NFL running backs are upset. By any metric, it has not been a good off season for running backs who feel that their worth to their teams has been devalued. IOW, their paycheques don't match their value. You can read stories about that here and here if you need a quick update. Is this true? Are running backs not receiving their "true worth"?
That is a more difficult question to answer then it might seem. The Guardian's interpretation (cited above) is that the relative decline in running back pay is a product of changes to the game. RBs are just not as offensively valuable as they once were; other positions (quarterback, wide receiver, and in the defensive mirror "edge rusher," and cornerback have become more important and, hence, more valuable). The NFL's Collective Agreement might also be depressing running back salaries and that is likely true (see the ESPN piece cited above), but that is a complex issue and difficult to address in a short post. My view is that the real problems lie elsewhere and I'll get to those but first, let's think about worth.
We need to acknowledge that "true" worth -- in sport -- is a difficult thing to peg down. RBs are not going broke. The average salary for top tier RBs in the NFL will be over $10 million this year and some (for instance, Derrick Henry) will make a bundle more than that. Said differently, one of the better NFL running back will make more money this year than the vast majority of Americans will make over their lifetimes. We are not talking about someone scrapping by and since this issue is often framed as being about the best RBs in the game, I'll take that as a fair point of comparison. I'll return to this issue later because I think it is important.
We also need to ask this question: why is a player paid whatever they are paid? How actually do we calculate their worth? The short answer is: to win games but that is not 100% accurate. Pro sports is a business. Players are paid because they win games but also because they attract fans, TV deals, sell merchandize, and make money for owners. Let me give you an example: the SF 49ers pay Christian McCaffrey whatever they pay him on the assumption that he will make more money for them. If he doesn't, he will be gone (as he was in Carolina) and the NFL is a remarkably fickle league. There is a connection, to be sure, between winning and making money. But, that fit is not perfect.
One also needs to think about value in terms of replacement costs. Anyone who has ever calculated the cost of car repairs verse payments on a new car knows exactly what I am talking about. One problem running backs have is that there are a lot of them. I recognize depth has been a problem for some teams (the Bears, for instance, and Baltimore) but the truth is that there is no shortage of good running backs moving their way through US college ranks at any given moment. While great running backs are almost certainly as hard to find as great quarterbacks of game changing linebackers, there is a steady supply of backs from which to pick and a number that will be all stars. Some (McCaffrey) come with a lot of hype. Others (the recently released Elliott) seem to come out of the blue if you are not paying a great deal of attention to US college games.
What this means for a player's value is complicated. It means that they are simultaneously worth more than their skill on the field might indicate (because of TV contracts and merchandize) and potentially less, particularly if a team thinks they can generate the same level of wins (or, owners think they can make the same amount of money) without someone else at that position.
This means that there is not straight forward way of calculating a players value (even while the Collective Agreement tries to do in a limited number of instances). We should also acknowledge that a player's value can extend beyond their playing days. The growing football industry in the US absorbs bunches of former players for TV and radio, for colour commentary and PR. There are speaking tours and product endorsements. A player with name brand recognition -- Henry, Jonathan Taylor -- should be able to transform that recognition into income, adding to the income they derive from the game, even if it does not show up in their playing salaries.
Where does this leave the calculation of true worth? Likely in several places but there are a couple of other points that I should likely make. The first is that sports media is awash in hyperbole. I likely spend too much time watching sports but the number of players described as "stars" "superstars" etc., shocks me. There have been times I've sat and listened to a commentator and thought to myself "well, heck, everyone can't be a star" because that means no one is. Get it? If everyone is great ... what sets one person ahead of another? This is actually a key question if we are trying to get at worth (I'll leave its ethical merits to the side for this discussion). If every running back is great, then ... why should one be paid more than the other because they all have the same skill level. The on-going hyperbole has this effect. It anoints players as great (or some other such wording) and convinces people that Player X or Y is "among the best in the game" but people are actually saying that about so many players that they just can't all be true. IOW, there is a disconnect between sports media language and player rankings.
As an example I think Saquon Barkley is a really good RB. Is he one of the best in the game? Is he a game changer? Maybe, but he also has an appreciable injury history. Last year was the first year in four that he played what we could call a full season. If I run the Giants, I might say OK, yeah I Barkley's good but how much is an oft-injured player worth? Karem Hunt is another case in point. Really good but a backup who has missed appreciable playing time in the last four years. These are just examples to illustrate a point and I don't want to get too hung up on details.
The other consideration in the multi-generational wealth being handed out in other sports, notably basketball and soccer. I don't know what to say about this because the figures truly are staggering, but I suspect it reflects market value as opposed to player value. For whatever reason (fewer players which equals more money per player, more revenue because of more games?) basketball just has more money to pay individual players than football. I get it. RBs in the NFL who are feted in the media see this -- along with QBs in their sport -- and they want it, too. After all, they are routinely told they are great, game changers, historic, etc. Should they not be paid at least closer to that level.
They aren't and, unless things change, they won't be. Should they be? I don't know. I calculate value differently and so I can't say.
No comments:
Post a Comment