Would you take less salary to win a Super Bowl?

[Ray Stonada]

This came up in the Knicks thread, I think it's a good question:

 

Why don't more QBs take a serious pay cut to have a better chance to win a Super Bowl? I would happily earn 40/million a year instead of 60/million if it upped my chances of getting a ring by 35-40%. Lifelong happiness of accomplishing the ultimate. 

 

This is probably why I'm not a billionaire (hahaha), but if you have 10 million dollars in the bank, I don't feel like money should be your prime motivating factor. Ultra-wealthy people and their chlidren are not happier than people who make enough to live comfortably, from what I see. 

 

 

[Gregg]

Didn't Brady do this in his career. Of course, at the time he was with Gisele who was making tons of money on her own.

[Ray Stonada]

Just now, Gregg said:

Didn't Brady do this in his career. Of course, at the time he was with Gisele who was making tons of money on her own.

 

He did. And I think he was right to do it.

 

What is the difference between having 400 million dollars in the bank and 600 million dollars?

 

I don't get it.

[Kirby Jackson]

I’m certainly not pulling a Brunson. That’s the most extreme discount in history. 
 

I don’t take a discount in my current job so that they can add more talent around me. That’s on them to figure out. I negotiated for every dollar that I could get. Just because the numbers get bigger, doesn’t mean that would change.

 

I suspect a lot of people will say that they’d take less. It’s easy to say in a hypothetical world that you’d leave $20M a year on the table for a chance at a ring. The reality is, a very, very, very small percentage of people would actually do that when presented with the choice.
 

Athletes top 10 priorities are their families. We don’t like to hear that but the ring is not at the top of the list (or all that close to it). It was different back in the day, but with salaries are where they are, the opportunity for generational wealth is by miles priority 1.

Edited June 15 by Kirby Jackson

[Ray Stonada]

Just now, Kirby Jackson said:

I’m certainly not pulling a Brunson. That’s the most extreme discount in history. 
 

I don’t take a discount in my current job so that they can add more talent around me. That’s on them to figure out. I negotiated for every dollar that I could get. Just because the numbers get bigger, doesn’t mean that would change.

 

I suspect a lot of people would say that they’d take less. It’s easy to say in a hypothetical world that you’d leave $20M a year on the table for a chance at a ring. The reality is, a very, very, very small percentage of people would actually do that when presented with the choice. Athletes top 10 priorities are their families. We don’t like to hear that but the ring is not at the top of the list (or all that close to it). It was different back in the day but with salaries are where they are the opportunity for generational wealth is by miles priority 1.

 

I think you're right that lots of people would take an extra 20/million year, but I think it's the wrong choice.

 

What can you do with 60 million EVERY year, that you can't do with 40 million? Have a yacht that's 200 feet instead of 150 feet?

 

Money is meaningless except for what it buys you. 

[13 Seconds to Mars]

10 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I’m certainly not pulling a Brunson. That’s the most extreme discount in history. 
 

I don’t take a discount in my current job so that they can add more talent around me. That’s on them to figure out. I negotiated for every dollar that I could get. Just because the numbers get bigger, doesn’t mean that would change.

 

I suspect a lot of people would say that they’d take less. It’s easy to say in a hypothetical world that you’d leave $20M a year on the table for a chance at a ring. The reality is, a very, very, very small percentage of people would actually do that when presented with the choice. Athletes top 10 priorities are their families. We don’t like to hear that but the ring is not at the top of the list (or all that close to it). It was different back in the day but with salaries are where they are the opportunity for generational wealth is by miles priority 1.

IDK if it is really that insane. Think of the endorsement and other career opportunities he will get from being a champion in one of the biggest markets in the world. Most of LeBron’s money comes from endorsements. 

[Kirby Jackson]

50 minutes ago, Ray Stonada said:

 

I think you're right that lots of people would take an extra 20/million year, but I think it's the wrong choice.

 

What can you do with 60 million EVERY year, that you can't do with 40 million? Have a yacht that's 200 feet instead of 150 feet?

 

Money is meaningless except for what it buys you. 

That’s an oversimplication. You could fund hospitals, scholarships, businesses, etc.. You can make it so that generations are set for life. That’s what you do with the money. That’s what you do when you’re rich.

 

We praise these NFL guys all the time for restructuring their deals. What restructuring a deal looks like, is “we will give you all the money now that we would have given you over the next ___ years so that we can spread out the cap hits.” Restructuring a deal gives the athletes MORE money because it is now growing interest for them. The guys taking the pay cuts are almost always (98%of the time maybe) doing it because that’s the best deal they’d get out there.

 

In terms of Brady, they estimate that he left somewhere between $60M-$100M on the table over his 23 year career. Let’s split the baby and call it $80M. That’s $3.48M a year. Now would I leave THAT on the table? Still probably not, but much closer, and more realistic than $20M a year. Brady made that up many times over off the field. He’s a guy that we praise for “taking less” but $3.48M a year is WAY different than $20M a year. That holds especially true if your wife’s net worth is $100M more than yours AND you make lots of money off the field. It’s still rare.

 

 

40 minutes ago, 13 Seconds to Mars said:

IDK if it is really that insane. Think of the endorsement and other career opportunities he will get from being a champion in one of the biggest markets in the world. Most of LeBron’s money comes from endorsements. 

$113M or whatever it was is actually unheard of. It may end up working out and he is now immortal. That was a massive discount though.

Edited June 15 by Kirby Jackson

[Bill from NYC]

Possibly, but it would depend on my personal situation. For instance, if my wife's family lived in the 40 million area, it would probably not be a smart idea to leave for the extra money. Another decision would be whether or not to uproot my children. If no factors existed such as these and many others, I think that I would leave and take the cash, but again; it would depend on what is happening in my life.

 

Edit: Who has the better OL?

Edited June 15 by Bill from NYC

[LittleSimonWithAGodComplex]

I wouldn’t take 20m less if Brandon Beane is just gonna spend it on Samuel and guys like him.

 

Unless you get some control over what that money is gonna be spent on, which is clearly a ridiculous thing to expect, then no I wouldn’t take less money even though money means very little to me beyond providing for my family 

[Ray Stonada]

2 minutes ago, EssexBill said:

I wouldn’t take 20m less if Brandon Beane is just gonna spend it on Samuel and guys like him.

 

Unless you get some control over what that money is gonna be spent on, which is clearly a ridiculous thing to expect, then no I wouldn’t take less money even though money means very little to me beyond providing for my family 

 

 

Fair point. But if you talked to the GM and said, I will leave this money if we can upgrade the OL and receiving corps?

 

33 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

You can make it so that generations are set for life. That’s what you do with the money. That’s what you do when you’re rich.

 

Your kids wouldn't be set for life if you made 40 million/year? Only at 60/mill???

[Sweats]

Would i take less money to win a SB?!?.........absolutely

 

Would i take less money for "a chance" at a SB?!?.........not bloody likely

[frostbitmic]

There are 32 teams and only one wins the Super Bowl every year, I'd take the money over a better chance at the ring. If taking less guaranteed you a ring it would be a different story, but it doesn't.

 

It's 2026, he who dies with the most wins, and seemingly that's all that really matters anymore.

[Ray Stonada]

Just now, Sweats said:

Would i take less money to win a SB?!?.........absolutely

 

Would i take less money for "a chance" at a SB?!?.........not bloody likely

 

That's the catch. When you leave the money on the table, you don't fully know if it will pay off.

 

Brady won his SB's early, and decided he loved that feeling more than an extra 100 million bones. I think that's smart.

 

And he might be worth more now due to that decision, because having won 7 SBs meant he got hired by Fox with the richest contract in broadcast history.

Just now, frostbitmic said:

It's 2026, he who dies with the most wins, and seemingly that's all that really matters anymore.

 

You can't take it with you, brother. He who has the best life and the best experiences wins, not their bank balance at death.

[Kirby Jackson]

4 minutes ago, Ray Stonada said:

 

 

Fair point. But if you talked to the GM and said, I will leave this money if we can upgrade the OL and receiving corps?

 

 

Your kids wouldn't be set for life if you made 40 million/year? Only at 60/mill???

My kids would be but not everyone I would like to help. If that were the case, we would see lots and lots of people take less. If $60M and $40M were virtually the same, why do 99.9999% of the people take the $60M when presented with the opportunity? It’s significantly different. 

[Ray Stonada]

Just now, Kirby Jackson said:

My kids would be but not everyone I would like to help. If that were the case, we would see lots and lots of people take less. If $60M and $40M were virtually the same, why do 99.9999% of the people take the $60M when presented with the opportunity? It’s significantly different. 

 

So far on this poll, it's 22.22%, not 99.9999%...

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Ray Stonada said:

 

He did. And I think he was right to do it.

 

What is the difference between having 400 million dollars in the bank and 600 million dollars?

 

I don't get it.

The difference is $200 million….but you might want to check my math. (And don’t forget you’ll have just a wee bit of taxes to pay on that.) 

[frostbitmic]

8 minutes ago, Ray Stonada said:

 

That's the catch. When you leave the money on the table, you don't fully know if it will pay off.

 

Brady won his SB's early, and decided he loved that feeling more than an extra 100 million bones. I think that's smart.

 

And he might be worth more now due to that decision, because having won 7 SBs meant he got hired by Fox with the richest contract in broadcast history.

 

You can't take it with you, brother. He who has the best life and the best experiences wins, not their bank balance at death.

I know you can't take it with you but you can set your family and their family and their family up for life. To me that's more important than a ring.

 

Of course this comes from someone who worked for 42 years and never made 20 million total in my lifetime.

[Kirby Jackson]

8 minutes ago, Ray Stonada said:

 

So far on this poll, it's 22.22%, not 99.9999%...

Oh I figured it would be. It’s EASY to say, “I’d take $20M less” when answering a poll on TBD. Put those contracts in front of everyone and watch how quickly people sign the bigger one. The poll isn’t reality. What are people actually doing when presented with the opportunity? Almost all take the money. In fact, name one athlete, besides Brunson, to leave $20M a year on the table in sports history? I can’t think of any. 
 

There is a place where comfort, ease, championship opportunity, etc.. is worth leaving some money on the table. For example, $55M for Josh Allen in Buffalo is better than $58M in Arizona. If Arizona would give him $70M though and Buffalo was only willing to give $50M the conversation changes. 

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

1 hour ago, Gregg said:

Didn't Brady do this in his career. Of course, at the time he was with Gisele who was making tons of money on her own.

Brady also had shady team side deals with his snake oil supplements.

[Ray Stonada]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The difference is $200 million….but you might want to check my math. (And don’t forget you’ll have just a wee bit of taxes to pay on that.) 

Nope. 200 million doesn’t mean the same thing to someone who already has 400 million. That’s what I’m saying. 
 

Being a Super Bowl champion has huge value. I think Brunson was ahead of the curve. Getting to stay with Knicks, with his dad, and his Nova teammates, meant more to him than the money. And I think he’s happier for it.