Here’s another perspective
The thing is, I’m one of those people who never watched ESPN, yet paid for years for it in a cable package. Now I have some streaming packages I may not watch in a month, but at least I’m not paying $10/month for something I never watch.
The era of monopoly subsidized sports is coming to an end. Perhaps athlete salaries will come back down to Earth as well. They were only so high because the product was sold to so many people who didn’t want to buy it.
It’s the end of a golden era for some, but the end of a rent for me, and hurrah for that. I assume most sports leagues will adjust, rather than price themselves out of business. Or take Saudi money. Either way.
> For the record, I’m not great at math. The only math class I ever took in college was – and I’m not making this up – something called, “Mathematical Concepts,” It was me and every sorority girl at George Washington University.
> So it was the greatest class of my life.
I like sports writing so much better than sports. It’s a good article even if I’m not on the author’s side.
Ehhh you lost me there with that anti-player talking point parroted by the billionaire owners of the league. The players are part of a union, and their CBA says they get 48.8% of league revenue, while the owners get 51.2%.
But somehow people just latch onto “players salaries are too high”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_collective_bargaining_ag...
Athlete salaries were historically artificially low in the NFL and MLB because free agency did not exist until the mid seventies or early eighties. Top-tier athlete salaries in those two leagues will not decline so long as free agency is still in place.