Goodell Made Over $35 Million Last Year
- Thread starter glennhoffmania
- Start date
Is Goodell's compensation out-of-line with the other CEO's of multi-billion dollar businesses?
Could you, perhaps, explain what the "multiple levels" are and why growth of the business/revenues is irrelevant*?
* I recognize that this word is not used by the OP but it is certainly implied that revenue is not relevant to the discussion of compensation, which seems nonsensical to me.
Could you, perhaps, explain what the "multiple levels" are and why growth of the business/revenues is irrelevant*?
* I recognize that this word is not used by the OP but it is certainly implied that revenue is not relevant to the discussion of compensation, which seems nonsensical to me.
soxfan121 said:
Stitch01 said:
It is about 35 times higher than most other not-for-profit CEOs, though.
Are the NHL, NBA, or MLB exempt from corporate taxes?
Edit: Add MLS or any other league to the list.
Edit: Add MLS or any other league to the list.
It’s a h*** of a lot more than 35 times higher than most not-for-profit CEOs.Grin&MartyBarret said:
nolasoxfan said:
Right. It's 35 times higher than most of the highest paid nont-for-profit CEOs. My bad.
It's a tricky subject, because the nfl dwarfs pretty much every other npo out there. One of the biggest is the American Red Cross, who's annual revenues are between 3 and 3.5 billion dollars. The nfl is about 3x that... But the president of the American Red Cross makes around $600k, a small fraction of what Goodell makes.nolasoxfan said:
The nfl is nothing like your typical npo, so I don't think the comparison has much merit.
That really isn't a lot when you think about it in an entertainment sense. The guy runs the organization that puts on the most highly rated television show every year.
I've never understood why anyone other than shareholders or in this case, NFL franchise owners, would care how much a CEO is paid.
EvilEmpire said:
Because it's a good starting point for discussing why the NFL is tax exempt, which has, if I'm not mistaken, many implications for how they do things like revenue sharing, merchandising, and stuff like that.
EvilEmpire said:
Just the league entity, not the teams--particular NFL teams at least in theory are subject to a shitload of taxes although I bet they're pretty good at minimizing their tax burden.
Generally the highly paid heads of nonprofits run organizations that help make people healthier, not leave them debilitated.
EvilEmpire said:
I looked into this a little a few months ago because I'm a beancounter by trade and while I've never dealt with organizations this large I was curious.
Each of the 32 teams are separate corporations from the "NFL". With the exception of the Packers each team is a for-profit privately-held corporation. They all pay tax on the profits they receive and from what I understand that's where the (vast?) majority of the "profits" are realized.
The "NFL" (league offices, etc.) is considered a trade association under section 501(c)6 of the Internal Revenue Code. While this status is tax exempt it's not strictly "non-profit". In concept if not in scope it's similar to the Back Bay Association or Newbury Street League - a collection of related businesses working together. On a local level business groups such as that work to make each business more profitable but the group itself runs close to a break-even point. Local businesses like Deluca's or Fish & Bone or any other business would still need to pay tax on any profits they receive.
(For the record I have no idea of tax status or finances of the two business groups I mentioned. They're two local groups I know of and who might have or benefit from 501(c)6 status.)
Reverend said:
It certainly could have such implications. Revenue that went into the "NFL"'s coffers rather an individual team could potentially sit tax free for years or even decades. Once those funds were actually enjoyed by anyone (either by salary or disbursement to a team) taxes would be paid. But before then you'd be getting investment returns on pre-tax dollars, not post-tax dollars. Similar to an IRA.
IIRC the NFL & NHL (& PGA FWIW) claim tax-exempt status. Not the MLB or NBA. From what I understand those latter two probably could claim such under existing law. (I know a little tax law, not an expert in this particular area.) I suspect that they think the lawyer fees & bad optics just aren't worth it.
I guess. I mean, there are some assclowns around here, but I don't give a fuck about how much they get paid. Despite the assclownery, or even because of it, their employers are getting what they want out of the deal.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Edit: CW - thanks for the informative post.
based on what, the league continues to grow, the NFL network grows, he has made progress in settling the concussion lawsuits, he presided over a new CBA that is great for the Owners, and a massive TV deal.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Rodger Goodell is unpopular among fans and players, but the owner's love him and think he's great at his job.
As a side note, Bud Selig is not worth his reported 30M salary.
EvilEmpire said:
Well, Barry "at a certain point you’ve made enough money" Obama seems to care a whole lot about how much CEOs are paid....
People get annoyed with insanely high CEO compensation because it's really hard to believe that many of these guys can actually be worth $44 million a year. What makes Roger Goodell $43 million more valuable than the best person they can get for $1 million a year?
EvilEmpire said:
There are several reasons.
Where do you think the money comes from to pay him his $44m comp package?
Do you think he's done a good job, aside from making 32 billionaires richer?
How about all of the players who are killing themselves on the field to entertain the fans who pay his salary for, in most cases, a small fraction of his comp for a career that may last three years?
He's a public figure who's personal finances are common knowledge, so why aren't people allowed to have an opinion or comment on how deserving he is?
And yeah, he's an incompetent assclown.
NFL made around $9B in revenues in 2013. If by his actions Goodell grows that revenue by 1%, he's made up for his salary.
EDIT: And I don't get the incompetent assclown comments at all. Seems like just some sour grapes over the Spygate stuff some years ago; time to get over it.
EDIT: And I don't get the incompetent assclown comments at all. Seems like just some sour grapes over the Spygate stuff some years ago; time to get over it.
This logic is flawed. What if plenty of execs, all willing to work for less, could have raised the NFL's revenue more than 1 pct? What if raising the league's revenue isn't that hard to do?lexrageorge said:
I don't buy that Goodell is uniquely qualified to deliver that value. In fact, I strongly suspect that there are execs out there who could do more.
- The money comes from people buying the product that he's putting out. Just like every other business in America.glennhoffmania said:
- Who cares if we think he's done a good job, do the 32 billionaires think he has? Most assuredly they do.
- The players are doing pretty well, the average salary in the NFL is $1.9 million which is better than 99% of Americans. And I don't know of any employees that make anywhere near what their owners/CEOs make.
- People can certainly have an opinion being that he's a public figure, but that doesn't make their opinions worth a shit or smart.
I say most of this in somewhat jest, but I don't understand why people get fired up about this stuff. Tom Cruise makes $25 million a movie for a movie that will gross $300 million.
glennhoffmania said:
THAT IS HIS JOB!
You can't say... sure he's good at the only thing that matters in his job, and say he's incompetent. His job isn't to make the players feel good, hell his job is to screw the players as much as reasonably possible in terms of compensation, it isn't a coincidence that Goodell's salary skyrocketed after the new CBA.
This is a joke. His only constituency is 32 owners who evidently feel he is worth the money. When people get to be billionaires as they are, maybe, just maybe, they get to second guess the owners' business judgment. Even when one allows for inherited money -- e.g., Woody -- there is enough self made money among the 32 -- e.g., Kraft and Jerry Richardson -- to ensure they are not being taken for a ride. This is the same crew capable of nickel and diming permanent refs while putting up with the replacements.
Public interest, you say. Fine. Nobody put a gun to the head of municipalities or states to fund stadia. Yet they do.
The owners are pure capitalist great white sharks. The notion they would overpay anyone is almost laughable.
Public interest, you say. Fine. Nobody put a gun to the head of municipalities or states to fund stadia. Yet they do.
The owners are pure capitalist great white sharks. The notion they would overpay anyone is almost laughable.
I have zero problem with them paying Goodell whatever they want. It's their money. But, the idea that they would never overpay? C'mon. These guys are fat and happy - the league prints money and the burden of paying Goodell is a relative drop on the bucket when spread across all the owners. For continuity's sake, they could absolutely overpay the guy, and I believe they are. There are CEOs of fortune 100 companies (you know, businesses with actual competition) who make a good deal less. I bet many owners, if asked in private, would say that Goodell isn't worth $35+ mill, but hey, why make waves?dcmissle said:
Apparently, the average CEO salary of a large urban teaching hospital is $1.7M with UPittsburgh's CEO making upwards of $5M. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/why-are-hospital-ceos-paid-so-well/280604/.
Think about this. Roger Gooddeal (har har) is being paid less than Adam Sandler makes for two movies. Even if one of them is Grown Up 2.
Think about this. Roger Gooddeal (har har) is being paid less than Adam Sandler makes for two movies. Even if one of them is Grown Up 2.
Keep in mind as others have mentioned, Goodell is a VERY public figure. Most of those Fortune 100 CEOs are relatively unkown to 99% of Americans. There's going to a significant premium for someone who is constantly in the public eye, is the face of the brand, etc.
I'm just stunned that the NFL owners who nickel and dime everyone to death are willing to pay the guy that much. Given the prestige of the job I would think you can get an elite CEO for way less money. Whatever its their money. My issue is that we subsidize all of this shit via stadium subsidies e etc.
He got them a great labor deal that fucked the players. The league revenue has grown over the last few years and the cap has barely moved. The concussion settlement seems laughing low for the number of players involved. He can punish and fine players at will. The NFLPA could take some lessons from the MLBPA.jose melendez said:
I'm sure the NFL benefits from being a 501(c.)(6); otherwise, they would reorganize in a way that didn't require them to open their finances for public inspection. But the adjective "tax-exempt," while technically accurate, makes the benefit the league derives from c6 status seem larger than it is. If you were building the NFL's business structure from scratch without the benefit of a sweetheart tax provision, you would organize it as a limited partnership, LLC, or some other "flow through" entity -- in other words, it would still not pay corporate tax.Reverend said:
Back on topic, Goodell is handsomely compensated even compared to other chief executives of multibillion dollar enterprises. Whether he should be so well compensated is open for debate. I presume he earns what he does because NFL owners (in particular, the ones who serve on the compensation committee) believe their interests would be adversely affected if Goodell were hired away by another league. With their two largest competitors going through leadership transitions, I understand why that might be a concern.
The comments here describing Goodell as incompetent are moronic. He has presided over top-line and bottom-line growth in a mature industry facing economic headwinds and a wave of bad publicity. However you define Goodell's comparables, most of them haven't had similar success.
dcmissle said:
Are you familiar with the work of Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder or Al Davis?
The point is that NFL owners and their GMs rarely demonstrate fuckall knowledge about properly valuing employees and that Goodell has put in place mechanisms (specifically the flat cap and rookie cap) that have helped the owners (and their GM lackeys) control themselves. The CBA alone means that Goodell has saved them several times his annual salary.
Edit: As pointed out above, the huge concussion lawsuit victory is another example of how Goodell has saved the owners several times his salary. Further, the examples pointing out movie star (many of whom are interchangeable) salaries compared to Goodell (who is clearly superior to his peers) are really good here.
I don't know that we have an argument. Goodelll does a very good job for them. And if he succeeds in the effort to market the League internationally, the owners will become that much more wealthy. Goodell and Tagliabue also have protected these guys from their worst impulses.
I don't see the point in any normative discussion of compensation. I know teachers, physicians, public defenders and priests who, IMO, contribute more value. We are not organized to distribute rewards that way, probably never will be, and so what's the point?
There are public policy ripples, but even Goodell and the 32 have little if any control over those. The next time you're asked for a stadium subsidy, just say no.
I don't see the point in any normative discussion of compensation. I know teachers, physicians, public defenders and priests who, IMO, contribute more value. We are not organized to distribute rewards that way, probably never will be, and so what's the point?
There are public policy ripples, but even Goodell and the 32 have little if any control over those. The next time you're asked for a stadium subsidy, just say no.