Frank Deford suggests new business model for pro sports

"The sports model I can envision will mean that the merely nice, serviceable players — the character actors of games, like the rebounding power forward who can't shoot, the good-field-no-hit shortstop — will see their multimillion-dollar salaries considerably reduced, even if the celebrity stars may still receive the real big money."

One could argue that this trend has long been on-going, but Deford is arguing for a Hollywood-like model, with a single star making in the neighborhood of $20 mill and the rest of the players on the order of $1 mill.

Is this likely? healthy? inevitable?

The link takes you to the audio podcast, about 4 minutes worth, from his NPR spot.

about 1 year ago macasson 5 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’ve got two polar responses…

1) This type of system will never work. It takes only one superstar actor to make a “competitive” movie, while it takes more than one superstar athlete to field a competitive baseball team. It may work in basketball where there’s only five guys on the floor, but it doesn’t fly in baseball.

2) This type of system is already the system that’s in place. Owners and front offices just haven’t utilized it to its fullest extent. I’d argue that the Indians have adhered to Deford’s system as well as has any team. The “star” players are those players who’ve accrued enough service time to be free agents and earn their big dollars. The other cost-controlled commodities are those players with less than six years of service time. You employ all the cost-controlled talents and splurge on one headliner, except the Indians, risk considered, haven’t found the right headliner to accept their offer (Sabathia at his $18M per season would have been the first).

It’s just that other owners and front offices approve spending $5-$10M a year on crap, when Jack Cust is out there ready to step in and do for very cheap the things David Dellucci is paid $4M per season to do.

by xrickx on Dec 4, 2008 1:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

At this, point you need to follow-up with two counter-arguments.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 4, 2008 9:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This doesn’t make too much sense to me. A lot of big-ticket actors can’t really act. There are a gagillion sub-par-to-good actors out there who can fill roles and get paid less than the next guy. It takes a total freak to play baseball, and there are merely degrees of freakdom. Players should be paid on a continuous, not binary scale (1 mil or 30 mil), just like how they are paid now.

by joeee on Dec 4, 2008 1:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

More – a big premium for acting is looks or perception. Yeah, there are some bogus mlb contracts out there, but for the most part, players receive cash based on quantitative performance. It’s not some arbitrary force that keeps AAA/AAAA guys from tearing it up in the majors. The best players are in the mlb, period. Acting has all sorts of beaurocracy, luck, timing, qualitative measures – on top of different avenues through which to perform (television, stage, movie, America, Europe, et cetera).

by joeee on Dec 4, 2008 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that you just can’t draw the line between star and regular so easily. It would be a much more workable solution if one year contracts were the norm. If you sign a big-time actor for a 5 picture deal, she’ll probably be a big draw for each one. In baseball, we have (to use the topic of the day) Beltre.

by dgcambridge on Dec 4, 2008 5:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs