Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jvmfjvfjvf 1042 days ago
What are your thoughts on NFL player Josh Allen having a $250MM contract? I fail to understand why there is more controversy over CEO pay than athletes.
4 comments

If Sundar Pichai ever had to compete against other companies at the level of an NFL player, vs. be asleep at the wheel of Google’s money-printing advertising monopoly, he would immediately crumple. This is obvious in their fumbling all the AI stuff, half of which they invented.
I don't follow sports, but at least those people are doing actual, physically comparable things with clear connections to revenue (more like music artists than CEOs).

Maybe that analogy is more apt than you intended though, in that the valuations are made for shallow human/society reasons that are quite decoupled from reality.

There are many players who don't live up to their $100MM+ contracts. I fail to understand why physicality should be relevant to high compensation.
> There are many players who don't live up to their $100MM+ contracts.

Do you have examples? The ticket sales alone that big name players drive to home games make far more than 100MM over the course of their contacts.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/294166/toronto-blue-jays...

That doesn't even include all the merchandise and the food/drink sales and all the other benefits that come from signing big name stars. The CEO of a company doesn't have the same "star" power a pro athlete, musician, or actor has.

Physicality is far more measurable in its results than the product of a thousands strong multi-national company.

In other words one can pretty clearly attribute the performance of an athlete to said athletes talents and ability. In the case of the CEO making the same money, it's much harder to measure their performance, and even harder to attribute the success of the company to their direct performance. This point becomes even more true as companies grow in scale, such as Google has done.

> it's much harder to measure their performance

That doesn’t mean that their performance can’t significantly affect their companies stock price to a much higher degree than similarly paid athletes could.

> Physicality is far more measurable

Who cares. Do you believe that only people whose output could be precisely measured should be highly compensated?

Of course there is a lot of inefficiency considering Pichai seems to be a very poor CEO who’s quite replaceable.

Because it's easier to measure an athlete's performance than to measure a CEO's.

And athletes usually have no right to fire people (at least not a lot of people at once).

You don't think LeBron has any say in the teammates they sign?

Tom Brady famously got Gronk out of retirement and Brown was on the team because of Brady despite having a horrible reputation and being essentially blacklisted from the NFL.

Star players are a dime a dozen in professional sports and I don't think their influence on the team makeup is as rare as you think. In fact, a big name star might have _more_ hiring power than a typical CEO in a public company.

Attempting to change the subject doesn't change the fact that this obscene compensation amounts to stealing from the pockets of his own employees. Rather than structuring Google as a dictatorship, how about we structure it as a democracy and ask Googlers what they think the CEO should be paid, at their own expense. Do you think they would come up with a number that is less or more than the current figure?
Which would likely end with only being able to hire significantly less competent CEOs than other companies.

Only on average over long term of course. There is quite a lot of variance considering how useless someone like Pichai seems to be.