what they do for society. In any event the best pro athletes are WAY better at what they do than are most people with college degrees.

My father, recently retired, has his Doctorate in Electrical Engineering. Back in the Seventies, he went for an extended trip to the Aleutian Islands to work, fine-tuning an Early Warning Radar installation. The company he was working for paid him time and a half while he was there AND continued his regular paychecks back home for the family to live on. I happened to see one of the paystubs. Overtime aside, he was making $40K a year. At the same time Yaz made headlines for signing a $500K contract...for 3 years. I remember thinking, "Gee a baseball player makes a little more than 4 times what a man, doing his best to protect the country against Russian missile attack, makes." About 6 months ago I was helping him get some financial stuff in order and he mentioned that through promotions, raises and switching companies over the years, he peaked at $350K a year. AROD makes WHAT?:D:eek::confused:

Exactly my point. I remember going to Cubs camp and Randy Hundley tried to justify what players make just because they had to keep themselves in shape and they could only work for 10 to 12 years on the average. In my opinion, his arguement didn't quite make it especially when he was in a room full of doctors and attorneys who made nowhere near the salaries that were being discussed. There is not a person on the face of the earth that is what Arod or other players are / were being paid and especially when you look at what they do for our society.

Comparing doctors to entertainers really isn't relevant. Baseball players make so much money because of the huge TV contracts, in addition to other things like ballpark attendance, sponsorships, etc. Another way to look at it is if 25 million people who watch baseball, and they pay $1 a year to see ARod on some other player. However, while a baseball player or other entertainer can entertain millions upon millions of people, even the best doctor can only see so many patients per year.

Four answers:

No free agency
No players union (as far as I know)
No TV
No night games

Might not translate to a lot in today's dollars, but Ruth's 1922 salary of $30,000 was ten times the average annual income of $3,143.46.

Still a hefty salary compared to the people around him.

Nail on the head here. Like comparing apples to orangutans. And situational as well. Is a visit to a dying child from his favorite fill-in-the-blank a more positive contribution to his condition than a doctor's, who at that point, might not be able to do anything for him?

Similar to saying that teachers, scientists, doctors, CEOs, etc etc are underpaid or overpaid. The best ones are underpaid while the worst ones are overpaid.

Bottom line is that baseball players are just like everyone else. They are paid what their employer feels they are worth.

Correct. They are paid what their employer think they are worth. Most of these employers (owners) are not stupid. If fans are willing to go to games, watch on TV, buy licensed merchandise, etc., then owners will continue to make lots of money. If the fans stop spending (time and money) then... The fans are responsible for the enormous salaries.

Nothing personal Ken, But EVERY ONE of these kinds of threads (or articles, etc. etc.) start with complaining about players salaries. Almost None of these threads talk about what the owners make. Talk about people who contribute NOTHING to society.
Joan Kroc tried to GIVE (she was very well off and had no money concerns) the Padres to the City or County of San Diego upon her husband Ray's death. The owners, who are all about the "free" market when it benefits them, would Not Allow it. Didn't want the Fans and cities to know that they (the owners) were not necessary to the equation would be my guess.
Eliminate Baseball's anti-trust exemption and we may possibly get "our game" back.

why compare
 

i think its a lot easier to be a movie star if you are the son of a big star than a be a baseball star just becaue your dad was a baseball star..

im pretty sure brad pitt can make one of his 10 sons a star in a movie if he wants too..but in baseball you still got to hit.....pete rose jr played in what a few games in the majors?

Lots of interesting stuff in these comparisons.

If you want to measure it purely on benefit to society then yes any entertainer is probably overpaid.

Unless you try to figure out the societal value of the enjoyment of millions of fans. I have no way to calculate that.

I will take exception to the concept at any level that a college degree is necessary to contribute to society. I have no degree, and I'm pretty comfortable saying I've contributed and continue to. Including at times fixing infrastructure like sewage treatment plants, and making a few minor pieces for the ISS. Few employees in restauraunts have degrees, but where would we be without them? Farmers too, although there are degrees available.
Or to stay with sports- how about the vendors in the stands? Probably few degrees there.

Players are paid so highly because so many of us are very interested in paying to watch them play. If you can find a few thousand people who will pay to watch for example an engineer design something, I'll find the venue and split the take 50/50 with whoever it is. That's sort of what the team owners do, if the players play well, or sometimes if they really don't, some people will pay to see it. So they rent/build a stadium, and use some of that money to hire a team.
The tv rights and the sales of stuff are the real money.

And the contribution for some teams is the increased business for places near the stadium. Not so much for places out on the outskirts of town, but around a downtown stadium like Fenway the benefit is substantial. How many people work for the surrounding businesses? How many of those businesses would be there without the stadium? cask and flagon probably, Twins probably not. A lot of the others would be somewhere else, but maybe not as busy. All of them pay some taxes, and we all benefit.

For the record, if anyone wants to watch me fix a bicycle or some other machinery I'd be glad to make some time for you -For a lot less than a ticket to a MLB game. (But probably a bit more than a minor league ticket) I'd also be happy to make a program for a bit extra, and even sell you a "jersey" for a hundred or so.
Give me a bit of time though, I'll have to make the jersey since I'm not expecting any takers on that offer. It will be "event worn" and I would probably sign it too:D (Road "games" extra and negotiable)

Steve B

We created an economy where our citizens have significantly lower tax burdens and greater disposable incomes than most other economies but we are annoyed that so much of this disposable income is spent on frivolous luxuries and entertainment.

Well here is what we can do. We can increase tax revenues to finance paying higher military salaries or making medical research or farming more lucrative and reduce people's disposal income so people don't have as much disposable income to spend on nonessential items and entertainment reducing the profitability of those industries. I don't see much support for that.

While I agree that what is considered rational as a players salary. I totally disagree with the statement that Owners contribute NOTHING to society. How many times have I seen the Steinbrenner family contribute millions of dollars to every charity that they possibly could. Look at the the most recent treatment of The Bengals player Devon Still whos daughter was diganosed with cancer. The Bengals after cutting him found out what was going on and signed him to the pratice squad so he could have insurance! Dont tell me that decision wasnt coming from the owner! Look what happened now on the starting team! Look at what Robert Kraft also did for him at the game the other night, made a donation to the hospital treating her and had all the cheerleaders put on Devon Stills Jerseys ALL OF THEM to show support that they were behind him! I could give you many more stories of owners doing great things for society. So to me your statement that Owners contribute NOTHING to society is totally wrong.

I always liked the story told about Ruth regarding his salary. When a reported objected that the salary Ruth was demanding ($80,000) was more than that of President Herbert Hoover's ($75,000), he replied, “I know, but I had a better year than Hoover.”;)

As Keith Hernandez remarked on a recent telecast, "these are the wonderful things that Marvin [Miller] did." IMHO, the owners should have called Marvin's bluff and reminded him that there is a new crop of players coming out next year, the year after that, and the one after that, and so on. Plus, the players had nowhere else to go--no stadiums to play in, no mass-marketing money, no TV or radio contracts.

Now, how many guys do we have making $15,000,000/yr. or more under long term contracts in their thirties, and not producing enough to actually earn even a small fraction of that? Let's have no more than two years guaranteed, and get the focus back on producing enough to actually help their team, rather than just showing up for a big paycheck (see Joe Nathan) and tying up a ton of team money that could be used for improving the roster!

Best wishes, guys,

Larry