|
On November 22 2016 17:28 Shuffleblade wrote:
"Also the idea that the cap was there to prevent the rich teams from stealing all the players is ridiculous" Sadly its its not and it functioned as intended. Star teams still stole talented players because they were underpaid and thats a good thing but stars that are paid max amount cant be stolen and that was a good thing.
But wasn't there a five year rule? If a player hadn't been with a team for 5 years, then he wouldn't be able to play in proleague if he switched teams. This is what prevented Parting from playing for StarTale after he left SKTT1.
|
9070 Posts
On November 23 2016 22:56 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 22:45 disciple wrote: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.
Well if you assume the worst in people then representative democracy isn't for you. While those salaries might not be enough to tempt every politician, its enough if they do it for a sensible majority that won't sell out and actually act in the interest of their countries first.
|
On November 23 2016 23:11 disciple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 22:56 sharkie wrote:On November 23 2016 22:45 disciple wrote: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. Well if you assume the worst in people then representative democracy isn't for you. While those salaries might not be enough to tempt every politician, its enough if they do it for a sensible majority that won't sell out and actually act in the interest of their countries first.
You haven't answered my question of what is large enough? Politicians are already part of the upper elite in our society. Should we all pay them football player's worth of salary or what? They already earn so much that many people go into politics BECAUSE of the money, not because they want to act in the interest of their people first.
Now if they get even more money there will be even more people who go into politics because of the money, no?
Obviously not everyone thinks money first but its those people who get to the top. We live in a society where bribing, backstabbing and lieing is rewarded.
|
Salary caps without bonus structures are awful. For the most part, if you think I this is a fair treatmentment of humans, you're either cruel or a BernieBro.
|
9070 Posts
On November 23 2016 23:22 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 23:11 disciple wrote:On November 23 2016 22:56 sharkie wrote:On November 23 2016 22:45 disciple wrote: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. Well if you assume the worst in people then representative democracy isn't for you. While those salaries might not be enough to tempt every politician, its enough if they do it for a sensible majority that won't sell out and actually act in the interest of their countries first. You haven't answered my question of what is large enough? Politicians are already part of the upper elite in our society. Should we all pay them football player's worth of salary or what? They already earn so much that many people go into politics BECAUSE of the money, not because they want to act in the interest of their people first. Now if they get even more money there will be even more people who go into politics because of the money, no? Obviously not everyone thinks money first but its those people who get to the top. We live in a society where bribing, backstabbing and lieing is rewarded.
Can you guess what will happen if you remove party subsidies and politician salaries? Lemme help you, it wont result in your parliament getting filled with altruistic and benevolent leaders.
|
On November 23 2016 23:38 disciple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 23:22 sharkie wrote:On November 23 2016 23:11 disciple wrote:On November 23 2016 22:56 sharkie wrote:On November 23 2016 22:45 disciple wrote: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. Well if you assume the worst in people then representative democracy isn't for you. While those salaries might not be enough to tempt every politician, its enough if they do it for a sensible majority that won't sell out and actually act in the interest of their countries first. You haven't answered my question of what is large enough? Politicians are already part of the upper elite in our society. Should we all pay them football player's worth of salary or what? They already earn so much that many people go into politics BECAUSE of the money, not because they want to act in the interest of their people first. Now if they get even more money there will be even more people who go into politics because of the money, no? Obviously not everyone thinks money first but its those people who get to the top. We live in a society where bribing, backstabbing and lieing is rewarded. Can you guess what will happen if you remove party subsidies and politician salaries? Lemme help you, it wont result in your parliament getting filled with altruistic and benevolent leaders.
Dude, I am not arguing that at all. All I am saying is more salary won't fix anything. Definitely not prevent match fixing or corruption.
|
On November 23 2016 23:41 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 23:38 disciple wrote:On November 23 2016 23:22 sharkie wrote:On November 23 2016 23:11 disciple wrote:On November 23 2016 22:56 sharkie wrote:On November 23 2016 22:45 disciple wrote: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. Well if you assume the worst in people then representative democracy isn't for you. While those salaries might not be enough to tempt every politician, its enough if they do it for a sensible majority that won't sell out and actually act in the interest of their countries first. You haven't answered my question of what is large enough? Politicians are already part of the upper elite in our society. Should we all pay them football player's worth of salary or what? They already earn so much that many people go into politics BECAUSE of the money, not because they want to act in the interest of their people first. Now if they get even more money there will be even more people who go into politics because of the money, no? Obviously not everyone thinks money first but its those people who get to the top. We live in a society where bribing, backstabbing and lieing is rewarded. Can you guess what will happen if you remove party subsidies and politician salaries? Lemme help you, it wont result in your parliament getting filled with altruistic and benevolent leaders. Dude, I am not arguing that at all. All I am saying is more salary won't fix anything. Definitely not prevent match fixing or corruption.
That's not even the main argument, nobody's saying pay people more money to prevent corruption, that'd be essentially a form of... reverse blackmail or something lol, I don't know what to call it but it's of course a weird argument.
This is not about making sure this or that outcome doesn't happen. It's about making sure players get treated properly. A team collusion on the salary cap is unacceptable treatment of the players as it removes their negotiative powers, something that is essential in the job market because it's the only way to make sure outstanding performance gets rewarded, which is something that is desirable in every way, for everyone. Just because bad things can happen, just because greed can corrupt people, doesn't mean it's ok to take option to negotiate away from the players.
|
I can't believe so many TL folks are okay with unionized companies. It sickens me.
|
On November 23 2016 23:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I can't believe so many TL folks are okay with unionized companies. It sickens me.
maybe they got screwed by a lufthansa strike? :p
|
On November 23 2016 22:57 TsogiMaster wrote:
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.
Honestly this kind of discussion is useless for us because we don't really understand their income from sponsorships, the value of the players and the how valuable trades are and the like. How many players did this really affect?
I are certainly aspects of it I think are super shady and I'm concerned that players had very little bargaining power if the competition thats supposed to keep teams on their toes were colluding.
|
Poland3748 Posts
On November 23 2016 23:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I can't believe so many TL folks are okay with unionized companies. It sickens me.
Well - you leave in US.
|
On November 23 2016 21:35 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 21:22 opisska wrote: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.
Agree with Nazul completely, including his other posts. Glad someone brought up the necessity for a players union in salary cap negotiations. Everyone else arguing against that, imagine the same situation in your everyday life/job:
Say you're a mechanic, and all mechanics shops in town get together and decide mechanics can only make 1k/month tops. There's a lot of ramifications of that, but in the end the owners will make more and the mechanics would make less.
If the owerns truly believe a salary cap is in their and the mechanic's best interests, they should push mechanics to form a union and then negotiate with that union. Both sides need to be represented. Can't just decide this kind of thing unilaterally.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On November 24 2016 02:27 Cauld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 21:35 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On November 23 2016 21:22 opisska wrote: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. Agree with Nazul completely, including his other posts. Glad someone brought up the necessity for a players union in salary cap negotiations. Everyone else arguing against that, imagine the same situation in your everyday life/job: Say you're a mechanic, and all mechanics shops in town get together and decide mechanics can only make 1k/month tops. There's a lot of ramifications of that, but in the end the owners will make more and the mechanics would make less. If the owerns truly believe a salary cap is in their and the mechanic's best interests, they should push mechanics to form a union and then negotiate with that union. Both sides need to be represented. Can't just decide this kind of thing unilaterally.
pretty much this. Most people seem to miss this very important point.
|
On November 24 2016 01:26 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 22:57 TsogiMaster wrote:
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. Honestly this kind of discussion is useless for us because we don't really understand their income from sponsorships, the value of the players and the how valuable trades are and the like. How many players did this really affect? I are certainly aspects of it I think are super shady and I'm concerned that players had very little bargaining power if the competition thats supposed to keep teams on their toes were colluding.
Well of course its useless if I talked about the players income, but i didnt. I talked about the people here in the thread whom 60k salary in a year is low.
About the players income of course that 70M WON will be only earned by the best players, so I assume that lower players earn lesser than that, so like you said, to discuss about it, its useless, since we have no idea about it.
|
On November 24 2016 02:40 TsogiMaster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:26 lestye wrote:On November 23 2016 22:57 TsogiMaster wrote:
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. Honestly this kind of discussion is useless for us because we don't really understand their income from sponsorships, the value of the players and the how valuable trades are and the like. How many players did this really affect? I are certainly aspects of it I think are super shady and I'm concerned that players had very little bargaining power if the competition thats supposed to keep teams on their toes were colluding. Well of course its useless if I talked about the players income, but i didnt. I talked about the people here in the thread whom 60k salary in a year is low. About the players income of course that 70M WON will be only earned by the best players, so I assume that lower players earn lesser than that, so like you said, to discuss about it, its useless, since we have no idea about it.
Sorry I mispoke. I'm just saying we have no understanding or knowledge to say if its low or high. We dont know the real values
|
If the they thought their salary cap was an unfair unioning of the teams/cooperations, they could join an esF team to find out how much they are really worth without the cooperations sinking money into a product just because of nostalgic.
Or well, join a foreign team and now we understand Jaedong, Soulkey, PartinG, Rain, Innovation and Dear much more.
|
I don't even know why it would matter what we consider high or low salary. I don't care what someone else gets paid per year, 20k, 100k, 1 million, 100 million, it's none of our business and there is no morally right or wrong number because it doesn't affect our lives. The goods that two people exchange has no effect on others, it's an exchange for christ sake, nothing of value is lost to us. The claim that 60k is good income for most people is absolutely irrelevant.
|
On November 23 2016 17:40 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I'm absolutely shocked by some of the reactions here. How do you guys justify something like this by saying "it is still good money"? It's an absurd point of view to take. If Flash is worth hundreds of thousands then he should get paid hundreds of thousands. That is life changing money he would be missing out on. Comparing it to traditional wages is fucking stupid. Athletes that are the absolute best in their sport should be compensated fairly for it. The guy has taken infinitely more risk in picking his career than anyone you know and achieved infinitely more than some random $60K desk job clerk will ever do.
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.
thank you
|
If the cap was for the sake of financial survival of the teams, it would seem in retrospect that it was wise. They no longer exist, so it's probably safe to assume no one deserved hundreds of thousands.
|
A salary cap is usually a limit on how much a team can spend on all player salaries.
It is NOT the same as limiting how much you pay your highest earning player(s).
A salary cap would be, for example, that each team can only pay $100m in salaries.
If you have 10 players, you could pay each player $10m and hit the salary cap. If you have 20 players, you could pay 10 players $8m each and pay the rest $2m each, and hit the salary cap.
It doesn't mean all players get paid the same, it doesn't mean that there's a cap on what one individual player can be paid, it means the team, as a whole, is limited in what it can pay for all salaries, distributed in any fashion it likes.
A salary cap in the sense that the original tweet indicates is that all teams colluded to limit the maximum they would pay any one player to 70m KRW, so that the individual players couldn't shop around teams and get the best pay for themselves. It is entirely anti-competitive and not even remotely the same as a salary cap.
It's also illegal in the US, as indicated by the anti-trust suite against Google/Apple/etc where they enacted a non-compete with each other so that they wouldn't take other companies' staff, including not offering higher wages for people to depress wages.
A salary cap to benefit the league by controlling costs is one thing. Collusion to limit player bargaining power and depress salaries is entirely different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
