@Alienbeing ...and I can count. I understand WHY he and others have the contracts they do, my point it that it's ridiculous and needs to be reset. I'm guessing if gas was $5 million per gallon you would just be ok with it because that's what the market says it should be?

@lerlo In your initial post you asked "Can it be reversed". My answer was market economics. While you may be abe to count (which I never questioned) you apparently don't understand economics. My initial reply inferred, and I will now spell out, that it can be reversed when the market changes. If ticket sales no longer support high salaries, there won't be high salaries.

Even more to the point, the market controls compensation, not your notion of what is too much.

@Alienbeing show me anywhere in an economics textbook that because ticket sales are high that all the players must be paid as much as they want. Certainly is funny then that major corporations are making money hand over fist but won't pay their employees more than $15 an hour, or that major universities make a fortune in ticket sales but don't pay their players at all.

@lerlo I will as soon as you show me any economics text book that covers any situation as specific as you note. Once again you show economic ignorance.

Major Corporations also pay market conditions. I worked for a major corporation for a long time befove i retired, I made MUCH MUCH more than $15.00 oer hour and so did almost everyone who worked there. Try to listen to someone in addition to The Squad. Want some directoin on where to go to get a job paying >$15.00 per hour?

Last, apparently you don't know the difference and rules between amature and professional sports, or you would not as the question you asked regarding College sports.

W

@Alienbeing wayyy too much to respond to and since you worked for a big company only you understand economics but the most glaring comment is that all we have to do is label something "amateur" (at least I can spell) and that gets us around "market conditions." So the NFL could label their intention of spending their incomes on more altruistic endeavors as a reason for not paying ridiculously high salaries and that would get them around "market conditions." Since it's all contractual relations (you know, stuff that involves negotiations and not "market conditions" ) and the parties set their own "market conditions" all the owners would have to say is we're not paying anyone $50 million/year anymore and poof! marker conditions have changed.

@lerlo First, spelling and/or typos in no way alters an argument. That and the remainder of your reply says nothing. It is obvious that your problem is envy, and perhaps sadness as respects your own income.

Last, negotiations are based solely on market conditions. Try harder,

@FearlessFly guess you don't want to answer the question but thanks for asking your own.

I almost completely agree. Would you include someone who was a long-standing customer of a product who was unaware that product was even advertised during the game?

@JeffMurray It might be hard to identify ALL sports advertising, but the major brands don't hide their ad buys.

@FearlessFly I'm not sure what I was asking came across.
You said anyone who buys an advertised product is part of the problem. I was asking if that included people who were already loyal customers who weren't even aware the product was advertised (possibly because they don't watch sports).

@JeffMurray thanks for telling me what my income threshold is--I would't have known. My POINT is that the money could be better spent by those owners and of course all the revenue would decrease because Super Bowl commercials wouldn't be $1 million etc.

@lerlo Aren't you the little pot calling the kettle black? You can judge that other people make more than they need but clutch your pearls when someone says it about you? You're using a smart phone/computer to comment on nonsense in your leisure time, so it's almost guaranteed that you make more money than you need.
That aside, you think Super Bowl commercials cost a million dollars? And you think they cost a million dollars because the money is needed to pay the athletes? Super Bowl commercials cost $5.5 million/30 seconds because that's what advertisers will pay. Period. The broadcaster of the Super Bowl opens bidding at whatever price they want based on history and their own market analysis, and advertisers pony up and pick their slots. As the more desirable spots get filled the price may drop slightly or if advertisers aren't paying the initial asking price it will drop as well, but if the players only made $100k, the price wouldn't be any different.
Also, what's this shit about "money can be better spent by owners"? What in the world do you mean by that?

@lerlo

@JeffMurray if you don't know what money can be better spent by owners means I can't help you

@lerlo So you're saying it can only mean one thing? Okay, we'll all assume you were saying that because none of the NFL owners are black and many of the players are, the money could be more responsibly used by the owners. Very cool of you to say. (Maybe you should have just explained what you meant when someone pointed out that it was very ambiguous. I doubt I'm the only one that took that as an admission you are a racist.)

Also, you ignored ALL of the rest of my reply, so I'll take that as an admission you were talking nonsense and I proved you wrong.