|
On November 23 2016 17:40 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I'm not necessarily against salary caps. I definitely think that it can be good for a sport to have them (soccer is insane). However the way to do a salary cap is to have a player union sign off on it for the betterment of the sport. A player union has all player rights in mind and when a potential top player is still a rookie he will have to be a part of the player union and thus everything is organized in a way where it benefits the vast majority of players (except the very best like Lebron James) and teams. This way they can protect the guys at the bottom who otherwise might be getting fucked from a completely open market. A mutually agreed upon (between companies) salary cap without proper agreements in place would be nothing more than an anti trust cartel behavior violation.
There's no player union in sc2 so this wasn't an option.
|
This equality of outcome argument is sickening. Flash and Jaedong have put in way more effort and hours than everyone else to become the best players, to win the most trophies, to make their teams successful. That doesn't mean they deserve to get paid more, it means they have negotiative power that nobody else has. They can use this as leverage to threaten to a) leave the team for a better salary elsewhere, or b) reduce their training regimen because they see no reason to outperform everyone.
The salary cap was intended to remove their negotiative power no matter what! They colluded so the players would lose out on opportunities! It was designed to pocket the team owners the most money, not to ensure a fair salary for all players! This is abhorrent, absolutely disgusting. To argue that this is ok and draw comparisons to 9-5 jobs is ridiculous, it's the essence of the communist mindset that ended progress and brought millions of people to their knees and to death in communist China and the Soviet Union.
|
Many people don't seem to get that korean sc2 already was on its deathbed the last few years. There wasn't a lot of money in the scene and sponsors didn't want to invest much into it.
Capping the salary was just an attempt to reduce the expenses for the teams so they can stay alive longer.
Isn't it better when this happens at the expense of the players who already earn a lot instead of the b-tier players who don't make much?
The statement that the team owners just want to pocket the money is ridicolous cconsidering sponsoring an sc2 team gave them a huge minus.
If this happened in BW where there was a lot of money in the scene I'd understand the outrage but in sc2 players should be glad they still get paid that much.
|
On November 23 2016 20:52 Magic Powers wrote:
This equality of outcome argument is sickening. Flash and Jaedong have put in way more effort and hours than everyone else to become the best players, to win the most trophies, to make their teams successful. That doesn't mean they deserve to get paid more, it means they have negotiative power that nobody else has. They can use this as leverage to threaten to a) leave the team for a better salary elsewhere, or b) reduce their training regimen because they see no reason to outperform everyone.
The salary cap was intended to remove their negotiative power no matter what! They colluded so the players would lose out on opportunities! It was designed to pocket the team owners the most money, not to ensure a fair salary for all players! This is abhorrent, absolutely disgusting. To argue that this is ok and draw comparisons to 9-5 jobs is ridiculous, it's the essence of the communist mindset that ended progress and brought millions of people to their knees and to death in communist China and the Soviet Union.
And that was exactly what I was talking about blaming capitalist ideology for the argumentation in this thread. Yes, totalitarian communist regimes are wrong - but so are all totalitarian regimes. I come from a formerly communist country and the regime we had was terribly sick and faulty and I do not want it back. That doesn't mean that you get a free pass of shouting "communism! communism!" at every time you meet a person that opposes pure free market economy.
I am, by today's standards, a socialist and I am not ashamed about it. That doesn't mean I am a Marxist. I do not want state-planned economy, I do not want the country to be run by working class and unions. But I do want redistribution of wealth. I do think that pure free market system tends to makes the rich even richer and that it is detrimental to the whole society. I do think that economy is just the means, not the goal. The enrichment of the rich is made possible only because the whole society has created the infrastructure for them to do that, we do not owe them anything more.
Maybe you can say that I am dragging politics into this, but you started with your communist parallel. In any case, I think that the argument actually is mainly ideological and the stance of people in this case will be highly correlated with how they see actual politics.
|
On November 23 2016 21:22 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 20:52 Magic Powers wrote:
This equality of outcome argument is sickening. Flash and Jaedong have put in way more effort and hours than everyone else to become the best players, to win the most trophies, to make their teams successful. That doesn't mean they deserve to get paid more, it means they have negotiative power that nobody else has. They can use this as leverage to threaten to a) leave the team for a better salary elsewhere, or b) reduce their training regimen because they see no reason to outperform everyone.
The salary cap was intended to remove their negotiative power no matter what! They colluded so the players would lose out on opportunities! It was designed to pocket the team owners the most money, not to ensure a fair salary for all players! This is abhorrent, absolutely disgusting. To argue that this is ok and draw comparisons to 9-5 jobs is ridiculous, it's the essence of the communist mindset that ended progress and brought millions of people to their knees and to death in communist China and the Soviet Union. And that was exactly what I was talking about blaming capitalist ideology for the argumentation in this thread. Yes, totalitarian communist regimes are wrong - but so are all totalitarian regimes. I come from a formerly communist country and the regime we had was terribly sick and faulty and I do not want it back. That doesn't mean that you get a free pass of shouting "communism! communism!" at every time you meet a person that opposes pure free market economy. I am, by today's standards, a socialist and I am not ashamed about it. That doesn't mean I am a Marxist. I do not want state-planned economy, I do not want the country to be run by working class and unions. But I do want redistribution of wealth. I do think that pure free market system tends to makes the rich even richer and that it is detrimental to the whole society. I do think that economy is just the means, not the goal. The enrichment of the rich is made possible only because the whole society has created the infrastructure for them to do that, we do not owe them anything more. Maybe you can say that I am dragging politics into this, but you started with your communist parallel. In any case, I think that the argument actually is mainly ideological and the stance of people in this case will be highly correlated with how they see actual politics.
It is corporatism that makes the rich richer while the poor stagnate. A free market leads to the exact opposite of corporatism as it gives everyone the chance to grow and support any business they like. Right now small businesses are being over-regulated, that's why they don't get a foot in the door. It has nothing to do with "evil capitalism" or "evil open market", it has everything to do with lobbyism.
One-sided redistribution of wealth is theft because it's not an exchange of goods (like paying for roads).
Socialism through regulation is authoritarian and therefore un-free and is being enforced through lobbyism which is something that resembles communism.
There are more qualified people than I that can explain the intricacies of a free market and why socialism is fundamentally flawed.
|
On November 23 2016 21:22 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 20:52 Magic Powers wrote:
This equality of outcome argument is sickening. Flash and Jaedong have put in way more effort and hours than everyone else to become the best players, to win the most trophies, to make their teams successful. That doesn't mean they deserve to get paid more, it means they have negotiative power that nobody else has. They can use this as leverage to threaten to a) leave the team for a better salary elsewhere, or b) reduce their training regimen because they see no reason to outperform everyone.
The salary cap was intended to remove their negotiative power no matter what! They colluded so the players would lose out on opportunities! It was designed to pocket the team owners the most money, not to ensure a fair salary for all players! This is abhorrent, absolutely disgusting. To argue that this is ok and draw comparisons to 9-5 jobs is ridiculous, it's the essence of the communist mindset that ended progress and brought millions of people to their knees and to death in communist China and the Soviet Union. And that was exactly what I was talking about blaming capitalist ideology for the argumentation in this thread. Yes, totalitarian communist regimes are wrong - but so are all totalitarian regimes. I come from a formerly communist country and the regime we had was terribly sick and faulty and I do not want it back. That doesn't mean that you get a free pass of shouting "communism! communism!" at every time you meet a person that opposes pure free market economy. I am, by today's standards, a socialist and I am not ashamed about it. That doesn't mean I am a Marxist. I do not want state-planned economy, I do not want the country to be run by working class and unions. But I do want redistribution of wealth. I do think that pure free market system tends to makes the rich even richer and that it is detrimental to the whole society. I do think that economy is just the means, not the goal. The enrichment of the rich is made possible only because the whole society has created the infrastructure for them to do that, we do not owe them anything more. Maybe you can say that I am dragging politics into this, but you started with your communist parallel. In any case, I think that the argument actually is mainly ideological and the stance of people in this case will be highly correlated with how they see actual politics.
The point you are making a complete opposite of socialism. You are advocating the rich get richer by justifying salary caps between major corporations. If you are a socialist you should be extremely vocal against anti trust violations. I really think you are approaching this incorrectly and not in alignment with your ideologies. It's abusive behavior designed to hurt groups that have no voice or power. How much more Flash earns than the average wage in Poland has nothing to do with ideologies. Please understand that I think salary caps in sport are a good thing, but you can't just implement that without actually setting up proper regulation and a voice from players. If it is unilateral it isn't actually helping the sport. You have to be able to differentiate between thinking a salary cap is good and anti trust. The sports where market cap is set up properly are significantly different from what happened here.
|
Canada8989 Posts
How is it "communism" if it is the compagny themself that put the salary cap in place?
In fact it is the opposite of communism, it's a cartel, free market at his best, compagny working together to fix the price of a market for their common benefice, and funny thing if you want to stop it you have to create MORE regulation so the state can stop the collusion from happening.
|
I don't get why people can't see the bigger picture. If they didn't cap the salary there was no way that we had proleague last year. We know now that without proleague there is no incentive to have teams in Korea. With the salary cap they ensure that there would be enough teams. Ofcourse it is not ideal but i don't see an alternative that would work out better.
|
Norway839 Posts
Wow salary monopoly mafia...
So bad lol.
People in this thread are bringing up a lot of different things. But what happened here was just plain shady xd
|
On November 23 2016 22:11 BartCraft wrote:
I don't get why people can't see the bigger picture. If they didn't cap the salary there was no way that we had proleague last year. We know now that without proleague there is no incentive to have teams in Korea. With the salary cap they ensure that there would be enough teams. Ofcourse it is not ideal but i don't see an alternative that would work out better.
That's a pretty small picture, "this is only way we can do it so let's do it, morals be damned"
|
On November 23 2016 21:48 Nakajin wrote:
How is it "communism" if it is the compagny themself that put the salary cap in place?
In fact it is the opposite of communism, it's a cartel, free market at his best, compagny working together to fix the price of a market for their common benefice, and funny thing if you want to stop it you have to create MORE regulation so the state can stop the collusion from happening.
It's corporatism, not communism, it just resembles the communist system by creating a glass ceiling which has the same effect. The idea is to remove negotiative powers from the players through collusion. Normally if there's a company that is willing to pay a higher salary they'll want to buy the strong players who are unhappy with the salary from other companies. Or a player can create a company or find a sponsor and then have a higher salary. The collusion by the companies serves to stop all of that in its tracks since they know almost none of the players will create a company or be able to find an independent sponsor willing to pay more, it's just practically impossible.
You might ask "without the glass ceiling wouldn't it be the same situation? The companies are not forced to pay higher salaries, right?" While that is true, the negotiative power of the players is a very real thing and the companies would be incentivized to negotiate even if it's not in their own financial interest. The prospect of losing a strong player forces them to compete with other companies and raise salaries. The glass ceiling removes this competition and that is essentially what makes an inherently competitive market collapse. While this would be an acceptable outcome (it's their own loss), the players see too much reason to stay and compete because they have committed their lives to progaming. It's a catch 22 for the players - damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only ones who benefit from it are the owners of the colluding companies.
Edit:
On November 23 2016 22:11 BartCraft wrote:
I don't get why people can't see the bigger picture. If they didn't cap the salary there was no way that we had proleague last year. We know now that without proleague there is no incentive to have teams in Korea. With the salary cap they ensure that there would be enough teams. Ofcourse it is not ideal but i don't see an alternative that would work out better.
I don't get why you don't see the bigger picture. If they had not capped the salary we might still have a proleague.
Although that is not even the main argument (the main argument is that this collusion should be illegal regardless of the outcome), it's something to think about.
|
On November 23 2016 22:11 BartCraft wrote:
I don't get why people can't see the bigger picture. If they didn't cap the salary there was no way that we had proleague last year. We know now that without proleague there is no incentive to have teams in Korea. With the salary cap they ensure that there would be enough teams. Ofcourse it is not ideal but i don't see an alternative that would work out better.
This is pure speculation. It's possible that without the salary cap top players wouldn't be throwing matches (life) and/or would still be active (Bisu, Flash) and thus drive interest. It's also possible that the closing of Proleague was a political game between Kespa and Blizzard. If Kespa wanted to do a salary cap all they needed to do is allow for a player union and set up an actual conversation the way it is done in the NBA. I would advise being very careful of making the mistake of agreeing to a salary cap (which I agree with as well) for okaying it to be done behind closed doors.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On November 23 2016 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 21:48 Nakajin wrote:
How is it "communism" if it is the compagny themself that put the salary cap in place?
In fact it is the opposite of communism, it's a cartel, free market at his best, compagny working together to fix the price of a market for their common benefice, and funny thing if you want to stop it you have to create MORE regulation so the state can stop the collusion from happening.
It's corporatism, not communism, it just resembles the communist system by creating a glass ceiling which has the same effect. The idea is to remove negotiative powers from the players through collusion. Normally if there's a company that is willing to pay a higher salary they'll want to buy the strong players who are unhappy with the salary from other companies. Or a player can create a company or find a sponsor and then have a higher salary. The collusion by the companies serves to stop all of that in its tracks since they know almost none of the players will create a company or be able to find an independent sponsor willing to pay more, it's just practically impossible. You might ask "without the glass ceiling wouldn't it be the same situation? The companies are not forced to pay higher salaries, right?" While that is true, the negotiative power of the players is a very real thing and the companies would be incentivized to negotiate even if it's not in their own financial interest. The prospect of losing a strong player forces them to compete with other companies and raise salaries. The glass ceiling removes this competition and that is essentially what makes an inherently competitive market collapse. While this would be an acceptable outcome (it's their own loss), the players see too much reason to stay and compete because they have committed their lives to progaming. It's a catch 22 for the players - damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only ones who benefit from it are the owners of the colluding compagnies.
That's exacly what I meant, but I would argue that there is no such thing as a free market and that it lead to corporatism if you don't regulate it, or/and have unions to create a counter power.
|
On November 23 2016 22:20 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 22:11 BartCraft wrote:
I don't get why people can't see the bigger picture. If they didn't cap the salary there was no way that we had proleague last year. We know now that without proleague there is no incentive to have teams in Korea. With the salary cap they ensure that there would be enough teams. Ofcourse it is not ideal but i don't see an alternative that would work out better. This is pure speculation. It's possible that without the salary cap top players wouldn't be throwing matches (life) and/or would still be active (Bisu, Flash) and thus drive interest. It's also possible that the closing of Proleague was a political game between Kespa and Blizzard. If Kespa wanted to do a salary cap all they needed to do is allow for a player union and set up an actual conversation the way it is done in the NBA. I would advise being very careful of making the mistake of agreeing to a salary cap (which I agree with as well) for okaying it to be done behind closed doors.
Now that's just ...
I don't think this even needs to be commented upon..
|
9070 Posts
On November 23 2016 22:38 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 22:20 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On November 23 2016 22:11 BartCraft wrote:
I don't get why people can't see the bigger picture. If they didn't cap the salary there was no way that we had proleague last year. We know now that without proleague there is no incentive to have teams in Korea. With the salary cap they ensure that there would be enough teams. Ofcourse it is not ideal but i don't see an alternative that would work out better. This is pure speculation. It's possible that without the salary cap top players wouldn't be throwing matches (life) and/or would still be active (Bisu, Flash) and thus drive interest. It's also possible that the closing of Proleague was a political game between Kespa and Blizzard. If Kespa wanted to do a salary cap all they needed to do is allow for a player union and set up an actual conversation the way it is done in the NBA. I would advise being very careful of making the mistake of agreeing to a salary cap (which I agree with as well) for okaying it to be done behind closed doors. Now that's just ... I don't think this even needs to be commented upon..
The general idea is that if politicians receive large enough salaries they wont be corrupt or lobby for companies to make money, so I agree with the logic about match throwing
|
On November 23 2016 22:33 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:On November 23 2016 21:48 Nakajin wrote:
How is it "communism" if it is the compagny themself that put the salary cap in place?
In fact it is the opposite of communism, it's a cartel, free market at his best, compagny working together to fix the price of a market for their common benefice, and funny thing if you want to stop it you have to create MORE regulation so the state can stop the collusion from happening.
It's corporatism, not communism, it just resembles the communist system by creating a glass ceiling which has the same effect. The idea is to remove negotiative powers from the players through collusion. Normally if there's a company that is willing to pay a higher salary they'll want to buy the strong players who are unhappy with the salary from other companies. Or a player can create a company or find a sponsor and then have a higher salary. The collusion by the companies serves to stop all of that in its tracks since they know almost none of the players will create a company or be able to find an independent sponsor willing to pay more, it's just practically impossible. You might ask "without the glass ceiling wouldn't it be the same situation? The companies are not forced to pay higher salaries, right?" While that is true, the negotiative power of the players is a very real thing and the companies would be incentivized to negotiate even if it's not in their own financial interest. The prospect of losing a strong player forces them to compete with other companies and raise salaries. The glass ceiling removes this competition and that is essentially what makes an inherently competitive market collapse. While this would be an acceptable outcome (it's their own loss), the players see too much reason to stay and compete because they have committed their lives to progaming. It's a catch 22 for the players - damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only ones who benefit from it are the owners of the colluding compagnies. That's exacly what I meant, but I would argue that there is no such thing as a free market and that it lead to corporatism if you don't regulate it, or/and have unions to create a counter power.
You can read up on wiki, I think the explanation of "free market" is correct. Of course there is such a thing.
The free market does not lead to corporatism, lobbyism does. In the free market everyone can do business the way they want, this ensures that a collusion to collectively reduce salaries is bad business because a new business will start paying higher salaries for better work and the collusion will result in lost efficiency. Lobbyism is designed to stop this free exchange of service and pay through donations to the government and asking for stifling of small business who can outcompete the colluding companies.
|
Long time lurker but never a poster, however I thought I drop my 2 cents.
First off from an economic, standpoint there is nothing wrong with a salary cap. It's more about controlling cost rather than going overboard. Given the general lack of understanding I assume none of you work for a fortune 500 and understand the concept of cost savings.
Now, I have a problem with capping salaries per individual. Given the age of these kids a player union should exist to set an overall cap per team. At that point the team could have allocated resources as they see fit. I.E. Flash could have received more resources than fantasy.
How this post turned into socialism vs corporatism is beyond me. Everyone wants someone with out working for it. My salary is based off a 37.5 hour work week, but I generally work 50-60 hours a week. No I'm not paid overtime, sure my bonus could reflect that but unlikely
The difference is I have a level of risk that I would guess a majority of you do not understand. I can be held liable by shareholders or regulators or even the organization whom l work for.
At the end of the day we all answer to cost. Managers to owners to investors. If you cannot manage cost the product no longer exists. I.e.leagues in SC2.
|
On November 23 2016 22:45 disciple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 22:38 sharkie wrote:On November 23 2016 22:20 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On November 23 2016 22:11 BartCraft wrote:
I don't get why people can't see the bigger picture. If they didn't cap the salary there was no way that we had proleague last year. We know now that without proleague there is no incentive to have teams in Korea. With the salary cap they ensure that there would be enough teams. Ofcourse it is not ideal but i don't see an alternative that would work out better. This is pure speculation. It's possible that without the salary cap top players wouldn't be throwing matches (life) and/or would still be active (Bisu, Flash) and thus drive interest. It's also possible that the closing of Proleague was a political game between Kespa and Blizzard. If Kespa wanted to do a salary cap all they needed to do is allow for a player union and set up an actual conversation the way it is done in the NBA. I would advise being very careful of making the mistake of agreeing to a salary cap (which I agree with as well) for okaying it to be done behind closed doors. Now that's just ... I don't think this even needs to be commented upon.. The general idea is that if politicians receive large enough salaries they wont be corrupt or lobby for companies to make money, so I agree with the logic about match throwing
And what is large enough? Most politicians already earn more money with less work than other people. This idea requires a limit of human greed which is in fact limitless. Greedy people will always want more.
|
Wow, some people here are really saying that 60k per year isn't enough money? What kind of jobs do you have to call this low? I work almost 100 hours per month and earn less than 1k. And if i finish my college and get to the better job, then i will probably earn 2k-3k per month, which is 30k-40k per year. So you guys are telling that progamers, who play just and game earn more money than most people, are earning low? Tell me your professions, maybe i would change my subject.... And i live in Germany, in case of possible questions towards the place I live.
|
9070 Posts
On November 23 2016 22:46 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 22:33 Nakajin wrote:On November 23 2016 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:On November 23 2016 21:48 Nakajin wrote:
How is it "communism" if it is the compagny themself that put the salary cap in place?
In fact it is the opposite of communism, it's a cartel, free market at his best, compagny working together to fix the price of a market for their common benefice, and funny thing if you want to stop it you have to create MORE regulation so the state can stop the collusion from happening.
It's corporatism, not communism, it just resembles the communist system by creating a glass ceiling which has the same effect. The idea is to remove negotiative powers from the players through collusion. Normally if there's a company that is willing to pay a higher salary they'll want to buy the strong players who are unhappy with the salary from other companies. Or a player can create a company or find a sponsor and then have a higher salary. The collusion by the companies serves to stop all of that in its tracks since they know almost none of the players will create a company or be able to find an independent sponsor willing to pay more, it's just practically impossible. You might ask "without the glass ceiling wouldn't it be the same situation? The companies are not forced to pay higher salaries, right?" While that is true, the negotiative power of the players is a very real thing and the companies would be incentivized to negotiate even if it's not in their own financial interest. The prospect of losing a strong player forces them to compete with other companies and raise salaries. The glass ceiling removes this competition and that is essentially what makes an inherently competitive market collapse. While this would be an acceptable outcome (it's their own loss), the players see too much reason to stay and compete because they have committed their lives to progaming. It's a catch 22 for the players - damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only ones who benefit from it are the owners of the colluding compagnies. That's exacly what I meant, but I would argue that there is no such thing as a free market and that it lead to corporatism if you don't regulate it, or/and have unions to create a counter power. You can read up on wiki, I think the explanation of "free market" is correct. Of course there is such a thing. The free market does not lead to corporatism, lobbyism does. In the free market everyone can do business the way they want, this ensures that a collusion to collectively reduce salaries is bad business because a new business will start paying higher salaries for better work and the collusion will result in lost efficiency. Lobbyism is designed to stop this free exchange of service and pay through donations to the government and asking for stifling of small business who can outcompete the colluding companies.
Free market and lobbyism are related only indirectly. The general idea of free market is that government does not impose any restrictions (understand tax) on trade. The most basic way that happens on a global level is through the existence of duty tax. There are several zones in which countries trade among each other without a duty tax. Essentially anyone can compete if they offer stuff at the right quality and price. Now, some countries have great technology advantage in given industries meaning they produce everything more efficiently. If countries do want to encourage particular industries it is indeed wise to impose duty on imports, thats particularly true if two countries are very competitive in industries using the same type of technology. To give you an example, duty on Chinese goods in Mexico goes up to 3000% for some goods, essentially denying chinese goods of some types into the country. Lobbyism comes into play when politicians agree to "free" markets essentially enabling large corporations to take over new territories through advantage in technology or econ of scale. You might think thats economically efficient and that countries should focus on industries they have comparative advantage (hello Ricardo), but in a global market thats not possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
