“Pay for Play” is an intriguing concept. The PGA Tour (Professional Golfers Association) pays on performance. You get rewarded for how you do each week in the tournament. No more, no less. Some luck (good and bad) come into it, but essentially you make money based on how well you competed that week.
It’s a purist’s formula. Dead wood is eliminated. If you don’t shoot good scores, you eventually no longer are on the tour, and you don’t make money. Maybe you have to go work in a book store or sell shoes. You are eliminated if you don’t prove yourself.
Could this concept apply elsewhere? Could other sports adopt it, for example? How wild would that be?
Consider this: Pro basketball players make no salary. After each game, there is a fee determined based on how you played that day. Who knows what the formula would be? Some of your income could be due to a team victory, how many points you scored, assists, blocked shots, or other contributions to the victory.
If your team lost, your salary stub would reflect that lower amount, along with any other ways you stood out for the team. Think if it was “winner take all” for every game. Would that create some phenomenal competition, or what?
There’s actually a summer league basketball extravaganza based on that concept – only the team that wins the tournament makes money ($2 million). Former pros, college teammates, adult league players have all put teams together to compete in the tournament. The games are intense and fun to watch.
But if we could bring it to the professional level, how do you decide the split for Dennis Rodman or Michael Jordan after winning the NBA championship? Let the team decide the spoils? How about the fans?
If the fans voted right after the game, the engagement would be fascinating to watch. Have an 800 number. Tabulate the votes, publish the comments: “Man, Rodman pushed them all around the paint. Give him 40% of the team cut and MJ 30%.”
“No way. They would have never gotten there without MJ. He deserves 60% and the rest of the team can split the other 40.” And so on.
Ticket sales could be split 80% to the winners, 10% to the losers and 10% to the owners. No guaranteed salaries. Every week is a roller coaster ride.
Sports focused on $$$$$$$$$ for winning would make for great talk radio fodder and fan engagement. People would jump online to air their voice on who should make what, and why.
Pay for each position could be publicly published. Each player could be ranked by stats, along with the attendant earnings throughout the course of the season (like the PGA does). You could follow increases in compensation throughout the year and have a purer test of who is playing the best.
Yeah, you still have some subjectivity in terms of how to rank the players or determine which qualities deserve the most compensation. But it sure could create a wild ride, generate rabid opinions and give fans a better way to determine who’s the best.
With a purer formula, we’d have to stop pontificating, predicting and prognosticating. We’d know who is dominant. He’d be making the most money.
It’s a purist’s formula. Dead wood is eliminated. If you don’t shoot good scores, you eventually no longer are on the tour, and you don’t make money. Maybe you have to go work in a book store or sell shoes. You are eliminated if you don’t prove yourself.
Could this concept apply elsewhere? Could other sports adopt it, for example? How wild would that be?
Consider this: Pro basketball players make no salary. After each game, there is a fee determined based on how you played that day. Who knows what the formula would be? Some of your income could be due to a team victory, how many points you scored, assists, blocked shots, or other contributions to the victory.
If your team lost, your salary stub would reflect that lower amount, along with any other ways you stood out for the team. Think if it was “winner take all” for every game. Would that create some phenomenal competition, or what?
There’s actually a summer league basketball extravaganza based on that concept – only the team that wins the tournament makes money ($2 million). Former pros, college teammates, adult league players have all put teams together to compete in the tournament. The games are intense and fun to watch.
But if we could bring it to the professional level, how do you decide the split for Dennis Rodman or Michael Jordan after winning the NBA championship? Let the team decide the spoils? How about the fans?
If the fans voted right after the game, the engagement would be fascinating to watch. Have an 800 number. Tabulate the votes, publish the comments: “Man, Rodman pushed them all around the paint. Give him 40% of the team cut and MJ 30%.”
“No way. They would have never gotten there without MJ. He deserves 60% and the rest of the team can split the other 40.” And so on.
Ticket sales could be split 80% to the winners, 10% to the losers and 10% to the owners. No guaranteed salaries. Every week is a roller coaster ride.
Sports focused on $$$$$$$$$ for winning would make for great talk radio fodder and fan engagement. People would jump online to air their voice on who should make what, and why.
Pay for each position could be publicly published. Each player could be ranked by stats, along with the attendant earnings throughout the course of the season (like the PGA does). You could follow increases in compensation throughout the year and have a purer test of who is playing the best.
Yeah, you still have some subjectivity in terms of how to rank the players or determine which qualities deserve the most compensation. But it sure could create a wild ride, generate rabid opinions and give fans a better way to determine who’s the best.
With a purer formula, we’d have to stop pontificating, predicting and prognosticating. We’d know who is dominant. He’d be making the most money.
