Andrew Luck - Retired at 29 with an extra $25M severence package

[EscapeVelocity2020]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27460243/sources-colts-recoup-money-luck

This is a tough one for me.  On one hand, I appreciate that he has priorities and is willing to put the 'estimated half a billion dollars' in earnings aside for his own health and to let the team move on.  On the other hand, isn't this just getting out of hand?  The 'one percent' have so many advantages that even ER from making insane amounts is a ridiculous windfall!  How is it reasonable to have 25 million dollars income at 29 years old doing things that don't solve the world's problems and in fact made people even more upset?

[HoustonSker]

I say good on him, he can get out with his health and a ton of wealth.

To answer your question on his age and earnings, it’s demand for professional sports.  It’s wild and hell yeah it’s out of hand, but people pay for it..

I hope the west Houston boy makes good use of his time and money.  He went to Stratford High, BTW.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Your ire should be directed at the clueless fans who give their money to athletes to watch them exercise on TV instead of exercising themselves. The athletes then take all the millions of dollars given to them by clueless fans and then waste it on sportscars, drugs, Cookie Cutter Tacky Mansions, and prostitutes/prostitute-wannabes. A couple years after the athletes are forced into retirement by age and/or injury, all the money is gone and now neither the clueless fans nor the idiot athletes have any wealth. But at least the athletes are also really terrible role models for children, so they have that going for them as well.

I am so glad that I haven't paid a subscription fee for cable sports TV in many years. Might as well set fire to a giant pile of cash while simultaneously injecting myself with twenty pounds of body fat.

[2sk22]

Your ire should be directed at the clueless fans who give their money to athletes to watch them exercise on TV instead of exercising themselves. The athletes then take all the millions of dollars given to them by clueless fans and then waste it on sportscars, drugs, Cookie Cutter Tacky Mansions, and prostitutes/prostitute-wannabes. A couple years after the athletes are forced into retirement by age and/or injury, all the money is gone and now neither the clueless fans nor the idiot athletes have any wealth. But at least the athletes are also really terrible role models for children, so they have that going for them as well.

I am so glad that I haven't paid a subscription fee for cable sports TV in many years. Might as well set fire to a giant pile of cash while simultaneously injecting myself with twenty pounds of body fat.

I wish we had the concept of upvotes in this forum - I agree with your. assessment of professional sports 100%!

[Zamboni]

Meh, most of the NFL athletes who last more than a year or two in the league lead boring lives and teeter off into a retirement of relative oblivion.

I say good for him. There's really no point in resenting his success.

[habanero]

Fun fact about US sports and the discrapency between the actual and perceived size of the sports ecomony. I'll include the entire quote from the expert from a freakonomics podcast:

DUBNER: What can you tell us about the size of the sports industry, and how it compares to other industries?

MATHESON: So the answer here is actually surprisingly small. So the biggest league in the world in terms of revenue generated is the N.F.L. And the N.F.L. generates something like $14, $15 billion a year. Now you might be thinking to yourself, well, 14, 15 that sounds like a lot of money. That’s roughly the same size as Sherwin-Williams. So the typical American buys as much paint from Sherwin-Williams as it does by buying N.F.L. products from the largest league in the world. You add in all these other American leagues — N.B.A., Major League Baseball, the N.H.L., Major League Soccer, plus the P.G.A. and pro tennis, and mixed martial arts and all these things — add them all up together, you’ve got maybe $50 billion of pro sports, a few more tens of billions of dollars in college sports. But you’re still only up at 60, 70 billion dollars. That makes spectator sports in the United States roughly the same size as the cardboard-box industry in the United States. Now obviously none of us gather around the water cooler on Monday morning saying, “Hey man, did you see that awesome cardboard box that American Paper just put out?” Of course we don’t. So sports has a social impact that is way way bigger than its economic impact.

[Little Aussie Battler]

What a strange thread.

Athletes are entertainers, and are paid accordingly.  If you don’t like the product, don’t support it.

[habanero]

Funnily enough - US top sports is, to a very large extent, a pure socialistic system with wage caps and floors the first years, revenue sharing among all teams in the league regardless of the dough they actually bring in, a drafting system to even out the odds etc. While in "socialist" Europe, sports is die-hard capitalism. You would normally expect it to be the other way around.

In NFL you don't male big bucks until you become a free agent after 3 years. Funnily enough - the average NFL career is shorter than 3 years.

[mrmoonymartian]

How is it reasonable to have 25 million dollars income at 29 years old doing things that don't solve the world's problems and in fact made people even more upset?

It's easy to dismiss this in terms of supply and demand, but that doesn't address your deeper question which is why is the demand so high?

The final part in this interview with Carl Sagan starts at 11:09. In 5 minutes he elucidates the depth of the problem well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0CG5TM0oa4

[Khaetra]

Athletes are entertainers, and are paid accordingly.  If you don’t like the product, don’t support it.

Exactly and that's what one football player said yesterday when talking about Luck's retirement.  They put their bodies out there for our enjoyment, be it football, baseball, etc. and if he can walk away with a tidy sum for his effort then good for him.

I also 100% agree with the sentiment that if you don't like it, then don't support it.  I enjoy the hell out of sports, be it watching someone hit a small ball accurately down a long field hoping to either get it into an equally small hole or close to it or big burly men trying to get a ball from one side of a field to the other to guys driving cars like they stole 'em.  It makes for very fun weekends, especially when I have friends over (which is usually every weekend) and we can all cheer/boo/yell together.

[Mr. Green]

You have to consider what professional athletes go through to play at that level. Many of them make huge physical sacrifices (injuries that will impact them later in life) and they also spend incredible amounts of time and focus working on their bodies, because professional sports today are so high caliber it's not possible to have the muscle needed to compete without constant work.

With football in particular there is major injury risk every week. It's crazy how many players are injured. I bet the statistics are rough. Like if you're a running back and you had a 1 in 100 chance of tearing your ACL every game you played, how much money would it take to be worth the risk? If you've never been seriously injured it's difficult to understand just how much it changes your life, and then you just hope you can recover completely from the injury. Honestly, I'd want millions for taking that kind of risk. Otherwise it just isn't worth the chance of being physically compromised for the rest of your life.

[fuzzy math]

he can get out with his health and a ton of wealth.

Probably not...

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/883377

"Postmortem evidence shows the prevalence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in football players is extremely high, in findings that suggest these athletes may be at increased risk for long-term neurologic sequelae.
A team of investigators from multiple institutions in Boston, Massachusetts, and Stanford, California, analyzed the brains of 202 football players and found that CTE was neuropathological diagnosed in 87% of the entire cohort, including 110 (99%) of the 111 National Football League (NFL) players."

People who support the NFL are basically paying to watch people fight to their death. I will be surprised if the NFL exists in 20 years.

[nereo]

You have to consider what professional athletes go through to play at that level. Many of them make huge physical sacrifices (injuries that will impact them later in life) and they also spend incredible amounts of time and focus working on their bodies, because professional sports today are so high caliber it's not possible to have the muscle needed to compete without constant work.

With football in particular there is major injury risk every week. It's crazy how many players are injured. I bet the statistics are rough. Like if you're a running back and you had a 1 in 100 chance of tearing your ACL every game you played, how much money would it take to be worth the risk? If you've never been seriously injured it's difficult to understand just how much it changes your life, and then you just hope you can recover completely from the injury. Honestly, I'd want millions for taking that kind of risk. Otherwise it just isn't worth the chance of being physically compromised for the rest of your life.

The average tenure in the NFL is less than 4 years IIRC.  Even "veteran" and "pro-bowl" players rarely make it past the ten year mark without substantial injury, time off and surgeries - particularly remarkable when you consider that most players join the league around age 22. Compare that with sports that don't have such intense contact (e.g. soccer, tennis, baseball, track-and-field, cycling, cross-country skiing) and you'll note a plethora of athletes who play into their mid-to-late 30s.

As for overall compensation: 'meh'.  If we consider them entertainers the NFL pales in comparison to MLB (where you can get higher annual salaries AND have a much better shot at a 10+ year career), and it's not out of line with what A-list celebs get for a blockbuster movie or high-profile series, but without the risk of permanent injury or brain trauma.  It's obscene money, but it's what the industry pays, and they can pay that because we pay them.

[golfreak12]

he can get out with his health and a ton of wealth.

People who support the NFL are basically paying to watch people fight to their death. I will be surprised if the NFL exists in 20 years.

This is crazy. Football is the most popular sport in the US.
Between watching, betting and fantasy football, etc.. it definitely will still exist in 20 years.

[golfreak12]

Severance is a bit misleading. The $25 millions wasn't "paid" to him when he retired.
$12.8 millions is a pro-rated bonus from 2016 and another $12 millions was a roster bonus paid back in March.
The Colts decided not to recoup this money from Luck.

[nereo]

he can get out with his health and a ton of wealth.

People who support the NFL are basically paying to watch people fight to their death. I will be surprised if the NFL exists in 20 years.

This is crazy. Football is the most popular sport in the US.
Between watching, betting and fantasy football, etc.. it definitely will still exist in 20 years.

I think football will still exist, but it will have to undergo some pretty radial changes.  Right now the NFL seems like a walking liability, with literally tens-of-thousands of potential claimants.  For most of its existence the NFL has been able to cast doubt on the long-term impacts on its employees. Now that medicine and tracking has become so much better they won't be able to continue that in the future.

Think of it like a corporation who systematically exposed its workers to asbestos.  Thirty years later these workers start dropping dead.  They can reach a settlement with the current batch of retirees and claim 'we didn't know any better at the time', but once that's done they won't be able to continue subjecting their current employees (i.e. current players) to the same conditions. 

[Proud Foot]

Your ire should be directed at the clueless fans who give their money to athletes to watch them exercise on TV instead of exercising themselves. The athletes then take all the millions of dollars given to them by clueless fans and then waste it on sportscars, drugs, Cookie Cutter Tacky Mansions, and prostitutes/prostitute-wannabes. A couple years after the athletes are forced into retirement by age and/or injury, all the money is gone and now neither the clueless fans nor the idiot athletes have any wealth. But at least the athletes are also really terrible role models for children, so they have that going for them as well.

I am so glad that I haven't paid a subscription fee for cable sports TV in many years. Might as well set fire to a giant pile of cash while simultaneously injecting myself with twenty pounds of body fat.

Upvote for this right here! I don't blame him at all for retiring. Just look at the list of injuries he has had since getting drafted. Yes, the timing of it all isn't ideal for the team, but the booing from the fans was absolutely uncalled for. And a big middle finger to OJ for his rant about having drafted Andrew Luck for his Fantasy Football League an hour earlier.

Unless something major changes I doubt he will be on the list of athletes going broke 5 years after retirement. The guy put off declaring for the draft an extra year to complete his degree in Architectural Design from Stanford.

[undercover]

If you're going to resent someone for making tons of money doing very little work then, come on, you can at least place your resentment in better places...like at the kids sitting in their bedrooms becoming good at games and making millions a year.

Either way, meh...this is just proof that we are becoming far more efficient at distributing resources that in another hundred years, work will seem outdated all together.

"Retirement" wasn't or was at most barely a thing two hundred years ago. "Early retirement" wasn't a thing fifty years ago. "Make millions on YouTube" wasn't a thing ten years ago.

You can quit work about as early as you want these days. Having money and no job isn't the solution to the problem that is finding meaning in your life.

More power to him and anyone else that ends up in a similar situation is all I can say. I don't envy him at all, although I will say he has a fitting last name.

[Villanelle]

It seems like he's doing exactly what the majority of this forum frequently encourages people to do.  He realizes he has enough money and refuses to endure one more year of pain (in his case, physical mostly, while in most cases it's mostly mental) for more money he doesn't need.  He rejected a continued high salary and a pair of golden handcuffs and walked away.  Good for him. 

Sure I think the professional sports industry is assinine.  I'd love to go to a few games (football, baseball, hockey), but generally I don't feel like there's value for what you pay, especially with the NFL.  They could pay the stars half or a quarter as much, and I suspect 99% of them would still do it.  Most don't have any other viable options, especially not that pay seven or eight figures a year.  (I'm not talking about the league minimum and similar players.)  And the owners could make half as much each year and not exactly starve to death.  (Clearly the value of their investments would tank compared to what they paid.) And then a family could afford to buy 4 tickets to a game a time or two a year.)

But I can't blame the players who negotiate hard for as money as they can get.  Again, that's what we encourage people here to do.  We'd never say, "take $120,000 for the engineering job, even though you could probably push them up to $175k, because $120 is already a lot and it's an abundance of good fortune". 

IOW, almost literally--don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Jon_Snow]

I am unable to muster up any angst over this. Really enjoyed watching him play football over the years. Seems like a quality human and I hope he finds health and happiness, something everyone should be seeking.

[nereo]

It seems like he's doing exactly what the majority of this forum frequently encourages people to do.  He realizes he has enough money and refuses to endure one more year of pain (in his case, physical mostly, while in most cases it's mostly mental) for more money he doesn't need.  He rejected a continued high salary and a pair of golden handcuffs and walked away.  Good for him. 

Yeah.  If someone came on here and said "I've got over $40MM* in the bank and my job is killing me - should I quit or stick it out for another few years to earn an additional $60MM but risk permanent injury?" the resounding response would be: Quit today!

There's no amount of money a person can't outspend, but Luck can easily blow through a million every year and never run out of dough.  That's a pretty friggen posh retirement.

IOW, almost literally--don't hate the player, hate the game.

Lol.  Truth.

*Luck earned $98MM over 9 seasons while turning down an additional (and potential) $64MM had he finished his contract and made the playoffs each season.  Taxes gobbled up a little more than 1/3rd, and he's spent some, but conservatively I'm putting his liquid NW at $40MM.  Could be wrong of course... but I think that's a reasonable guestimate.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

[Rosy]

I'm glad to see this Houston boy made it out on these terms.
Not a windfall in the true sense since
 

$12.8 millions is a pro-rated bonus from 2016 and another $12 millions was a roster bonus paid back in March.

I consider this a rather fair deal all around, both sides are now free to move on. Besides, he already has considerable sports injuries, it makes no sense to willingly damage his body beyond all repair.
He made a good call to fire now.

[undercover]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

It's just not feasible or possible for everyone to be an owner though. I'd say the tradeoff is pretty good and there are no real losers in these industries unless you're just terrible with money and squander it all.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

It's just not feasible or possible for everyone to be an owner though. I'd say the tradeoff is pretty good and there are no real losers in these industries unless you're just terrible with money and squander it all.

Um, the entire concept behind Mustachianism is for everyone to be an owner. That's literally the secret to all of this.

[Khaetra]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

It's just not feasible or possible for everyone to be an owner though. I'd say the tradeoff is pretty good and there are no real losers in these industries unless you're just terrible with money and squander it all.

Exactly.  If you have a talent and someone (or a lot of someones) are willing to pay you for your talent, why not?  I don't think they are chumps at all and I say good for them for making big scratch if they can.

[Schaefer Light]

Hedge fund managers laugh at Andrew Luck.  A top hedge fund manager will make more in a year than a pro athlete will make in his entire career.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

It's just not feasible or possible for everyone to be an owner though. I'd say the tradeoff is pretty good and there are no real losers in these industries unless you're just terrible with money and squander it all.

Exactly.  If you have a talent and someone (or a lot of someones) are willing to pay you for your talent, why not?  I don't think they are chumps at all and I say good for them for making big scratch if they can.

Think of it this way. Would you rather... 1.) Work for 30 years selling your labor to another person and then retire on a basic 401k and SS when you are 67 years old ... or would you rather 2.) Work for 7 years selling your labor to another person, use the income from selling your labor to purchase pieces of every business in the world, and then retire at 33 years old with large constant effortless income from the pieces of the businesses that you own paying you forever. That's how Mustachianism works.

Athlete = Can sell his/her labor to the league for four years and then retire with no income at the age of 25... or Athlete = Can sell his/her labor to the league for four years, take the income from selling their labor and buy a stake in the entire league (or a particular franchise based on the league structure) and then get income for the rest of their lives from earnings generated by all the other players.

It's an easy decision. Anyone can own pretty much anything.

Let's take this to the world of entertainment:

An actress who only played minor roles on network shows and was struggling to make ends meet decides to create her own production company, produce a web series that she writes/produces/and stars in, funds it with a crowdfunding platform, and then keeps the majority of the profit generated by the show she created. She then sells an exclusive license for her show to Microsoft for a new streaming platform they are launching, then uses the earnings from that to create an entirely new company that produces dozens of new programs under license exclusively for YouTube. After a few years of getting mad money for that, she sells the entire company for millions of dollars. She retires to have a family with a 'stache of $10 million.

...and that, my friends, is the story of actress Felicia Day.

Anybody can do it, but you have to have some kind of talent, have to market yourself, and have to be willing to make an effort.

[nereo]

Um, the entire concept behind Mustachianism is for everyone to be an owner. That's literally the secret to all of this.

It is?  I thought the entire concept was to slightly less ridiculous life freed from the lifelong need to work.  I mean, I guess you could say owning an index fund makes you a part owner in a number of corporations (and this would be true), but you could just as easily have a pension and have a light financial footprint.
I'm not sure you have to own anything

Hedge fund managers laugh at Andrew Luck.  A top hedge fund manager will make more in a year than a pro athlete will make in his entire career.

Yes, but how many hedge-fund managers get asked for their autograph? How many kids want to be a fund manager when they grow up?  Absolutely they make more money, but that's not all of it.  Forget who said it but there was a quote like "I'd rather make $10 million playing [baseball] than $100 million as the owner just watching"

[WhiteTrashCash]

Um, the entire concept behind Mustachianism is for everyone to be an owner. That's literally the secret to all of this.

It is?  I thought the entire concept was to slightly less ridiculous life freed from the lifelong need to work.  I mean, I guess you could say owning an index fund makes you a part owner in a number of corporations (and this would be true), but you could just as easily have a pension and have a light financial footprint.
I'm not sure you have to own anything

Hedge fund managers laugh at Andrew Luck.  A top hedge fund manager will make more in a year than a pro athlete will make in his entire career.

Yes, but how many hedge-fund managers get asked for their autograph? How many kids want to be a fund manager when they grow up?  Absolutely they make more money, but that's not all of it.  Forget who said it but there was a quote like "I'd rather make $10 million playing [baseball] than $100 million as the owner just watching"

... Are you sure you are posting on the right website?

[nereo]

Um, the entire concept behind Mustachianism is for everyone to be an owner. That's literally the secret to all of this.

It is?  I thought the entire concept was to slightly less ridiculous life freed from the lifelong need to work.  I mean, I guess you could say owning an index fund makes you a part owner in a number of corporations (and this would be true), but you could just as easily have a pension and have a light financial footprint.
I'm not sure you have to own anything

Hedge fund managers laugh at Andrew Luck.  A top hedge fund manager will make more in a year than a pro athlete will make in his entire career.

Yes, but how many hedge-fund managers get asked for their autograph? How many kids want to be a fund manager when they grow up?  Absolutely they make more money, but that's not all of it.  Forget who said it but there was a quote like "I'd rather make $10 million playing [baseball] than $100 million as the owner just watching"

... Are you sure you are posting on the right website?

where is it written that the whole point of this forum is to become an owner?  I've never heard that before, after 6+ years of following this forum.  Feel free to show me I'm mistaken.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Um, the entire concept behind Mustachianism is for everyone to be an owner. That's literally the secret to all of this.

It is?  I thought the entire concept was to slightly less ridiculous life freed from the lifelong need to work.  I mean, I guess you could say owning an index fund makes you a part owner in a number of corporations (and this would be true), but you could just as easily have a pension and have a light financial footprint.
I'm not sure you have to own anything

Hedge fund managers laugh at Andrew Luck.  A top hedge fund manager will make more in a year than a pro athlete will make in his entire career.

Yes, but how many hedge-fund managers get asked for their autograph? How many kids want to be a fund manager when they grow up?  Absolutely they make more money, but that's not all of it.  Forget who said it but there was a quote like "I'd rather make $10 million playing [baseball] than $100 million as the owner just watching"

... Are you sure you are posting on the right website?

where is it written that the whole point of this forum is to become an owner?  I've never heard that before, after 6+ years of following this forum.  Feel free to show me I'm mistaken.

... So, correct me if I am wrong, but you are telling me that selling your labor is better than owning capital? ... That's, um, not exactly a mainstream idea around here in my experience.

[nereo]

Um, the entire concept behind Mustachianism is for everyone to be an owner. That's literally the secret to all of this.

It is?  I thought the entire concept was to slightly less ridiculous life freed from the lifelong need to work.  I mean, I guess you could say owning an index fund makes you a part owner in a number of corporations (and this would be true), but you could just as easily have a pension and have a light financial footprint.
I'm not sure you have to own anything

Hedge fund managers laugh at Andrew Luck.  A top hedge fund manager will make more in a year than a pro athlete will make in his entire career.

Yes, but how many hedge-fund managers get asked for their autograph? How many kids want to be a fund manager when they grow up?  Absolutely they make more money, but that's not all of it.  Forget who said it but there was a quote like "I'd rather make $10 million playing [baseball] than $100 million as the owner just watching"

... Are you sure you are posting on the right website?

where is it written that the whole point of this forum is to become an owner?  I've never heard that before, after 6+ years of following this forum.  Feel free to show me I'm mistaken.

... So, correct me if I am wrong, but you are telling me that selling your labor is better than owning capital? ... That's, um, not exactly a mainstream idea around here in my experience.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and I think we're just missing what each other is saying. 
I'm just saying that when you are accumulating wealth (aka during your 'working years') it matters not whether you are an owner or an employee.  Either can get you to FIRE.  I got thrown off when you said the entire point of this forum was for people to become owners.

[HBFIRE]

MATHESON: So the answer here is actually surprisingly small. So the biggest league in the world in terms of revenue generated is the N.F.L. And the N.F.L. generates something like $14, $15 billion a year.

Not sure when this was dated, but the NFL did 25 B last year.  Comparing it to other types of businesses doesn't seem like a good yard stick, should compare it to other forms of entertainment.  By comparison, the domestic box office revenue for Hollywood came in at 11.9 B.  Think about that for a second -- one sport did more than double the revenues of all hollywood films combined.  That's substantial.   When it comes to entertainment, the american sports industry dominates.  The only thing that could come close is pornography, but I don't think the total revenues for that are accessible.

[undercover]

Think of it this way. Would you rather... 1.) Work for 30 years selling your labor to another person and then retire on a basic 401k and SS when you are 67 years old ... or would you rather 2.) Work for 7 years selling your labor to another person, use the income from selling your labor to purchase pieces of every business in the world, and then retire at 33 years old with large constant effortless income from the pieces of the businesses that you own paying you forever. That's how Mustachianism works.

I'd rather just be born with a $1B trust fund, no? Point is there are no real losers when we're talking north of $10M over a relatively short period of time.

Athlete = Can sell his/her labor to the league for four years and then retire with no income at the age of 25... or Athlete = Can sell his/her labor to the league for four years, take the income from selling their labor and buy a stake in the entire league (or a particular franchise based on the league structure) and then get income for the rest of their lives from earnings generated by all the other players.

I mean yeah and he could also just invest it in an index fund and be just fine.

It's an easy decision. Anyone can own pretty much anything.

No, they can't. Anyone can buy an infinitesimal sliver of a public traded company, but not many people are capable of starting a publicly traded company and retain majority ownership. Think of all the startups that burn through VC money while giving up ownership along the way to stay alive. Not everything is in your power. Andrew can pop that $25m in an index fund and live like a king. He could also live like a king with far less money. Point is you don't need to be a full owner to benefit from the system. With the right skillset and luck, you don't need to be an owner at all.

In general, there's no arguing that person who own the most in a profitable enterprise is entitled to the largest payout, but again, not everyone is capable of owning as much as they want.

Anybody can do it, but you have to have some kind of talent, have to market yourself, and have to be willing to make an effort.

So not anyone can do it? Think about all of the people you don't hear of working their asses off and never getting anywhere with it. All you will read about is success stories because that's all people care about.

Bottom line is there is a clear difference between investing in index funds and owning the majority of a multi-billion dollar media company or NFL team. They have more money but I don't think it's any more "real" than $25m in your pocket at 29 years old.

[simonsez]

Forget who said it but there was a quote like "I'd rather make $10 million playing [baseball] than $100 million as the owner just watching"

... Are you sure you are posting on the right website?

where is it written that the whole point of this forum is to become an owner?  I've never heard that before, after 6+ years of following this forum.  Feel free to show me I'm mistaken.

... So, correct me if I am wrong, but you are telling me that selling your labor is better than owning capital? ... That's, um, not exactly a mainstream idea around here in my experience.

When the laborer is the poorer of the two and is still making 8 figures per year, I'd say the traditional rules go out the window.  Both are FI in a fraction of a year.  Thus, the role of laborer vs. owner doesn't matter.  Getting paid to be good at something and compete against other world-class competitors sounds more rewarding than watching from a booth yet having an order of magnitude more in wealth.  Both have won the game of financial life, might as well maximize leisure/satisfaction/impact/etc. 

That said, any bit of fame would be a negative in my view.  At least football and hockey players wear helmets and can probably blend in a little better.

[LiveLean]

Ex-sportswriter here.

I've seen many pro athletes squander wealth. I've also seen many make $3 million to $10 million, live below their means, and retire at 30-35, settling into happy second careers in broadcasting, coaching (even at the high school level making next-to-nothing), fishing boat captains, or simply stay-at-home-dads. Granted, most of these guys played in the 1990s and early 2000s. These days, if you have a 8-10 year career in the NFL, NBA or MLB you'll most certainly gross far more than $3 million to $10 million. But the point being is that much like MMM did 8 to 10 years in engineering and hit FIRE, the analogy to the pro athlete - at least a half-generation ago - isn't far off.

Andrew Luck has a degree from Stanford and happily-ever-after money. A better example is John Urschel, an elite mathemetician who walked away from the NFL's Baltimore Ravens after three years having made far less than Luck. He's now working on his PhD at MIT. His new book Mind and Matter is terrific.

[habanero]

A better example is John Urschel, an elite mathemetician who walked away from the NFL's Baltimore Ravens after three years having made far less than Luck. He's now working on his PhD at MIT. His new book Mind and Matter is terrific.

He caclulated that the risk/reward of long-term injury vs high pay wasn't worth it. He left before he would become a "free agent" and the cash would really start pouring in. He was also quite frugal, at least by NFL standards.

Guess which car is his from the Ravens' parking lot:

[WhiteTrashCash]

Ex-sportswriter here.

I've seen many pro athletes squander wealth. I've also seen many make $3 million to $10 million, live below their means, and retire at 30-35, settling into happy second careers in broadcasting, coaching (even at the high school level making next-to-nothing), fishing boat captains, or simply stay-at-home-dads. Granted, most of these guys played in the 1990s and early 2000s. These days, if you have a 8-10 year career in the NFL, NBA or MLB you'll most certainly gross far more than $3 million to $10 million. But the point being is that much like MMM did 8 to 10 years in engineering and hit FIRE, the analogy to the pro athlete - at least a half-generation ago - isn't far off.

Andrew Luck has a degree from Stanford and happily-ever-after money. A better example is John Urschel, an elite mathemetician who walked away from the NFL's Baltimore Ravens after three years having made far less than Luck. He's now working on his PhD at MIT. His new book Mind and Matter is terrific.

My Uncle Elmer won $500 on a scratch ticket. Clearly, scratch tickets are the way to go. And a good way to invest.

[Villanelle]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

Huh?  How is the fact that the owner of the Cowboys and the producer of the latest Studio tent pole franchise get rich to blame for Johnny Depp  burning through hundreds of millions of dollars or Allen Iverson going from $100m+ to bankruptcy?

The "why" of those people going broke is that they spend obscenely, not that the owners made even more.  They were paid ridiculous amounts of money.  This isn't Bezos getting rich on the backs of minimum wage workers peeing in water bottles in their vehicles. 

[TempusFugit]

Apologies if this was pointed out upthread, but something to consider:
if the players dont get the money, who gets it?  Billions come into the leagues and if the players dont get it, the owners just keep it.   Does that seem fair? They arent going to charge less than people are willing to pay and for whatever reason, people are willing to pay lots and lots to be entertained by sports. 

There was a Freakonomics podcast last year that considered the specific case of Lebron James (nba) and his contract for playing.   Its something incredible, like $300million for a few years or similar.
The analysis concluded that he was being vastly underpaid for his contribution to the financial bottom line of the team and the league.  it isnt about the dollar figure alone, but in context of what the industry is bringing in and how that big pile of money is shared. 

What I am waiting to see is finally someone succcessfully suing the NCAA for the near indentured servitude they inflict upon all those kids who will never make millions.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

Huh?  How is the fact that the owner of the Cowboys and the producer of the latest Studio tent pole franchise get rich to blame for Johnny Depp  burning through hundreds of millions of dollars or Allen Iverson going from $100m+ to bankruptcy?

The "why" of those people going broke is that they spend obscenely, not that the owners made even more.  They were paid ridiculous amounts of money.  This isn't Bezos getting rich on the backs of minimum wage workers peeing in water bottles in their vehicles.

I already dunked on this (pun intended) with my post above about the success of Felicia Day, but here's another example: Michael Jordan. He was a basketball player a long time ago. You can research him if you want.

[Villanelle]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

Huh?  How is the fact that the owner of the Cowboys and the producer of the latest Studio tent pole franchise get rich to blame for Johnny Depp  burning through hundreds of millions of dollars or Allen Iverson going from $100m+ to bankruptcy?

The "why" of those people going broke is that they spend obscenely, not that the owners made even more.  They were paid ridiculous amounts of money.  This isn't Bezos getting rich on the backs of minimum wage workers peeing in water bottles in their vehicles.

I already dunked on this (pun intended) with my post above about the success of Felicia Day, but here's another example: Michael Jordan. He was a basketball player a long time ago. You can research him if you want.

I know who he is.  I still am not following.  How is Joshua Harris' (owner of the 76ers, according to The Google) wealth responsible for Allen Iverson going broke after earning over $200,000,000? Poor Allan, he only got $200 million dollars, and the team owner got more, and that's why Allen ran out of money? 

It's the fault of the guy who made more that someone spent nearly all of their $200m?  Sorry, but I think the fact that he bought whatever crazy stuff he did to eat up all that money is what made him broke, not the fact that the owner got more.  (Even after lawyers and agents and fees.)  I'd even go so far as to say that had he earned an extra $50m, he likely would have burned through that as well.  He has a spending problem, not an "unfair pay, wage slave" problem.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

Huh?  How is the fact that the owner of the Cowboys and the producer of the latest Studio tent pole franchise get rich to blame for Johnny Depp  burning through hundreds of millions of dollars or Allen Iverson going from $100m+ to bankruptcy?

The "why" of those people going broke is that they spend obscenely, not that the owners made even more.  They were paid ridiculous amounts of money.  This isn't Bezos getting rich on the backs of minimum wage workers peeing in water bottles in their vehicles.

I already dunked on this (pun intended) with my post above about the success of Felicia Day, but here's another example: Michael Jordan. He was a basketball player a long time ago. You can research him if you want.

I know who he is.  I still am not following.  How is Joshua Harris' (owner of the 76ers, according to The Google) wealth responsible for Allen Iverson going broke after earning over $200,000,000? Poor Allan, he only got $200 million dollars, and the team owner got more, and that's why Allen ran out of money? 

It's the fault of the guy who made more that someone spent nearly all of their $200m?  Sorry, but I think the fact that he bought whatever crazy stuff he did to eat up all that money is what made him broke, not the fact that the owner got more.  (Even after lawyers and agents and fees.)  I'd even go so far as to say that had he earned an extra $50m, he likely would have burned through that as well.  He has a spending problem, not an "unfair pay, wage slave" problem.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look at my posts above. That should help clarify what I am talking about when I say that it's better for "entertainers" of all the various sorts to own a stake in their platforms. In this example, Michael Jordan ended up owning a huge stake in a basketball team (I think they were called the Washington Wankers or something like that) and he made a massive fortune selling his own brand of sports apparel and athletic shoes, so he became one of the rare athletes who actually became much wealthier in retirement than he ever was as a player. (Another example from the world of music, Dr. Dre did well as a rapper, but then made a lot more money when he founded and marketed his own record label, then went on to earn billions of dollars by selling a brand of headphones to listen to his music (Beats By Dre) and then selling the company to Apple.)

[HBFIRE]

Look at my posts above.

I read your posts and I agree with @Villanelle and also don't follow your logic.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire

Seriously you think this?  You think they're going broke because they don't own the product?  Has nothing to do with poor personal financial habits?  These guys are making massive amounts of money, not following your line of thinking one bit.

Sure, the ones that explore further business opportunities can create even more wealth beyond the absurd wealth they already have, but that's not really the point.

[Villanelle]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

Huh?  How is the fact that the owner of the Cowboys and the producer of the latest Studio tent pole franchise get rich to blame for Johnny Depp  burning through hundreds of millions of dollars or Allen Iverson going from $100m+ to bankruptcy?

The "why" of those people going broke is that they spend obscenely, not that the owners made even more.  They were paid ridiculous amounts of money.  This isn't Bezos getting rich on the backs of minimum wage workers peeing in water bottles in their vehicles.

I already dunked on this (pun intended) with my post above about the success of Felicia Day, but here's another example: Michael Jordan. He was a basketball player a long time ago. You can research him if you want.

I know who he is.  I still am not following.  How is Joshua Harris' (owner of the 76ers, according to The Google) wealth responsible for Allen Iverson going broke after earning over $200,000,000? Poor Allan, he only got $200 million dollars, and the team owner got more, and that's why Allen ran out of money? 

It's the fault of the guy who made more that someone spent nearly all of their $200m?  Sorry, but I think the fact that he bought whatever crazy stuff he did to eat up all that money is what made him broke, not the fact that the owner got more.  (Even after lawyers and agents and fees.)  I'd even go so far as to say that had he earned an extra $50m, he likely would have burned through that as well.  He has a spending problem, not an "unfair pay, wage slave" problem.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look at my posts above. That should help clarify what I am talking about when I say that it's better for "entertainers" of all the various sorts to own a stake in their platforms. In this example, Michael Jordan ended up owning a huge stake in a basketball team (I think they were called the Washington Wankers or something like that) and he made a massive fortune selling his own brand of sports apparel and athletic shoes, so he became one of the rare athletes who actually became much wealthier in retirement than he ever was as a player. (Another example from the world of music, Dr. Dre did well as a rapper, but then made a lot more money when he founded and marketed his own record label, then went on to earn billions of dollars by selling a brand of headphones to listen to his music (Beats By Dre) and then selling the company to Apple.)

I have read your posts.  As I said.  I'm not following.  Instead of referring me back to the things you've already said and I've already read, can you explain again, please, assuming there is some logic there?   How is it the fault of someone who makes even more money that someone spends through $200 million dollars? 

[WhiteTrashCash]

Athletes, Actors, Influencers. They are all chumps. Why? Because who is actually making the real money? The people who own the platforms: the leagues, the studios, the websites/apps. This is why I generally only support creator-owned and -produced properties, because the people who do the actual work make the money. The average person doesn't think in those kinds of terms, though, so they don't put in the work to really own their properties.

That's why athletes go broke after they retire, actors end up making direct-to-video shlockfests in China, and influencers end up penniless and crying about being deplatformed. They don't actually own what they do because they don't have a stake in the ownership of the platforms.

That's a lesson in life for everyone out there reading this.

Huh?  How is the fact that the owner of the Cowboys and the producer of the latest Studio tent pole franchise get rich to blame for Johnny Depp  burning through hundreds of millions of dollars or Allen Iverson going from $100m+ to bankruptcy?

The "why" of those people going broke is that they spend obscenely, not that the owners made even more.  They were paid ridiculous amounts of money.  This isn't Bezos getting rich on the backs of minimum wage workers peeing in water bottles in their vehicles.

I already dunked on this (pun intended) with my post above about the success of Felicia Day, but here's another example: Michael Jordan. He was a basketball player a long time ago. You can research him if you want.

I know who he is.  I still am not following.  How is Joshua Harris' (owner of the 76ers, according to The Google) wealth responsible for Allen Iverson going broke after earning over $200,000,000? Poor Allan, he only got $200 million dollars, and the team owner got more, and that's why Allen ran out of money? 

It's the fault of the guy who made more that someone spent nearly all of their $200m?  Sorry, but I think the fact that he bought whatever crazy stuff he did to eat up all that money is what made him broke, not the fact that the owner got more.  (Even after lawyers and agents and fees.)  I'd even go so far as to say that had he earned an extra $50m, he likely would have burned through that as well.  He has a spending problem, not an "unfair pay, wage slave" problem.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look at my posts above. That should help clarify what I am talking about when I say that it's better for "entertainers" of all the various sorts to own a stake in their platforms. In this example, Michael Jordan ended up owning a huge stake in a basketball team (I think they were called the Washington Wankers or something like that) and he made a massive fortune selling his own brand of sports apparel and athletic shoes, so he became one of the rare athletes who actually became much wealthier in retirement than he ever was as a player. (Another example from the world of music, Dr. Dre did well as a rapper, but then made a lot more money when he founded and marketed his own record label, then went on to earn billions of dollars by selling a brand of headphones to listen to his music (Beats By Dre) and then selling the company to Apple.)

I have read your posts.  As I said.  I'm not following.  Instead of referring me back to the things you've already said and I've already read, can you explain again, please, assuming there is some logic there?   How is it the fault of someone who makes even more money that someone spends through $200 million dollars?

Well, I tried. Good luck to you, sir.

[Villanelle]

As I suspected, it seems there is no explanation because it is nonsensical.

And good luck to you, too, ma'am.

[WhiteTrashCash]

As I suspected, it seems there is no explanation because it is nonsensical.

And good luck to you, too, ma'am.

... I'm only typing this right now because apparently you were obsessed with having the last word for some "nonsensical" reason... And being rude. Okay, then.

[EvenSteven]

As I suspected, it seems there is no explanation because it is nonsensical.

And good luck to you, too, ma'am.

... I'm only typing this right now because apparently you were obsessed with having the last word for some "nonsensical" reason... And being rude. Okay, then.

Pots, kettles, colors, etc.