- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,869
- Reaction Score
- 15,214
I can't imagine that many of the Euro teams make money, some of the crowds look even smaller than the W...yet they pay their talent at least adequately, sometimes handsomely.
Teams are owned (as here) by super rich individuals...There, they choose to pay the players adequately...here not.
Coming from the classical music biz, there were always managers who had the attitude that the talent should (almost) pay them in order to thank them for giving them a platform to shine ...seems like the collective viewpoint of the W.
It's just the prevailing sentiment of current W ownership...and a maverick who took a more generous view would be severally pressured by his colleagues to desist. ...Would be interesting if such an owner came forward; all the best players would flock to him...perhaps change the situ of the game.
But comparing salaries to current attendance and acceptance is a "red herring': and is not a real world explanation for the problem.
Just typical American greed and willingness to exploit talent. not a whole lot different from coal minors and automobile laborers.
“I can’t imagine that many of the Euro teams make money...” Maybe they do. Regardless, writing the problem off as “typical American greed” is ludicrous. Until the W can start making a profit, little will change. The clear implication is that they (owners) should simply pay the players like the men because that is the fair thing to do. I would be willing to bet a lot (for me) of money that if the NBA suddenly stopped making big bucks, the idiotic salaries would soon go the way of the Dodo bird. I’m all for these players making more money! Diana is one of my all time sports heroes but If I owned the Mercury, I would still expect them to turn a profit before I started paying them as if they were on par with the NBA.