Had an interesting but random conversation with someone last night at the Mexico vs Bosnia soccer game about pro player salaries. I hadn't given much thought to it, but this person was adamant that of all the leagues, the NFL players have the weakest union and are the least paid despite the fact they are employed in the most successful, most popular, most rev generating league.

Seems to be true, but it got me to thinking as to the WHY?

I'm sure the shear # of players (average 60 per roster) has something to do with it compared to an NBA roster of 15 players, but seems like NBA average salaries are much higher than NFL average salaries.

Thoughts?

1) They are not in a strong position to negotiate for a better CBA. The average NFL player only lasts a few years. They are not going to sit out and lose potential income.

2) Larger rosters means less per player.

3) Owners will always be reluctant to guarantee contracts when there's a high risk of injury

Considering the risk/reward of the NFL, they are really underpaid compared to other sports.

And their careers are so much shorter.

They can't be paid as much as basketball players when there are 50+ on a roster.

They also have the shortest season and least amount of games.

As mentioned already, they've always been the most easily broken union, which is why they have the worst deal. And they've been the most easily broken union because their careers are so short. Being willing to stand up with an extended labor stoppage is the key negotiating tactic that they have, but who wants to potentially give up a full season of income when your career likely has less than 3-5 years remaining. There's no way you are ever going to make that up even if you get the owners to cave substantially.

There's also less leverage and recognition on an individual player basis. One great player can make an NBA team, and great players in soccer or baseball make a bigger impact than great NFL players, with the exception of quarterback.

NFL players, again with the exception of quarterback, also don't have much facial recognition even with NFL fans. How many players on the All Pro NFL team could you name base on just photos? What about the NFL or MLB? It's apparently a running joke at clubs that NFL players flash money like crazy so people will realize who they are. They even have a name for it, helmet syndrome. So less facial recognition means less advertising money, a less powerful public image, and less public support.

Add that to less importance per player, larger rosters, and short shelf lives and it's easy to see why they don't make as much.

I am very exciting for the new CBA talks though. With the lower viewership, the owners may be a lot less willing to play hardball. A lockout may kill the league at this point. I know I'd consider stopping watching altogether if they didn't play for a year.

All good thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

I did a quick calculation of Total League Revenue divided by Total # of Players to get a straight line 'Per Player Share of Revenue' figure, not that it's an accurate method to measure what each player should be worth. Is assumes simply that all league revenue is split evenly by just the total # of players in the league which is clearly not accurate, but it's a baseline comparison among the leagues.

NFL: 60 players x 32 teams = 1,920 players / $13.0B league rev = $6.7M per player
NBA: 15 players x 32 teams = 480 players / $4.8B league rev = $10M per player
MLB: 25 players x 32 teams = 800 players / $9.5B league rev = $11.8M per player

*NOTE: I know the exact # of teams isn't accurate

I compared this against the 'Average Player Salary' as reported by this article:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/visualnewscom/visualizing-the-yearly-sa_b_4184716.html

NFL: $1.9M per player (28% of per player share)
NBA: $5.1M per player (50% of per player share)
MLB: $3.2M per player (26% of per player share)


This seems to indicate that maybe MLB players are the most undervalued against their per player share of total league rev?

Does the MLB number count the massive farm systems? What about the practice squad and training camp contracts for the NFL?

Great analysis, but average salary really isn't a good measure.

16 games to 82 games to 162 games. They're rightly paid accordingly.

16 games...and once a team falls out of contention they shut down players for the last 2 or 3 weeks of the season. So for many guys it's only 14 or 15 games

NBA Labor got a 50-50 split. NFL needs better bargaining. Sadly they aren't in a position to bargain.

AustinAg2012 said:

---

16 games to 82 games to 162 games. They're rightly paid accordingly.

---

Maybe look at it in terms of # of months in a max season assuming you make it from preseason all the way to the end of postseason.

MLB / March to end of October is 8 months

NBA / October to early June is 8 months

NFL / August to end of January is 6 months

Either way it seems he NFL season is 2 months shorter than the other two. Despite the more physical toll on the body, it is offset by less games and less months in the job.

Unthought Known said:

---

Great analysis, but average salary really isn't a good measure.

---

Yep. I bet median salary would be a better metric.

Basketball or hockey player doesn't like his salary or options, he can go play in Europe. Tons of leagues and owners willing to pay top dollar. Those leagues have international appeal.

A football player has no realistic option outside of NFL. And few outside North America even care about NFL football.

Matsui said:

---

NBA Labor got a 50-50 split. NFL needs better bargaining. Sadly they aren't in a position to bargain.

---

In 2006, media "genius" Bryant Gumbel called Gene Upshaw "docile" and the "personal pet" of NFL commish Paul Tagliabue because of Upshaw's friendly negotiations with NFL Commish.

Upshaw had just gotten the player's union 57-60% of the split, and the League quickly opted out of that agreement by 2008.

I think players are now around 48%.

One thing that the NFL also has to deal with is more medical related issues to more former players.

Some of the money the current players aren't getting will be coming their way in the future. All the leagues have pretty good pensions (NBA and MLB have far better), but the NFL really does have to set aside more money for future medical expenses.

Another factor: The NBA protects mid tier players by having a max salary for the top players. LeBron has been extremely underpaid over his career compared to his actual value (I read an analysis a few years ago that suggested LeBron was worth like 80 million a year) . This leaves much more money available for everyone else.