MLB and NFL Salary Comparisons

Stephen Dubner has a new post on the Freakonomics blog where he asks five sports business folks "Do pro baseball players have more power than pro football players?"

He asks this because football players can be cut at any time during their contracts. Baseball players can not.

I'd think that wraps up the argument right there. Who has more power-you're wife or your girlfriend?

I don't have a wife, but I'd think that if I did she'd have much more power than my girlfriend.

Andrew Zimbalist has the best response: "Why would anyone ask this question?" He then goes on to say that the owners are the only ones with power:

Major League Baseball and the N.F.L. are organized by the owners. The owners in each league elect a commissioner who acts in the best interests of the owners, or, at least, endeavors to do so.

The players in each league share in the monopoly booty. However, since there are 45 active roster players on an N.F.L. team 25 on an M.L.B. team, the average salaries in baseball are roughly twice as high in M.L.B. as they are in the N.F.L. ($2.9 million vs. $1.5 million). Similarly, with only 12 members per team in the N.B.A., roughly half the number in M.L.B., basketball salaries (average at $5.1 million) are almost double those in baseball.

Daren Rovell also has a good response: "Despite some recent power shifts...the perception is the reality."

What I found to be more interesting than the experts opinions were the comments.

MBuck asks whether you can use the fact that basketball players are paid more as a way to determine if they are a more athletic group.

NBA players like Lebron James and Allen Iverson were strong football players in high school (from what I understand) and instead chose the NBA. I wonder if they made this choice because they enjoyed playing basketball more or if there was a higher likelihood that they could obtain more money and notoriety given their overall athletic prowess in the NBA.

I think athletes factor in earnings a little bit, but I think they go where they will be able to play the most.

Iveson wound up in basketball because he had some trouble with the law. He was recruited for football, got arrested, lost his football scholarship.

Donovan McNabb was a good basketball player-he played on Syracuse's team-but he is a great football player. Charlie Ward won a Heisman trophy for football but ultimately went to play basketball. He did this because he was better at basketball on the professional level.

The only clear economic driver that I can think of is Drew Henson. He was the star quarterback at Michigan. He also played baseball. The Yankees offered him a contract to play baseball. He thought he'd last longer in baseball, ultimately making more money. He never made it out of the unglamorous world of the minor leagues. He then tried to switch back to football and never amounted to anything.

Of course this question could be based on a false premise. Is it better to be in a low impact sport like baseball over football? Neon Deion Sanders played both sports. However, he played football for many years after he stopped playing baseball. He had a reputation as a somewhat soft player, afraid to be hit or to hit hard, so that may have contributed to his longevity, but he is proof that a football career is not physically worse than a baseball career.

Players might think they're good enough to choose a sport based on economic incentives, but in reality the best choice is talent driven. If your talents are in one field you go to that field and the economic fortunes should follow. I think Donovon McNabb has made plenty from football, even if he has a shorter career.

But, to answer MBuck's question: I think each league is equally athletic.