Roger Goodell's 2013 Salary

[run1stdownrun2nddown]

What's not to understand? You do not believe that businesses should be able to determine how they pay their employees. Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

 

He's gone so far down the "it's all a giant conspiracy," every financially successful person is evil, stock market is evil, etc. It's not even worth trying to debate it with him. Waste of time..

[run1stdownrun2nddown]

I don't think it means he has to take a pay cut or he should take a pay cut, I just think it means he's overpaid relative to what his market value is. The owners could pay him less and he wouldn't walk away from the job. If he did, there would be someone comparable who would be willing to do it for that salary, because it would still be great money and a very prestigious position.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

 

So if you were chairman of the BOD of a large company, you would chose your CEO out of the pool of candidates based on who was willing to accept the lowest salary. I would choose my CEO based on who I thought would do the best job. We will just have to agree to disagree..

[updownsigma]

So if you were chairman of the BOD of a large company, you would chose your CEO out of the pool of candidates based on who was willing to accept the lowest salary. I would choose my CEO based on who I thought would do the best job. We will just have to agree to disagree..

 

Err.. no. If you're going to absolutely choose based on who does the best job, why not offer to pay $100M, if that's what it takes to get the best? You're assuming that salary correlates with indefinitely with job performance. I.e., increase salary, there will always be a better candidate. Why not offer $100M then and get someone better than Goodell? Or $200M?

 

At some point, the best person (roughly...because you don't know beforehand who is truly "best") for the job is going to be satisfied with what the market dictates they're worth. You can be the "best" Walmart greeter in the world, but the market only dictates you're worth $8/hour (or whatever they get paid).

 

So, all I'm saying is that the owners probably could have gotten away with paying Goodell less based on what my estimate of what the market compensation for executive management of a business the size of the NFL league office is. Hence, my comparisons about the difficulty of running the NFL with much larger corporation. For example: JP Morgan operates in over 100 countries and has 250,000 employees. Its CEO, Jamie Dimon, made $20M in 2013. The NFL operates in one country, and employs maybe 1500 people (guessing based off of old numbers). So given the management issues Goodell has to deal with in running the NFL, I don't think he's worth double what Dimon is (or the CEO of Walmart, or BP, etc.).

 

Admittedly, I'm no expert on executive compensation, and some have pointed out that Goodell's salary is actually reasonable compared with other Fortune 500 CEO's. A lot of those guys get paid in deferred stock options, which are potentially worth more, but are also riskier. Goodell on the other hand, gets paid straight cash homey. But that's another argument entirely.

 

Also, I never said that I would pick whoever was willing to be paid the least. It's a huge logical leap from me saying that Goodell is worth 5-7M to me saying that I would pick whoever is willing to be paid the least. (If that were really my position, I would be saying "why not just get fast food employees to do the job?!").