How much is it worth today

[glchen]

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.

[iwantitiwinit]

Four answers:

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

[packs]

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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by glchen

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.

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.

[rkrolewicz]

Originally Posted by tschock

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.

[bobbvc]

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.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by bobbvc

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.

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.

[GasHouseGang]

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.”

[1952boyntoncollector]

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?

[steve B]

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 (Road "games" extra and negotiable)

Steve B

[Shoebox]

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.