Salary Disclosure, NDAs and NCAs

[Jesse]

IMO you're barking up the wrong tree for useless information. We have an SMS and we hear whether teams over spend. The team that spends the most doesn't necessarily win and the team that spends less but wisely may win it all. NOTE: Some teams are public teams and that information is probably available if we choose to find out.

Generally we have an idea of what all the starting QB's earn. Did knowing what Reilly made in 2021 really change anything except raise the salary levels in 2022? Does knowing what Collaros will earn in 2023 raise salaries for the free agent QB's? I don't expect any to earn more than Collaros but they may earn more than might have otherwise.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing when QB's earn 10% of the total SMS spend? It could be argued either way. We could easily say the Lions paying Rourke on an ELC got the best bang for their buck of any player in the CFL. That's the opposite of what happened with what was paid to Reilly in 2021.

Some have suggested capping salaries by position. Others just want the minimums to be raised. All are good arguments but the SMS is spent across the roster. Increase the bottom means less spent at the top ELC or vice versus.

As a fan I don't care how they spend it or where. I care about the net results of how the team does and whether they seemed to have made the correct decisions. That's only partially calculable due to injuries to key highly paid players.

Take Ottawa for example. Masoli probably got a good salary although I don't specifically what he earned. However his injury was luck of the draw. Would they have done better if they had chosen another QB in free agency? Who knows.

We have many potential free agents going into 2023 . Many will get re-signed and that will mean we'll lose some we want to keep but can't afford to retain. It doesn't mean those getting more didn't earn new contracts.

Should the teams not post rosters or depth charts, then? Should we have media guessing some players' names and numbers via inside sources? Do we need to be informed when there are coaching changes or cuts or new signings?

It's all useless information when it comes down to it. But increases in transparency increase engagement.

[blue_gold_84]

IMO you're barking up the wrong tree for useless information. We have an SMS and we hear whether teams over spend. The team that spends the most doesn't necessarily win and the team that spends less but wisely may win it all. NOTE: Some teams are public teams and that information is probably available if we choose to find out.

Generally we have an idea of what all the starting QB's earn. Did knowing what Reilly made in 2021 really change anything except raise the salary levels in 2022? Does knowing what Collaros will earn in 2023 raise salaries for the free agent QB's? I don't expect any to earn more than Collaros but they may earn more than might have otherwise.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing when QB's earn 10% of the total SMS spend? It could be argued either way. We could easily say the Lions paying Rourke on an ELC got the best bang for their buck of any player in the CFL. That's the opposite of what happened with what was paid to Reilly in 2021.

Some have suggested capping salaries by position. Others just want the minimums to be raised. All are good arguments but the SMS is spent across the roster. Increase the bottom means less spent at the top ELC or vice versus.

As a fan I don't care how they spend it or where. I care about the net results of how the team does and whether they seemed to have made the correct decisions. That's only partially calculable due to injuries to key highly paid players.

Take Ottawa for example. Masoli probably got a good salary although I don't specifically what he earned. However his injury was luck of the draw. Would they have done better if they had chosen another QB in free agency? Who knows.

We have many potential free agents going into 2023 . Many will get re-signed and that will mean we'll lose some we want to keep but can't afford to retain. It doesn't mean those getting more didn't earn new contracts.

If I had any clue what the hell you were arguing, I'd attempt to respond. Not sure how I'm "barking up the wrong tree" by trying to explain my view on something, either.

Should the teams not post rosters or depth charts, then? Should we have media guessing some players' names and numbers via inside sources? Do we need to be informed when there are coaching changes or cuts or new signings?

It's all useless information when it comes down to it. But increases in transparency increase engagement.

This is more or less what I was trying to explain, so thank you for commenting. We get all sorts of other "useless" information (player signings, trades/transactions, roster moves, releases/firings, etc.) and it encourages discussion, debate, and involvement by fans, media members, and so on.

For whatever reason, the CFL has chosen to maintain the status quo and keep actual salary figures private. Why that continues to remain secretive is asinine, IMO.

We know what the SMS limit (salary cap) is per team. Why is the breakdown vis a vis a team's roster not shared publicly? It's absurd.

[Blue In BC]

If I had any clue what the hell you were arguing, I'd attempt to respond. Not sure how I'm "barking up the wrong tree" by trying to explain my view on something, either.

This is more or less what I was trying to explain, so thank you for commenting. We get all sorts of other "useless" information (player signings, trades/transactions, roster moves, releases/firings, etc.) and it encourages discussion, debate, and involvement by fans, media members, and so on.

For whatever reason, the CFL has chosen to maintain the status quo and keep actual salary figures private. Why that continues to remain secretive is asinine, IMO.

We know what the SMS limit (salary cap) is per team. Why is the breakdown vis a vis a team's roster not shared publicly? It's absurd.

Obviously that information seems to mean something of value to you. We agree to disagree what benefit it would be for fans.

Rosters and depth chart information is an entirely different issue as fans look to determine injury status or additions and deletions. In the 1950-1990's before internet this sort of information was very difficult to get anywhere except via news papers long after the fact. Today there is a need for instant gratification.

Same as free agent lists. While it's not useless, it just allows fan engagement. It's about football. Knowing whether a given player is earning $100K or $200K is not relevant to hearing a player has been re-signed of lost to another team.

[Blue In BC]

Should the teams not post rosters or depth charts, then? Should we have media guessing some players' names and numbers via inside sources? Do we need to be informed when there are coaching changes or cuts or new signings?

It's all useless information when it comes down to it. But increases in transparency increase engagement.

Absurd argument that has nothing to do with the conversation about $$$$$.

[blue_gold_84]

More bad faith arguing. Shocker.

[TecnoGenius]

If I had any clue what the hell you were arguing, I'd attempt to respond. Not sure how I'm "barking up the wrong tree" by trying to explain my view on something, either.

Hahaha, rich.

[blue_gold_84]

Hahaha, rich.

Hahaha, petulant.

[Jesse]

Absurd argument that has nothing to do with the conversation about $$$$$.

It's not about money, it's about transparency.

[Blue In BC]

It's not about money, it's about transparency.

What value is it to know whether Gauthier earns $80K, $120K, of $200K? It's information but what do you do with it? Debating whether a given player earned his salary or deserves more is subjective.  Whether we can afford to offer what a player deserves falls within the entire SMS spend. To some degree it's 1st come 1st served.

What's important is whether we feel the team has built a good roster across the spectrum. Whether that's retaining players or adding free agents.

How they got there is a complex process of what players want, whether they want to join the team and competitive offers from other teams.

That's all you need to know. What makes you think you are entitled to know what players earn, especially on private owned teams?

[ModAdmin]

What value is it to know whether Gauthier earns $80K, $120K, of $200K? It's information but what do you do with it? Debating whether a given player earned his salary or deserves more is subjective.  Whether we can afford to offer what a player deserves falls within the entire SMS spend. To some degree it's 1st come 1st served.

What's important is whether we feel the team has built a good roster across the spectrum. Whether that's retaining players or adding free agents.

How they got there is a complex process of what players want, whether they want to join the team and competitive offers from other teams.

That's all you need to know. What makes you think you are entitled to know what players earn, especially on private owned teams?

Whether a pro football player, accountant, car salesman, etc. etc., who in the world would want their salary to be public knowledge?  Agree with B in BC on this one.

[theaardvark]

With every other sport using salaries as part of the info disclosed about players, it makes the CFL an anomoly.

Good?  Bad?  No, just different.

It does reduce some of the wagering, and it for sure limits discussion about trades, not knowing who fits under SMS, and while it might be embarrassing to some how little they are paid, it does make discussions on who you should keep or cut more informed, and knowing what we have spent each year so far can make discussions about who we can chase, and how much we could offer...

The agents know, the GM's know, the league knows, the reporters find out approximate numbers, what does revealing it change?

As to comparing a professional athlete to a car salesman re: income, you have to admit, its not even close to the same thing.  If every car dealer except Ford revealed their salary structure, and Ford didn't, you'd find that odd.  That is the way it is in pro sports. 

Every pro player, other than CFL, has his salary as public knowledge.  Minor league baseball, minor hockey, spring football... all public.

Is the CFL or CFLPA embarrassed about how little the players are paid?  Do we assume they are paid even less than they are because we don't know?  We know the min salaries, which most players are getting, the exact salary of Global players (until next year), etc...  I'm not sure the reasoning for limiting this information.

[Jesse]

What value is it to know whether Gauthier earns $80K, $120K, of $200K? It's information but what do you do with it? Debating whether a given player earned his salary or deserves more is subjective.  Whether we can afford to offer what a player deserves falls within the entire SMS spend. To some degree it's 1st come 1st served.

What's important is whether we feel the team has built a good roster across the spectrum. Whether that's retaining players or adding free agents.

How they got there is a complex process of what players want, whether they want to join the team and competitive offers from other teams.

That's all you need to know. What makes you think you are entitled to know what players earn, especially on private owned teams?

It?s a salary cap league and contracts allows us to understand the team building part of FA.

Again, all information is valuable or none of it is. None of this has any real world value that affects our lives, it?s just stuff to talk about.

[TBURGESS]

I think all salaries should be public. Companies would have to justify everyone's salary. You'd know where you stand within your company & you'd know who was paying more for the job you do.

It would be great for the worker's to simply look at the list and say 'I'm worth more' or 'X isn't worth that' or maybe even 'Why does my boss make so much more than I do'.

It would be a lot more work for Companies and they'd hate having to justify anyone's salary, which is the reason they tell us you shouldn't talk about how much you make.

[Blue In BC]

I think all salaries should be public. Companies would have to justify everyone's salary. You'd know where you stand within your company & you'd know who was paying more for the job you do.

It would be great for the worker's to simply look at the list and say 'I'm worth more' or 'X isn't worth that' or maybe even 'Why does my boss make so much more than I do'.

It would be a lot more work for Companies and they'd hate having to justify anyone's salary, which is the reason they tell us you shouldn't talk about how much you make.

Everybody thinks they are worth more. Everybody wants more. It's a vicious circle.

[TBURGESS]

Everybody thinks they are worth more. Everybody wants more. It's a vicious circle.

Sure it is, but the only folks who gain from people not talking about how much they make is the companies who pay them.

[Blue In BC]

Sure it is, but the only folks who gain from people not talking about how much they make is the companies who pay them.

Ok. What do you do for a living and how much do you earn?

[blue_gold_84]

Ok. What do you do for a living and how much do you earn?

I thought you didn't care about how much money someone makes...

[Blue In BC]

I thought you didn't care about how much money someone makes...

I don't. However I want to see how freely the poster that DOES is willing to share his salary. It's his argument and I want to see if he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.  I await his response.

Any bets on whether he is willing to disclose?

Obviously his co-workers won't know who he is to relate to their salaries, but it's an interesting question.

[Jesse]

I don't. However I want to see how freely the poster that DOES is willing to share his salary. It's his argument and I want to see if he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.  I await his response.

Any bets on whether he is willing to disclose?

Obviously his co-workers won't know who he is to relate to their salaries, but it's an interesting question.

I'm a teacher and my salary is a matter of public record.

[blue_gold_84]

I don't. However I want to see how freely the poster that DOES is willing to share his salary. It's his argument and I want to see if he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Seems like you're arguing solely for the sake of arguing.

On the one hand, you don't seem to care about CFL player salaries being accessible to the public, but then ask a poster on here what his salary is. To what end, exactly?

I'm a teacher and my salary is a matter of public record.

I'm a public/civil servant and mine is, too. That said, I couldn't give a rip who knows what I make and I'm glad those who do are able to access that information for the sake of transparency.

[Blue In BC]

Seems like you're arguing solely for the sake of arguing.

On the one hand, you don't seem to care about CFL player salaries being accessible to the public, but then ask a poster on here what his salary is. To what end, exactly?

I'm a public/civil servant and mine is, too. That said, I couldn't give a rip who knows what I make and I'm glad those who do are able to access that information for the sake of transparency.

Reading comprehension problem? I said exactly why I ask was asking him. Seriously, is it that difficult to understand my one short one line post?

[TBURGESS]

Ok. What do you do for a living and how much do you earn?

I'm retired and my CPP/OAS are a matter of public record.

I was an IT Professional in my working life. Last salary was about 15 years ago. $110K-ish plus bonuses.

What do you do, and how much to you earn?

[Blue In BC]

I'm retired and my CPP/OAS are a matter of public record.

I was an IT Professional in my working life. Last salary was about 15 years ago. $110K-ish plus bonuses.

What do you do, and how much to you earn?

Nice gig and salary. Did your co-workers know what your salary was and / or did you know theirs?

I've been retired for a little over 11 years. I was a Director of Operations in an electronics manufacturing firm. Responsible for planning, purchasing, manufacturing, quality, shipping and receiving. Note that the company was privately owned and not a public company. My salary was confidential and part of my NDA.

Come to think about it, most of my salaries over the last 15 years of employment were part of my NDA's.

Why would I disclose my salary history when I've argued I'm opposed to that concept?

[blue_gold_84]

LOL

[Jesse]

Nice gig and salary. Did your co-workers know what your salary was and / or did you know theirs?

I've been retired for a little over 11 years. I was a Director of Operations in an electronics manufacturing firm. Responsible for planning, purchasing, manufacturing, quality, shipping and receiving. Note that the company was privately owned and not a public company. My salary was confidential and part of my NDA.

Come to think about it, most of my salaries over the last 15 years of employment were part of my NDA's.

Why would I disclose my salary history when I've argued I'm opposed to that concept?

That is some BS right there.

[Blue In BC]

That is some BS right there.

Apparently you don't know much about contracts for executives in private companies. Calling me out on that shows your ignorance.

Previously from 1967-1992 I was a union employee in 4 different unions. As such everyone knew how much the others were earning by job classification and number of years worked. Noting that " merit " had nothing to do with how much each person earned.

Obviously as either a government and / or union employee, that information was available publicly etc etc for you.

[blue_gold_84]

Obviously as either a government and / or union employee, that information was available publicly etc etc for you.

The CFL (CFLPA) being the obvious exception.

[Blue In BC]

The CFL (CFLPA) being the obvious exception.

I thought about that. Some teams are public owned and others are private. So some salary information might be available for the public teams like the Bombers. Or it may just show up as a total cost line item. The profit and loss is available for the public teams and the SMS determines which teams under spend to the floor or over spend to the cap.

[Jesse]

Apparently you don't know much about contracts for executives in private companies. Calling me out on that shows your ignorance.

Previously from 1967-1992 I was a union employee in 4 different unions. As such everyone knew how much the others were earning by job classification and number of years worked. Noting that " merit " had nothing to do with how much each person earned.

Obviously as either a government and / or union employee, that information was available publicly etc etc for you.

I'm not calling you out at all - I am simply saying that including that as part of an NDA is corporate BS.

It is 100% protecting the company at the expense of the employee.

[TBURGESS]

Nice gig and salary. Did your co-workers know what your salary was and / or did you know theirs?

I've been retired for a little over 11 years. I was a Director of Operations in an electronics manufacturing firm. Responsible for planning, purchasing, manufacturing, quality, shipping and receiving. Note that the company was privately owned and not a public company. My salary was confidential and part of my NDA.

Come to think about it, most of my salaries over the last 15 years of employment were part of my NDA's.

Why would I disclose my salary history when I've argued I'm opposed to that concept?

I knew everyone underneath me's salary, but not those above or the same as me. Salaries weren't posted but salary bands were, so folks knew if they were in the bottom, middle, or top of their band.

I know some folks were being paid too much just because they'd been with the company for a long time and others weren't being paid enough considering their contribution to the workload.

As a Director, I'm sure you'd hate having to justify everyone's salary and hate everyone knowing what your salary was. As I've said before, not talking salary is great for those who are at the top and those who are deciding other peoples salaries, but it's bad for the workers. As there are more workers than management, I'd err on their side.

On a side note... I think NDA's should be illegal.

[Jesse]

I knew everyone underneath me's salary, but not those above or the same as me. Salaries weren't posted but salary bands were, so folks knew if they were in the bottom, middle, or top of their band.

I know some folks were being paid too much just because they'd been with the company for a long time and others weren't being paid enough considering their contribution to the workload.

As a Director, I'm sure you'd hate having to justify everyone's salary and hate everyone knowing what your salary was. As I've said before, not talking salary is great for those who are at the top and those who are deciding other peoples salaries, but it's bad for the workers. As there are more workers than management, I'd err on their side.

On a side note... I think NDA's should be illegal.

All of this.

[Blue In BC]

I'm not calling you out at all - I am simply saying that including that as part of an NDA is corporate BS.

It is 100% protecting the company at the expense of the employee.

Fair enough but how is the salary of any executive at the expense of the employees? I've hired staff at minimum wage and I've hired staff based on previous salary and / or abilities. It all depends on what work is expected of them and their responsibilities.

The salary of a shipper / receiver has no reflection of an RD engineer.

I remember a union representative ( as one of the union workers  suggesting ) that the receptionist and / or an employee sweeping the floor should all earn exactly the same amount as an engineer or accountant. All those positions were union positions with different job classifications.

[Blue In BC]

I knew everyone underneath me's salary, but not those above or the same as me. Salaries weren't posted but salary bands were, so folks knew if they were in the bottom, middle, or top of their band.

I know some folks were being paid too much just because they'd been with the company for a long time and others weren't being paid enough considering their contribution to the workload.

As a Director, I'm sure you'd hate having to justify everyone's salary and hate everyone knowing what your salary was. As I've said before, not talking salary is great for those who are at the top and those who are deciding other peoples salaries, but it's bad for the workers. As there are more workers than management, I'd err on their side.

On a side note... I think NDA's should be illegal.

Wanting NDA's or thinking they should be illegal is just a WOW comment. Those inevitably include protecting IP from competitors. Normally that includes non compete clauses for that same reason.

I can see we're no where near being on the same planet of thought. NDA's is something that exists and has existed longer than we've been around. Not sharing salary info is not new either.

[blue_gold_84]

I thought about that. Some teams are public owned and others are private. So some salary information might be available for the public teams like the Bombers. Or it may just show up as a total cost line item. The profit and loss is available for the public teams and the SMS determines which teams under spend to the floor or over spend to the cap.

But all players are unionized employees of the CFL. And all teams, irrespective of ownership structure, have to operate within the framework of the SMS, which is publicly disclosed. It seems incongruent to share the SMS limit (or budget) while keeping player salaries (which are in effect budget figures) secret.

We see other professional leagues operate with transparency regarding its team budgets and player salaries. I'm simply at a loss to understand why the CFL is an exception; it seems like nothing more than status quo.

NDA's is something that exists and has existed longer than we've been around. Not sharing salary info is not new either.

This doesn't justify keeping something in place, though. Status quo or "that's just the way it is and has always been" isn't a sturdy defense, IMO.

[Blue In BC]

But all players are unionized employees of the CFL. And all teams, irrespective of ownership structure, have to operate within the framework of the SMS, which is publicly disclosed. It seems incongruent to share the SMS limit (or budget) while keeping player salaries (which are in effect budget figures) secret.

We see other professional leagues operate with transparency regarding its team budgets and player salaries. I'm simply at a loss to understand why the CFL is an exception; it seems like nothing more than status quo.

This doesn't justify keeping something in place, though. Status quo or "that's just the way it is and has always been" isn't a sturdy defense, IMO.

Sports unions are a bit of an oddity. In the NFL there are players making $50M a season. IMO those unions are more about setting safety and generalized rules about minimum salary levels.

There is no comparison or benefit for a 3rd string QB knowing what the # 1 QB earns although in the NFL that info is often disclosed. At best transparency is interesting but not actionable.

NDA's are a protection for IP and entirely warranted. It has nothing to do with maintaining status quo. Are you going to argue that patents shouldn't be legal either?  Business need to protect IP and other competitive advantages.

[theaardvark]

Another point of contention...

Community owned team, does the community that owns the team have the right to know what the players are individually paid?

Again, I see no downside to the information being public, only upside.  Players/unions that are too embarrassed to let anyone know how little they make should be glad to have those numbers known, so that they can bargain better, and garner fan support of their cause for increased compensation.

If a fan thinks player a is getting $90K but is only getting $65k, their opinion of the value of that player, and how well the GM is doing his job might change.  On the other side, if a player is thought to be getting $125K but is actually getting $175k,  a fan may think they are a bargain when they aren't...

Again, most of the pertinent contracts are exposed by reporters eventually.  And most of the offers players received / turned down are also found out.  Look at the whole AH33 fiasco last year.  Why do his numbers become public knowledge, and other player don't?

[TBURGESS]

Wanting NDA's or thinking they should be illegal is just a WOW comment. Those inevitably include protecting IP from competitors. Normally that includes non compete clauses for that same reason.

I can see we're no where near being on the same planet of thought. NDA's is something that exists and has existed longer than we've been around. Not sharing salary info is not new either.

NDA's and not talking about salary have both existed for a long time. Both are good for companies and bad for workers.

NDA's that say you can't share your salary aren't about protecting the company from competitors. NDA's sometimes protect companies from litigation for illegal things they've done. Non compete clauses are to hold on to your services even if you don't want to be there any more or if you are offered more money elsewhere.

In a far world, and I know the world isn't fair, NDA's to protect anything other than company secrets would be illegal & talking about salary would be something that everyone does to make sure they aren't being taken advantage of by the companies.

Keeping salaries secret allows companies to say whatever they want about a candidates or employees salary expectations. Folks who are looking for a job should have access to the actual salaries of folks who do what they do. Folks who work for a company should also have access to the companies salaries. All this would put the workers on even footing with companies when it comes to salary, benefits, etc.

Companies would fight tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen, but they can't stop employees from sharing their salaries except by NDA's, which most folks don't have to sign. Imagine a world where everyone knows how much they are worth to companies? Probably sent a chill down your spine! This could happen at a lower level than NDA folks starting today.

FTR: I'm not a commie. I don't think everyone deserves the same amount of money. I don't agree with equal pay for work of equal value because someone has to decide what equal value is. I don't believe that race, sex, religion or lack thereof, or skin colour or where you ancestors were born should have anything to do with how much make or don't make & therefore shouldn't be on any resume.

[theaardvark]

NDA's are there for a purpose, and if you want the job (and an obvious reason would be the pay) then you sign the NDA...

It works both ways... You may think that you signed a great deal, and the NDA keeps you thinking that, even if the person in the next office is making twice what you are... and the person in the next office may expect you are making more than you are, and expects you to earn it...

[Blue In BC]

Another point of contention...

Community owned team, does the community that owns the team have the right to know what the players are individually paid?

Again, I see no downside to the information being public, only upside.  Players/unions that are too embarrassed to let anyone know how little they make should be glad to have those numbers known, so that they can bargain better, and garner fan support of their cause for increased compensation.

If a fan thinks player a is getting $90K but is only getting $65k, their opinion of the value of that player, and how well the GM is doing his job might change.  On the other side, if a player is thought to be getting $125K but is actually getting $175k,  a fan may think they are a bargain when they aren't...

Again, most of the pertinent contracts are exposed by reporters eventually.  And most of the offers players received / turned down are also found out.  Look at the whole AH33 fiasco last year.  Why do his numbers become public knowledge, and other player don't?

The downside is friction between players or employees. If you think you are worth more than someone doing a similar job that makes more, that makes it a difficult in the workplace.  Money is not a motivational tool. It doesn't lead to an increase in productivity.

Even among fans. As I asked does it really matter if we know that Gauthier is making $80K or $120K? We only want to know he's playing well at any level. Management determines his worth and their need. How that compares to Briggs for example is subjective. On field performance and leadership are measured by the coaches. They may be equal or one may be lessor.

[Blue In BC]

NDA's and not talking about salary have both existed for a long time. Both are good for companies and bad for workers.

NDA's that say you can't share your salary aren't about protecting the company from competitors. NDA's sometimes protect companies from litigation for illegal things they've done. Non compete clauses are to hold on to your services even if you don't want to be there any more or if you are offered more money elsewhere.

In a far world, and I know the world isn't fair, NDA's to protect anything other than company secrets would be illegal & talking about salary would be something that everyone does to make sure they aren't being taken advantage of by the companies.

Keeping salaries secret allows companies to say whatever they want about a candidates or employees salary expectations. Folks who are looking for a job should have access to the actual salaries of folks who do what they do. Folks who work for a company should also have access to the companies salaries. All this would put the workers on even footing with companies when it comes to salary, benefits, etc.

Companies would fight tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen, but they can't stop employees from sharing their salaries except by NDA's, which most folks don't have to sign. Imagine a world where everyone knows how much they are worth to companies? Probably sent a chill down your spine! This could happen at a lower level than NDA folks starting today.

FTR: I'm not a commie. I don't think everyone deserves the same amount of money. I don't agree with equal pay for work of equal value because someone has to decide what equal value is. I don't believe that race, sex, religion or lack thereof, or skin colour or where you ancestors were born should have anything to do with how much make or don't make & therefore shouldn't be on any resume.

That's a very narrow view. COMPANIES have owners and businesses are for profit enterprises. Employees are not generally owners.  You just defined free enterprise in a capitalistic society.

To suggest that two people doing similar jobs could potentially be worth equal amounts is unrealistic in the real world. Equity is salary anywhere determined by the employee ask and the company offer. Two sides to every coin but no two positions are exactly the same. Motivation, work ethic, self actualization, knowledge and productivity are all part of the spectrum being analyzed by employers. Some employees just show up and do the minimum required. Recently media has spoken about " quiet quitting " which I think was the term used.

In 1988 I worked within a unionized purchasing team of about 12 people in Burnaby. All long term staff at the top of the union set wage. I saved $3M usd which was more than the other 11 in total or any individual in 2 other company manufacturing plants ( also unionized ). All this was formally documented as " accounting proof " of those savings.

There were no bonus's aside from an invitation to a company dinner and info published in company newspaper. Whenever there were either short or long term layoffs it was done purely by seniority. Life is not fair.

In 2009 as a manager in a global company I saved about $4M usd in the last year of employment. The company had been sold in 2008 and we all knew that everybody from CEO down to Manager would be displaced in 2009. I was displaced in August 2009. Not only no bonus but not even enough to save my position. Locally about 350 employees 30 year old company. Acquired by a company with $30B usd in revenue with over 100,000 employees in about 100 countries.

It made perfect sense for the company to centralize / globalize many functions elsewhere. I've been caught in that dynamic 3 or 4 times being acquired by multi billion $$ companies.

For those that like the work from home idea. No doubt that's an advantage for employees which I support and don't dispute. However a bit of info shared from the company mentioned above. For every RD engineer we move from Burnaby to India we save about $50K USD. That's the problem retaining those that can work remotely in large organizations. Remotely can be anywhere in the world.

Again. Life is not fair.

[TBURGESS]

That's a very narrow view. COMPANIES have owners and businesses are for profit enterprises. Employees are not generally owners.  You just defined free enterprise in a capitalistic society.

To suggest that two people doing similar jobs could potentially be worth equal amounts is unrealistic in the real world. Equity is salary anywhere determined by the employee ask and the company offer. Two sides to every coin but no two positions are exactly the same. Motivation, work ethic, self actualization, knowledge and productivity are all part of the spectrum being analyzed by employers. Some employees just show up and do the minimum required. Recently media has spoken about " quiet quitting " which I think was the term used.

In 1988 I worked within a unionized purchasing team of about 12 people in Burnaby. All long term staff at the top of the union set wage. I saved $3M usd which was more than the other 11 in total or any individual in 2 other company manufacturing plants ( also unionized ). All this was formally documented as " accounting proof " of those savings.

There were no bonus's aside from an invitation to a company dinner and info published in company newspaper. Whenever there were either short or long term layoffs it was done purely by seniority. Life is not fair.

In 2009 as a manager in a global company I saved about $4M usd in the last year of employment. The company had been sold in 2008 and we all knew that everybody from CEO down to Manager would be displaced in 2009. I was displaced in August 2009. Not only no bonus but not even enough to save my position. Locally about 350 employees 30 year old company. Acquired by a company with $30B usd in revenue with over 100,000 employees in about 100 countries.

It made perfect sense for the company to centralize / globalize many functions elsewhere. I've been caught in that dynamic 3 or 4 times being acquired by multi billion $$ companies.

For those that like the work from home idea. No doubt that's an advantage for employees which I support and don't dispute. However a bit of info shared from the company mentioned above. For every RD engineer we move from Burnaby to India we save about $50K USD. That's the problem retaining those that can work remotely in large organizations. Remotely can be anywhere in the world.

Again. Life is not fair.

I knew you wouldn't like the idea of workers sharing salary information. You know that it would decrease profit, while giving more money to those who are at the non-management level of companies. Redistributing money from the best paid to the less paid is a very good idea for the economy & a very good idea for most people.

Employee ask and company offer is only fair if both have access to the same information & we both know that's not true unless employees share that information.

Two employees doing the same job should be in the same salary band. The one doing the job better should be paid more. If one isn't worth being in the pay band replace them. Just because there are salary bands doesn't mean that you have to stick to them. You could and should pay your stars more than the pay band.

Quiet quitting is doing what's in the job description for the pay you are getting. It's fair from an employee standpoint as they are doing what they're being paid for. Those folks should be paid the minimum as per the job description. Folks doing a job over and above the job description should get a good raise and an expanded job description.

Doing a great job doesn't save your position, but it does make the company more money, you should personally gain too. Down sizing, right sizing, off shoring are all ways that companies can reduce costs to make more money. None of them are reasons not to share salary information.

I'm not talking about unions, who have their place. I'm talking about fair compensation based on real information instead of upper management saying 'how little can I pay this guy/gal and still retain them'?

Anyway, this has been interesting to the two of us, but it's a football forum, so we should shut this one down.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I think all salaries should be public. Companies would have to justify everyone's salary. You'd know where you stand within your company & you'd know who was paying more for the job you do.

It would be great for the worker's to simply look at the list and say 'I'm worth more' or 'X isn't worth that' or maybe even 'Why does my boss make so much more than I do'.

It would be a lot more work for Companies and they'd hate having to justify anyone's salary, which is the reason they tell us you shouldn't talk about how much you make.

Agree, it's better from a player perspective if they can compare their value to similar positional and talented players in the league and ask to get paid accordingly.  I don't know if there are still any shysters left controlling CFL teams, but people of this nature will always look for innocent or na?ve people they can exploit in the guise of making an extra buck. 

[Blue In BC]

I knew you wouldn't like the idea of workers sharing salary information. You know that it would decrease profit, while giving more money to those who are at the non-management level of companies. Redistributing money from the best paid to the less paid is a very good idea for the economy & a very good idea for most people.

Employee ask and company offer is only fair if both have access to the same information & we both know that's not true unless employees share that information.

Two employees doing the same job should be in the same salary band. The one doing the job better should be paid more. If one isn't worth being in the pay band replace them. Just because there are salary bands doesn't mean that you have to stick to them. You could and should pay your stars more than the pay band.

Quiet quitting is doing what's in the job description for the pay you are getting. It's fair from an employee standpoint as they are doing what they're being paid for. Those folks should be paid the minimum as per the job description. Folks doing a job over and above the job description should get a good raise and an expanded job description.

Doing a great job doesn't save your position, but it does make the company more money, you should personally gain too. Down sizing, right sizing, off shoring are all ways that companies can reduce costs to make more money. None of them are reasons not to share salary information.

I'm not talking about unions, who have their place. I'm talking about fair compensation based on real information instead of upper management saying 'how little can I pay this guy/gal and still retain them'?

Anyway, this has been interesting to the two of us, but it's a football forum, so we should shut this one down.

Company growth is not a direct line to employee salary. McDonald's didn't grow to a global empire by paying top wages to most staff. OTOH, they created thousands of jobs and opportunity to advance to people. Low cost food to the massed.

Even today companies like McDonalds have low entry wage jobs. That said many of these people taking these entry level positions at entry level wages are young and inexperienced.

So it's a hard line on company profitability versus growth that provides these jobs. Noting that increased profitability is also not necessarily a direct line to growth.

Owners of businesses are entitled to reap what they sow in a capitalistic society. Advantage has to be to the owner.

I can't dispute that in doing a great job, it improves the chances of the organizations success. A person should also enjoy that in some form or fashion that is not directly just a higher wage.

In my career I have had salary increases and / or promotion based on performance. In other situations a hybrid of those benefits as well as significant " freedom / latitude " to do whatever I wanted based on continued successes beneficial to the company.

The quiet quitting thing is employees doing just enough to get by. Technically doing what they are paid to do. That's the thing that gets those employees let go 1st when downsizing occurs. It doesn't promote incentive to work smarter not harder. 

A small idea / comment can be a significant solution to resolve some issue even if others carried the idea to resolution. Managers are facilitators as well as idea resource people.

Anyway. These conversations have been merged into a separate thread but we could also just move further conversations in PM's? I'm going to send you one example.

[TBURGESS]

I've got nothing against low paying jobs. I don't think that all jobs should be paid the same. That's not the argument.

If companies can't be profitable if employee salaries are shared then they shouldn't be profitable. If companies go under because they can't afford to pay people the going rate, they should go under.

If sharing salary information means a lot of employees are looking for more money or moving to get more money, then they are, by definition, being underpaid.

Owners remuneration should also be public. Let them justify their own salaries too.

Advantage to owners is where we are now and it's leading us to a dystopian future where the only thing that matters is how much money the richest in the world can hoard. Most of them aren't smarter or work harder, they are simply members of the lucky sperm club. IE: Born into the right family.

Wages make workers happier until they get to a point where they have enough to do everything they want to do. After that point it's about keeping score. I remember getting 'gifts' from my company and saying 'look what I got instead of a raise' my wife remembers the same thing and she worked at a different place. Employees want money as much as owners do.

[BlueInCgy]

And it?s going to be a looonnngggggg offseason with these type of posts.

I don?t care what CFLers make for the simple reason that most contracts (barring QBs and actual elite players) are in line with professional salaries common in the cities CFL teams reside.  And that?s also the reason I think most salaries in the CFL aren?t made public - these guys honestly aren?t (for the most part) making big money, and in a lot of cases are making unimpressive salaries.  You also don?t need a lot of shop talk in a low ceiling salary cap league, because it?s hard enough to field a team within those constraints.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

The CFL should list salaries like virtually every other sports league. It helps create off-season discussion which is badly needed. It would give fans insights into the different team building strategies in the SMS world. Everyone knows the player salary cap and knows the minimum contracts anyway. Plenty of careers have salary disclosures in annual reports or as common knowledge based on seniority: government officials, non-profits, public sector jobs and most professional athletes, to name a few. I also argue that the modern sports fan expects this information. Why make it hard for fans to be fanatical?

[Blue In BC]

But all players are unionized employees of the CFL. And all teams, irrespective of ownership structure, have to operate within the framework of the SMS, which is publicly disclosed. It seems incongruent to share the SMS limit (or budget) while keeping player salaries (which are in effect budget figures) secret.

We see other professional leagues operate with transparency regarding its team budgets and player salaries. I'm simply at a loss to understand why the CFL is an exception; it seems like nothing more than status quo.

This doesn't justify keeping something in place, though. Status quo or "that's just the way it is and has always been" isn't a sturdy defense, IMO.

Agree, status quo is not a sturdy defence. The CFL is the only team with a ratio. That means Canadian players come at a premium in cost.

Want to get rid of the ratio and agree to keep the best players rather than a forced mandate?

Our marketplace is a different supply / demand problem.

[blue_or_die]

?did I just agree with everything TBurg said?

[blue_gold_84]

If you don't understand how the CFL is different from other professional sports leagues, that's not my fault.

As to making a comment a week later? So what. It's the off season and we'll see comments on several threads that will be on going.

Why did you respond then with a valueless comment?  I made a point. You don't have to agree.

And just to clarify since you didn't get it the 1st time. Letting a small pool of specifically Canadian players know what they all make will re-set demands upwards. That's the impact of the ratio in a supply / demand scenario.

Mental gymnastics and grouchiness. Oof.

[Blue In BC]

Mental gymnastics and grouchiness. Oof.

Not at all. Just giving one of many reasons for not having transparency. Some posters have said they don't see any downside.

Here are others:

Does / should an equal player in Vancouver or another city ( Regina ) have the same value in all instances? A player in Vancouver earning $80K has a much higher cost of living ( rent etc ) than the same player in Regina. If the player in Vancouver perceives he has the same skill value as the other player, does that influence his salary demand?

Put it another way. If your company transferred you to Vancouver, would you expect an increase in salary? Simple question and I'd think most would say yes.

Did the 2021 salary of Mike Reilly influence those of other QB's and in particular Zack Collaros in 2022. Does his new contract influence all the potential free agent QB's going into 2023? Simple answer will be yes.

[blue_gold_84]

Not at all. Just giving one of many reasons for not having transparency. Some posters have said they don't see any downside.

Here are others:

Does / should an equal player in Vancouver or another city ( Regina ) have the same value in all instances? A player in Vancouver earning $80K has a much higher cost of living ( rent etc ) than the same player in Regina. If the player in Vancouver perceives he has the same skill value as the other player, does that influence his salary demand?

Put it another way. If your company transferred you to Vancouver, would you expect an increase in salary? Simple question and I'd think most would say yes.

Did the 2021 salary of Mike Reilly influence those of other QB's and in particular Zack Collaros in 2022. Does his new contract influence all the potential free agent QB's going into 2023? Simple answer will be yes.

This same reasoning could be applied to other professional leagues just the same (and any other myriad of unionized jobs in the world). But they all make their salary figures and contract particulars available to the public without hinderance. A market like Winnipeg is considerably more affordable than Toronto but the NHL (or the NHLPA) takes no umbrage with contract details being publicly disclosed.

The ratio in the CFL helps preserve domestic talent in a sport that is dominated by US players at every position. However, I fail to see how that plays into the CFL choosing to keep salary figures of literally all of its players private or mostly inaccessible, save to a few "insiders" who get to tweet the occasional contract details of high profile players, NAT and non-NAT alike - albeit speculatively.
And while certain high profile NAT players (Demski, for example) will command a premium salary compared to other "low profile" ones, the same applies to non-NAT players (Bighill, for example). But that's not exclusive to the CFL; star and superstar players will always command more money in professional sports of every kind.
So, it seems like a moot point which has little to nothing to do with the league's lack of transparency in regard to financial figures of player salaries.

My point is the league seems to pick and choose what to share with the public (term, money, bonuses, etc.), which comes across as arbitrary. That's essentially why my argument focuses on a glaring lack of transparency relative to other professional sports leagues.

[TBURGESS]

Not at all. Just giving one of many reasons for not having transparency. Some posters have said they don't see any downside.

Here are others:

Does / should an equal player in Vancouver or another city ( Regina ) have the same value in all instances? A player in Vancouver earning $80K has a much higher cost of living ( rent etc ) than the same player in Regina. If the player in Vancouver perceives he has the same skill value as the other player, does that influence his salary demand?

Put it another way. If your company transferred you to Vancouver, would you expect an increase in salary? Simple question and I'd think most would say yes.

Did the 2021 salary of Mike Reilly influence those of other QB's and in particular Zack Collaros in 2022. Does his new contract influence all the potential free agent QB's going into 2023? Simple answer will be yes.

My company did transfer me to Vancouver from Winnipeg and NO, they didn't give me a raise. I'd already paid my mortgage off on my brand new house in River Heights and I ended up with a mortgage in Vancouver that was more than the value of my Winnipeg house. I made all that back and way more when I sold the Vancouver house.

Players values are based on how well they play, not on where they play.

[Blue In BC]

This same reasoning could be applied to other professional leagues just the same (and any other myriad of unionized jobs in the world). But they all make their salary figures and contract particulars available to the public without hinderance. A market like Winnipeg is considerably more affordable than Toronto but the NHL (or the NHLPA) takes no umbrage with contract details being publicly disclosed.

The ratio in the CFL helps preserve domestic talent in a sport that is dominated by US players at every position. However, I fail to see how that plays into the CFL choosing to keep salary figures of literally all of its players private or mostly inaccessible, save to a few "insiders" who get to tweet the occasional contract details of high profile players, NAT and non-NAT alike - albeit speculatively.
And while certain high profile NAT players (Demski, for example) will command a premium salary compared to other "low profile" ones, the same applies to non-NAT players (Bighill, for example). But that's not exclusive to the CFL; star and superstar players will always command more money in professional sports of every kind.
So, it seems like a moot point which has little to nothing to do with the league's lack of transparency in regard to financial figures of player salaries.

My point is the league seems to pick and choose what to share with the public (term, money, bonuses, etc.), which comes across as arbitrary. That's essentially why my argument focuses on a glaring lack of transparency relative to other professional sports leagues.

Other leagues have significantly higher minimum contracts. I don't think you can compare an entry level contract in the NFL or NHL to the CFL.

It this is as obvious as you think then why has the CFL not adopted your concept? That answer seems more obvious.

[Blue In BC]

My company did transfer me to Vancouver from Winnipeg and NO, they didn't give me a raise. I'd already paid my mortgage off on my brand new house in River Heights and I ended up with a mortgage in Vancouver that was more than the value of my Winnipeg house. I made all that back and way more when I sold the Vancouver house.

Players values are based on how well they play, not on where they play.

That's not entirely true. Players take into account " home town " values / savings.


Player values are also dictated by ratio.

[Jesse]

Not at all. Just giving one of many reasons for not having transparency. Some posters have said they don't see any downside.

Here are others:

Does / should an equal player in Vancouver or another city ( Regina ) have the same value in all instances? A player in Vancouver earning $80K has a much higher cost of living ( rent etc ) than the same player in Regina. If the player in Vancouver perceives he has the same skill value as the other player, does that influence his salary demand?

Put it another way. If your company transferred you to Vancouver, would you expect an increase in salary? Simple question and I'd think most would say yes.

Did the 2021 salary of Mike Reilly influence those of other QB's and in particular Zack Collaros in 2022. Does his new contract influence all the potential free agent QB's going into 2023? Simple answer will be yes.

These are questions a player should ask themselves in FA.

Has nothing to do with league transparency.

[Blue In BC]

These are questions a player should ask themselves in FA.

Has nothing to do with league transparency.

Collaros salary was transparent. It will impact the salaries of other potential free agent QB's.

So it has everything to do with the downside of transparency. I don't know how you can say otherwise.

[blue_gold_84]

Other leagues have significantly higher minimum contracts. I don't think you can compare an entry level contract in the NFL or NHL to the CFL.

And? What's the point of stating that as it relates to a professional sporting entity being transparent?

Just because the CFL can't afford to pay its players (employees) more than other leagues doesn't negate the fact its lack of transparency seems capricious and illogical. The CFL shares its SMS cap willfully, despite the fact it's much, much lower compared to those in other leagues.

Collaros salary was transparent. It will impact the salaries of other potential free agent QB's.

As it should. He's been the best QB in the league the last two seasons.

And it wasn't made public by the league, so there was no transparency. An insider shared the salary figures after the fact.

[Blue In BC]

And? What's the point of stating that as it relates to a professional sporting entity being transparent?

Just because the CFL can't afford to pay its players (employees) more than other leagues doesn't negate the fact its lack of transparency seems capricious and illogical. The CFL shares its SMS cap willfully, despite the fact it's much, much lower compared to those in other leagues.

As it should. He's been the best QB in the league the last two seasons.

And it wasn't made public by the league, so there was no transparency. An insider shared the salary figures after the fact.

Point 1: Because we're not in the same financial realm of those leagues. Many teams are not profitable and attendance is declining. Transparency would likely increase more from the bottom up than top down. I don't see that as a good thing.

Point 2: QB's salaries seemed to have been public for a long time. It's irrelevant that the disclosure is made by insider or league sources. The point is that it has a negative impact of other salaries.

Nobody will dispute that Collaros should be the highest paid QB but every salary impacts across the rest of the roster. Hearing it publicly one way or the other creates upward spiral at the top.

It's not entirely unusual to hear what top players earn outside of league sources.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Do enough fans (or potential fans) want this information? If they do, would it help them follow the league or become bigger fans? Would it create interest or buzz in the months when the league is not playing? Do fans expect this information because it is usually offered?

I say the answer is yes to all.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

And? What's the point of stating that as it relates to a professional sporting entity being transparent?

Just because the CFL can't afford to pay its players (employees) more than other leagues doesn't negate the fact its lack of transparency seems capricious and illogical. The CFL shares its SMS cap willfully, despite the fact it's much, much lower compared to those in other leagues.

As it should. He's been the best QB in the league the last two seasons.

And it wasn't made public by the league, so there was no transparency. An insider shared the salary figures after the fact.

Have to agree, more transparency would be good, the CFL has to shed it's stodginess and get with the program.  Fantasy leagues and betting are integral to sports marketing now and they're driven by information and numbers, the more variables the better.

[theaardvark]

Weirdly enough, yes, QB's deals are almost immediately sussed out.  And weird situations, like Hansen's return for a ELC max contract for 2022 with the promise of a lot more in 2023 was "revealed" by the press.  Many years of Stamps QB's being underpaid led to discussions of under the table payments, leading to conjecture re:Bighill's WBB contracts being "great value", especially when renegotiated.  These are all discussions that cannot be made without reporters finding out actual contract details.

I'm sure, if they wanted to, reporters could find out every contract in the CFL. But would the legwork be worth it?

So, keeping the contracts secret really has no legitimate value.  Top contracts, interesting deals, will all be revealed, and usually quite accurately. 

No reason that the CFL/CFLPA should continue the ineffective subterfuge...

[Jesse]

Collaros salary was transparent. It will impact the salaries of other potential free agent QB's.

So it has everything to do with the downside of transparency. I don't know how you can say otherwise.

Agents and teams are going to know the numbers even if we don't. There's no additional impact by bringing fans in the loop (except for positive engagement).

There is no downside.

[Blue In BC]

Agents and teams are going to know the numbers even if we don't. There's no additional impact by bringing fans in the loop (except for positive engagement).

There is no downside.

We've never heard anything from the CFLPA or the league that they feel this would be a good thing. Obviously it isn't something that has been done.

Start a petition and send it off to them or have a reporter bring it up in any interview with the Commish.

[TBURGESS]

We've never heard anything from the CFLPA or the league that they feel this would be a good thing. Obviously it isn't something that has been done.

Start a petition and send it off to them or have a reporter bring it up in any interview with the Commish.

Never heard anything from either of them saying it would be a bad thing either.

Saying that's the way it's always been doesn't mean that's the right way to do it. When I became a manager I told my folks at my first meeting... 'Anyone who says that's the way we've always done things' gets to take the meeting minutes at the next 3 meetings. Say it twice and it's 6 meetings. No one ever said it twice & it forced people to justify why things were done the way they are, which often led to good changes being made.

[the paw]

Agents and teams are going to know the numbers even if we don't. There's no additional impact by bringing fans in the loop (except for positive engagement).

There is no downside.

I think agents and players always had access to salary information anyway. 

I think the rationale for not making it public, is that it (in theory) avoids situations where fans ride players out of town because they aren't "earning their contract".  It would also avoid some of the tinfoil hat speculation that would occur (and occasionally crops up here) about coaches and players gaming the system for various incentive bonuses that might be in the contract.

Having said that, I don't think the rationale holds up any more.  Social media and citizen journalism has created a climate where most of the contracts are leaked eventually (at least the big ones), so its kind of a moot point. 

[Blue In BC]

Never heard anything from either of them saying it would be a bad thing either.

Saying that's the way it's always been doesn't mean that's the right way to do it. When I became a manager I told my folks at my first meeting... 'Anyone who says that's the way we've always done things' gets to take the meeting minutes at the next 3 meetings. Say it twice and it's 6 meetings. No one ever said it twice & it forced people to justify why things were done the way they are, which often led to good changes being made.

You can't prove a positive because you never heard a negative.

I'm no where near being a status quo individual. In fact in my working career I was specifically the manager to change away from status quo situations. Change is made because of advantage found, not changing to where disadvantage is found.

Transparency would be good for some players and bad for others IMO. That would be bad for the " team " just as it would be bad within any non sport environment.

It's interesting that some posters are dead set in maintaining the status quo of the ratio. The league has constantly tweaked that away from status quo. 

The world is a funny place.

[blue_gold_84]

You can't prove a positive because you never heard a negative.

The same way you can't prove a negative because you've never heard a positive.

[Blue In BC]

The same way you can't prove a negative because you've never heard a positive.

You're getting funnier by the day. As I said in anther post, somebody could start a petition to send to the league and / or the CFLPA. They could ask any media personality that goes to interviews with the Commish about the topic.

You could even start a poll on the site to see whether this idea is considered something that should happen or whether they even consider it an important to them.

I can't think of any company I ever worked for ( besides unions ) that wanted this information shared.

[Jesse]

You're getting funnier by the day. As I said in anther post, somebody could start a petition to send to the league and / or the CFLPA. They could ask any media personality that goes to interviews with the Commish about the topic.

You could even start a poll on the site to see whether this idea is considered something that should happen or whether they even consider it an important to them.

I can't think of any company I ever worked for ( besides unions ) that wanted this information shared.

Obviously, companies wouldn't. Much harder for them to take advantage of their workers.

That point aside - Sports leagues are in an entirely different position because salary disclosures increase fan engagement. Ambrosie stood at a podium a few weeks ago saying we need to create more content. Salary cap transparency is free content for the league that would get fans talking and engaging with each other.

[Blue In BC]

Obviously, companies wouldn't. Much harder for them to take advantage of their workers.

That point aside - Sports leagues are in an entirely different position because salary disclosures increase fan engagement. Ambrosie stood at a podium a few weeks ago saying we need to create more content. Salary cap transparency is free content for the league that would get fans talking and engaging with each other.

Even if that was true it's a risk / reward question.

I mentioned that 246 players are potential free agents. We usually see about 70 players move to other teams each free agency. The lack of roster stability is a problem for fan interest and / or loyalty across many teams. Attendance is dropping.

Content and fans talking can be useful but does it relate to the on field product or game day experience?

I'm waiting to see how new ownership in Vancouver tries to resolve these sorts of issues. He has come up with decent ideas but it's still in the early stages. High profile music acts before or during half time. Discounted tickets and opening up the upper stadium level.

Bringing back the dinner and game with bus transport to and from the game. Incorporating Indigenous culture activities as part of the game day experience.

Bombers and some teams have done that with flying in people from across the province.



1 year contracts, NFL option ideas are good for players and not so good supporting the roster stability. We often hear arguments both supporting or complaining on one side or the other of that argument.

[TBURGESS]

The status quo is the opposite of change. You must question 'what we've always done' in order to change it.

I haven't heard anyone ask for it doesn't mean that it isn't something that folks want or even that folks haven't asked for it. It doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do or that it wouldn't make things fairer for most people.

It's funny that some folks assume that players salaries at the bottom of the scale would rise if everyone knew how much they were making. That assumption means that the 'No Disclosure' folks know that salary disclosure means justifying salaries & that the bottom of the scale are currently getting screwed.

A fan poll would be ignored and everyone knows that.

Do the owners want all salaries to be public? I doubt it. No employer wants their employees to know what everyone makes because it will cause problems for them. From a management point of view, it's scary to have to justify everyone's salary, including their own. It's easier to give the Type A people a pay bump when they ask for it knowing that they are the only ones who will and there are way more of the other types of people who won't get the salary bump.

[Jesse]

Even if that was true it's a risk / reward question

Stop. There's zero risk or downside to making the league more transparent.

Content and fans talking can be useful but does it relate to the on field product or game day experience?

This is literally what the NFL is built on. 24/7, 365 content throughout the year. More eyeballs, more advertisers, more money, etc.

The rest of your post is talking about completely separate issues that have no bearing on the discussion at all.

[blue_or_die]

You can't prove a positive because you never heard a negative.

I'm no where near being a status quo individual. In fact in my working career I was specifically the manager to change away from status quo situations. Change is made because of advantage found, not changing to where disadvantage is found.

Transparency would be good for some players and bad for others IMO. That would be bad for the " team " just as it would be bad within any non sport environment.

It's interesting that some posters are dead set in maintaining the status quo of the ratio. The league has constantly tweaked that away from status quo. 

The world is a funny place.

The only way it's "bad" for some players is because they would come under scrutiny if they're underperforming for what they're paid. That's a GOOD thing because it holds them accountable and a market correction would be used for their next contract. It already happens because teams know player salaries anyway so as others have said, the public knowing presents little extra influence nor downside.

There SHOULD be friction and questioning between those earning high vs. low salaries because it challenges us to question the pecking order at any given time and allows for a true free market of labour to efficiently and accurately assign value. Not having this means that some people will make more money vs the value they bring as well as the opposite and actually makes the company run less efficiently. The reason companies are less likely to adopt this sort of freedom of information is because, namely, they would rather have staff stability rather than having a dynamic bidding scenario. As long as everyone is quiet, they must be happy, right?

A perfect example is a coworker of mine who accidentally found out that a counterpart was making 40% more than her. She thought that she was being compensated at market rate and how would she possibly know she's not? She since quit and found a similar job getting paid much more. Her livelihood was literally changed forever because she accidentally found out that she was being lowballed. If there was a way of knowing more and sooner, that never would have happened and the company paying her more would have found her sooner and would have gotten that much more productivity out of her.

[blue_gold_84]

I can't think of any company I ever worked for ( besides unions ) that wanted this information shared.

Your anecdote is proof of nothing. Absolutely nothing.

You're getting funnier by the day.

How ironic.

Stop. There's zero risk or downside to making the league more transparent.

This is literally what the NFL is built on. 24/7, 365 content throughout the year. More eyeballs, more advertisers, more money, etc.

The rest of your post is talking about completely separate issues that have no bearing on the discussion at all.

Agreed.

[Blue In BC]

The only way it's "bad" for some players is because they would come under scrutiny if they're underperforming for what they're paid. That's a GOOD thing because it holds them accountable and a market correction would be used for their next contract. It already happens because teams know player salaries anyway so as others have said, the public knowing presents little extra influence nor downside.

There SHOULD be friction and questioning between those earning high vs. low salaries because it challenges us to question the pecking order at any given time and allows for a true free market of labour to efficiently and accurately assign value. Not having this means that some people will make more money vs the value they bring as well as the opposite and actually makes the company run less efficiently. The reason companies are less likely to adopt this sort of freedom of information is because, namely, they would rather have staff stability rather than having a dynamic bidding scenario. As long as everyone is quiet, they must be happy, right?

A perfect example is a coworker of mine who accidentally found out that a counterpart was making 40% more than her. She thought that she was being compensated at market rate and how would she possibly know she's not? She since quit and found a similar job getting paid much more. Her livelihood was literally changed forever because she accidentally found out that she was being lowballed. If there was a way of knowing more and sooner, that never would have happened and the company paying her more would have found her sooner and would have gotten that much more productivity out of her.

Stop. There's zero risk or downside to making the league more transparent.

This is literally what the NFL is built on. 24/7, 365 content throughout the year. More eyeballs, more advertisers, more money, etc.

The rest of your post is talking about completely separate issues that have no bearing on the discussion at all.

Billion dollar industry. 60K - 100K stadiums filled to capacity in most cities. Super Bowl tickets costing $5000 - $30000K? Population of 350M.

The rest of my comments were about status quo versus no status quo. Just gave another and more hard fought question about whether something should change.

BTW, your example of a co-worker. That's a bigger discussion about equity eliminating sexism and racism from the equation. I wouldn't agree that transparency was the primary issue. I also wouldn't agree that paying somebody more guarantees greater productivity.


One or more posters suggested there is zero risk. I said it's a risk to the company and you just provided that example. It creates friction. In your example 40% was significant enough to quit. What happens if the difference is lower into the 5%-10%? That creates friction.

What a person believes they are worth compared to another is a slippery slope. Counterpart is a wide meaning word. Similar age, training, experience, work ethic are never identical.

[blue_gold_84]

Billion dollar industry. 60K - 100K stadiums filled to capacity in most cities. Super Bowl tickets costing $5000 - $30000K? Population of 350M.

What does any of that have to do with a league opting to be more transparent?

That bolded part is not accurate, either. (https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2022/01/11/NFL-Attendance.aspx)

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The only way it's "bad" for some players is because they would come under scrutiny if they're underperforming for what they're paid. That's a GOOD thing because it holds them accountable and a market correction would be used for their next contract. It already happens because teams know player salaries anyway so as others have said, the public knowing presents little extra influence nor downside.

There SHOULD be friction and questioning between those earning high vs. low salaries because it challenges us to question the pecking order at any given time and allows for a true free market of labour to efficiently and accurately assign value. Not having this means that some people will make more money vs the value they bring as well as the opposite and actually makes the company run less efficiently. The reason companies are less likely to adopt this sort of freedom of information is because, namely, they would rather have staff stability rather than having a dynamic bidding scenario. As long as everyone is quiet, they must be happy, right?

A perfect example is a coworker of mine who accidentally found out that a counterpart was making 40% more than her. She thought that she was being compensated at market rate and how would she possibly know she's not? She since quit and found a similar job getting paid much more. Her livelihood was literally changed forever because she accidentally found out that she was being lowballed. If there was a way of knowing more and sooner, that never would have happened and the company paying her more would have found her sooner and would have gotten that much more productivity out of her.

Good example, we all know the squeaky wheel gets the grease and there are also people that will take less because their low self-esteem or passive nature makes them grateful for anything they are given.  Plenty examples of both personality traits being present in the CFL, making salaries public would at least give them the incentive to find an agent that will squeak louder on their behalf to help get them what they deserve. 

[Blue In BC]

What does any of that have to do with a league opting to be more transparent?

That bolded part is not accurate, either. (https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2022/01/11/NFL-Attendance.aspx)

One size does not fit all is the point. Higher revenue and profit dictate what companies including sports teams can do.

In the case of the CFL it's not a high profit business. In fact some teams record losses. So determining what is fair is not always possible.

Have you every managed staff and had to determine annual salary reviews?

[blue_gold_84]

One size does not fit all is the point. Higher revenue and profit dictate what companies including sports teams can do.

In the case of the CFL it's not a high profit business. In fact some teams record losses. So determining what is fair is not always possible.

Have you every managed staff and had to determine annual salary reviews?

Except this isn't about a "one size fits all" approach. It's about a professional sports entertainment entity being transparent in how it operates vis a vis its unionized employees' salaries and holding itself accountable to stakeholders like fans and the media. So, you're not making much of a point at all.

That's a silly question to ask and looks like another example of you arguing in bad faith in this thread.

[Blue In BC]

Except this isn't about a "one size fits all" approach. It's about a professional sports entertainment entity being transparent in how it operates vis a vis its unionized employees' salaries and holding itself accountable to stakeholders like fans and the media. So, you're not making much of a point at all.

That's a silly question to ask and looks like another example of you arguing in bad faith in this thread.

I have no intent in discussing anything in bad faith. We disagree and I'm making my points and you're making yours. There is no obligation in a sports entity being transparent. There are only a small number of fans that actually post on any fan site.

In my opinion the 25K that go to the stadium probably have no idea anybody even considers this an issue or feel it's an issue. It's not what you hear fans talking about at tailgates or in the stands.

[blue_gold_84]

I have no intent in discussing anything in bad faith. We disagree and I'm making my points and you're making yours. There is no obligation in a sports entity being transparent.

Nobody said there's an obligation. However, it can be a sign of open and honest business practice to operate with transparency. It can enhance an organization's reputation, improve relationships with stakeholders, and foster trust within communities.

Considering how much this league struggles, operating with more transparency could be beneficial for its future.

There are only a small number of fans that actually post on any fan site.

It's not restricted to fan forum sites. Twitter's a great example of a platform where users (insiders) post information and fans engage with it - such as contract particulars.

In my opinion the 25K that go to the stadium probably have no idea anybody even considers this an issue or feel it's an issue. It's not what you hear fans talking about at tailgates or in the stands.

Unless you've actually polled fans at all nine CFL stadiums and have evidence to substantiate this claim, that opinion is useless. And again, whatever personal experience you have is anecdotal and is equally irrelevant.

[TBURGESS]

Revenue & profit are red herrings because salaries in the CFL are based on the SMS not on revenue.

[blue_or_die]

Billion dollar industry. 60K - 100K stadiums filled to capacity in most cities. Super Bowl tickets costing $5000 - $30000K? Population of 350M.

The rest of my comments were about status quo versus no status quo. Just gave another and more hard fought question about whether something should change.

BTW, your example of a co-worker. That's a bigger discussion about equity eliminating sexism and racism from the equation. I wouldn't agree that transparency was the primary issue. I also wouldn't agree that paying somebody more guarantees greater productivity.


One or more posters suggested there is zero risk. I said it's a risk to the company and you just provided that example. It creates friction. In your example 40% was significant enough to quit. What happens if the difference is lower into the 5%-10%? That creates friction.

What a person believes they are worth compared to another is a slippery slope. Counterpart is a wide meaning word. Similar age, training, experience, work ethic are never identical.

Not sure what you mean about ageism/sexism/racism because that was not a factor at all in my example. All that happened is that the person had access to new information (that was otherwise not visible) and this alone changed their career trajectory. The market rate was revealed and it was accurate because she was able to find a similar job for salary similar to the person who played a similar role and made ~40% more- NOT insignificant.

Like I said in my previous post, it's a GOOD thing that this creates friction and makes it less comfortable for the company to pay employees out of line with market rate (too high or too low). TFB for the company if if they have to offer some more and others less. And keep in mind I'm talking about companies in general- I think it's likely that player agents know through the grapevine what everyone else is making and so they can bargain based on that information. If that's true, then there's no reason to think that making these numbers open to everyone would create anymore pressure beyond that of fan opinions.

My productivity comment was meant "overall", since she in turn would have worked for the company longer and would have made more and deeper contributions.

Regarding your slippery slope....why is it a slippery slope? Everyone should have a right to get what they're worth. Things like creating a culture of salaries being taboo, signing salary NDAs...these are tools that prevent the market from deciding what worth is. You're right that people don't necessarily have a realistic grip on their worth and that's the point- the open market will decide that and it is not open.

[Jesse]

I have no intent in discussing anything in bad faith. We disagree and I'm making my points and you're making yours. There is no obligation in a sports entity being transparent. There are only a small number of fans that actually post on any fan site.

In my opinion the 25K that go to the stadium probably have no idea anybody even considers this an issue or feel it's an issue. It's not what you hear fans talking about at tailgates or in the stands.

Because people use social media now. We're all here due to posting here forever and having a pre-existing community. Has nothing to do with the amount of people who engage with each other on twitter, facebook, and reddit.

And you definitely hear people talking about it when it's made available. You're trying to tell me Collaros being the highest paid QB didn't make waves? Especially when he first signed it and people were still bring up his concussion issues?

[Blue In BC]

Not sure what you mean about ageism/sexism/racism because that was not a factor at all in my example. All that happened is that the person had access to new information (that was otherwise not visible) and this alone changed their career trajectory. The market rate was revealed and it was accurate because she was able to find a similar job for salary similar to the person who played a similar role and made ~40% more- NOT insignificant.

Like I said in my previous post, it's a GOOD thing that this creates friction and makes it less comfortable for the company to pay employees out of line with market rate (too high or too low). TFB for the company if if they have to offer some more and others less. And keep in mind I'm talking about companies in general- I think it's likely that player agents know through the grapevine what everyone else is making and so they can bargain based on that information. If that's true, then there's no reason to think that making these numbers open to everyone would create anymore pressure beyond that of fan opinions.

My productivity comment was meant "overall", since she in turn would have worked for the company longer and would have made more and deeper contributions.

Regarding your slippery slope....why is it a slippery slope? Everyone should have a right to get what they're worth. Things like creating a culture of salaries being taboo, signing salary NDAs...these are tools that prevent the market from deciding what worth is. You're right that people don't necessarily have a realistic grip on their worth and that's the point- the open market will decide that and it is not open.

Women are frequently under paid. So it's not surprising that was the case.

The point about paid what you are worth: I doubt very many think they are over paid. Many if not most will feel they deserve more whether that is just in general or in reference to another individual.

I don't know the details of your co-worker or her counterpart so it's impossible to equate directly. One thing is certain. She was offered a position and a salary. She accepted. Was there a real reason why her counterpart earned more? You'll have to be the fair judge of that question. Working similar jobs in the same company doesn't mean identical salaries.

An employee being retained longer is not always a benefit to the company. In fact it can be the direct opposite. We've heard about quiet quitting. Complacency moves backwards not forwards.

It could be as simple as when a company made the hiring that the job market was more or less competitive.

I have had large staff levels and had to deal with ability to pay versus what an employee's expectations might have been on an annual basis. At times the total spend across the staff was limited by those above me. My role was to distribute the pie across a number of staff. I tried to be fair but it's a perception on a two way street.

[Blue In BC]

Because people use social media now. We're all here due to posting here forever and having a pre-existing community. Has nothing to do with the amount of people who engage with each other on twitter, facebook, and reddit.

And you definitely hear people talking about it when it's made available. You're trying to tell me Collaros being the highest paid QB didn't make waves? Especially when he first signed it and people were still bring up his concussion issues?

Collaros didn't become the highest paid QB or player when people were still discussing his concussion issues. He had proved his durability. Yes I think his new contract makes waves that are not good for the CFL. Similar to comments about Reilly when he got $700K in 2019, or Lawler getting $300K in 2022.

I agree he's the best CFL QB but high salaries at the top dilute what can be paid elsewhere on the roster. It doesn't always work out well.

[TBURGESS]

Why do you think that Women are frequently under paid? Is it because they don't negotiate their salaries like men do? Is it because they don't know their own worth to the company? Is it because companies know they can 'underpay' women and take advantage of them?  We could fix the disparity by sharing salary information.

Companies don't pay employee's 'what they are worth' they pay them 'the least amount they can get away with'. Sharing salary amounts would change their ability to do that.

Quiet quitting is simply doing the job you are paid for and no more. It's the employee equivalent of 'the least they can get away with'. Those are the types of employees that shouldn't get any raise at the end of the year. If they're upset, then they can quit and get a new job. It's win/win for both sides.

[Blue In BC]

Why do you think that Women are frequently under paid? Is it because they don't negotiate their salaries like men do? Is it because they don't know their own worth to the company? Is it because companies know they can 'underpay' women and take advantage of them?  We could fix the disparity by sharing salary information.

Companies don't pay employee's 'what they are worth' they pay them 'the least amount they can get away with'. Sharing salary amounts would change their ability to do that.

Quiet quitting is simply doing the job you are paid for and no more. It's the employee equivalent of 'the least they can get away with'. Those are the types of employees that shouldn't get any raise at the end of the year. If they're upset, then they can quit and get a new job. It's win/win for both sides.

We hear about women being underpaid all the time. That's not news. We see media report statistical information about this stuff. I've worked with female employees and I've had female staff. Many were better employees than their male counterparts. I've had female bosses that worked harder or smarter than me that controlled my salary. It's not a black and white picture. Shades of grey.

Companies pay employees the least they can. Some employees do the least they can. Both of those statements are true. The company is the entity that gets to decide. The company is running the show and that's the nature of business.

As you said any employee that feels under paid or unfairly paid is free to negotiate with the employer and / or leave. Male or female.

[TBURGESS]

We hear about women being underpaid all the time. That's not news. We see media report statistical information about this stuff. I've worked with female employees and I've had female staff. Many were better employees than their male counterparts. I've had female bosses that worked harder or smarter than me that controlled my salary. It's not a black and white picture. Shades of grey.

Companies pay employees the least they can. Some employees do the least they can. Both of those statements are true. The company is the entity that gets to decide. The company is running the show and that's the nature of business.

As you said any employee that feels under paid or unfairly paid is free to negotiate with the employer and / or leave. Male or female.

Do you agree that salary info sharing would help Women get what they deserve? If so, what's the downside?

Companies get to decide because there is no salary info sharing. If everyone involved was working with the same information, then the company wouldn't just be able to say here's your salary. They'd have to say Here's your salary because of A B & C. They'd have to say your worth more than employee X and less than employee Y. They wouldn't be able to pay anyone 40% less than someone else doing the same job, unless they could justify it.

[blue_or_die]

Responses in red:

Women are frequently under paid. So it's not surprising that was the case. Her "counterpart" was also a woman and also had similar experience. One woman was paid one amount, the other was paid less for a very similar position.

The point about paid what you are worth: I doubt very many think they are over paid. Many if not most will feel they deserve more whether that is just in general or in reference to another individual. Yes...so? Just because someone thinks they're worth more doesn't mean that they are. If it turns out that others with similar skills sets and experience are making more money for a similar position, then you ought to be able to go out there and bargain based on that information. You cannot if you don't have access to that information. If it turns out that you review the information and there are no examples of others in a similar position getting more money, then this confirms you are wrong about your assumption of your worth. I'm not saying "give everyone more money because they want/need it"

I don't know the details of your co-worker or her counterpart so it's impossible to equate directly. One thing is certain. She was offered a position and a salary. She accepted. Was there a real reason why her counterpart earned more? You'll have to be the fair judge of that question. Working similar jobs in the same company doesn't mean identical salaries. That's exactly the problem we are trying to solve here.

An employee being retained longer is not always a benefit to the company. In fact it can be the direct opposite. We've heard about quiet quitting. Complacency moves backwards not forwards. Sure, but it's well known that employees who are  familiar with their role because they've been invested in the company longer make a greater contribution than a person than a newbie. Using myself as an example, it took me years to "get" my industry and I probably was more a liability to them in the early years. Now I am able to make good, valuable contributions.

It could be as simple as when a company made the hiring that the job market was more or less competitive. Totally. And now that the job market has changed, the company should pivot to meet the times or risk losing employees once (if) they start realizing this themselves. The company I work for does market corrections for positions annually once they see that they're losing people based strictly on someone going across the street for an extra buck

I have had large staff levels and had to deal with ability to pay versus what an employee's expectations might have been on an annual basis. At times the total spend across the staff was limited by those above me. My role was to distribute the pie across a number of staff. I tried to be fair but it's a perception on a two way street. Of course. But if I'm an employee and I know that I can do better going somewhere else, frankly I don't care that you had a reduced budget- I'm going to look out for myself and my family.

[Blue In BC]

Do you agree that salary info sharing would help Women get what they deserve? If so, what's the downside?

Companies get to decide because there is no salary info sharing. If everyone involved was working with the same information, then the company wouldn't just be able to say here's your salary. They'd have to say Here's your salary because of A B & C. They'd have to say your worth more than employee X and less than employee Y. They wouldn't be able to pay anyone 40% less than someone else doing the same job, unless they could justify it.

No, I don't agree. I've covered that in great detail. In simple terms I believe it creates conflict both with fellow workers and employers.  The downside is that employees can become disgruntled for perceived unfairness which may or may not be true. That's still true even if they get more elsewhere. Employers don't like to have to replace employees leaving. OTOH, you can't make everybody happy. The guy signing the pay check has to make those calls. That's just business.

Are you unfamiliar with annual salary reviews? Employers tell you what they think and / or what you need to get more. Employees don't always agree with that assessment.

[TBURGESS]

No, I don't agree. I've covered that in great detail. In simple terms I believe it creates conflict both with fellow workers and employers.  The downside is that employees can become disgruntled for perceived unfairness which may or may not be true. That's still true even if they get more elsewhere. Employers don't like to have to replace employees leaving. OTOH, you can't make everybody happy. The guy signing the pay check has to make those calls. That's just business.

Are you unfamiliar with annual salary reviews? Employers tell you what they think and / or what you need to get more. Employees don't always agree with that assessment.

If women are being paid unfairly as a group, then there is a systemic problem. I say that's due to lack of accurate salary information. You disagree that accurate salary information would help the situation and suggest it would cause conflict instead.

Conflict is caused by inequality and inequality is caused by companies giving people more or less than they deserve for the job they are doing.

What if it's women signing the pay checks. She decides that all the women deserve more than the men, pays them that way and hides it by telling everyone not to talk about their salaries. In your mind that's fair because she's signing the checks. In my mind, that can't happen if everyone knows how much everyone else makes.

Of course companies hate replacing people. New folks don't earn their way for 12-18 months. It's easier to give them a salary bump and hide it by not talking about salaries. If it gets out, then the company has a problem. If it's common knowledge, then your either gonna have to pay everyone more or lose other folks & that's a good thing for most of the employees.

I'm very familiar with yearly reviews from both sides of the table. "I'd love to give you more, but my hands are tied.". "I know this isn't what you were hoping for, but...". "You're at the top end of the pay band so I can't give you any more". "You did a great job last year, but no ones getting a big raise due to the economy". "The company didn't make a lot of money this year, so we can't give out big raises". "My favorite: I managed to get you a bonus instead of a raise." (Means that all the rest of your raises are based on the original salary) You couldn't say any of that with true salary information that both sides had.

Your value to your employer changes throughout time. When I first started as a programmer, COBOL and Assembler on cards on Mainframes, there were very few people who could do the job and even fewer who could do it well. As time progressed and I took on Mini's and operating systems and hardware the number of folks who could do what I could do were even less. PC's were invented and brought with them Servers, NAS, SAN, DNS, DHCP, etc, and interfacing with the Mini's and the mainframe. My highest earning potential. If they lost me they'd have to replace me with at least 3 folks who each had part of the puzzle.

Fast forward a few years. Everyone coming out of Uni or even High School has PC skills. All kinds of people have Server, NAS, etc experience coming right out of college. The Mini's are gone. The mainframe folks are outsourced to India & the mainframe is outsourced to IBM. It's cheaper for the company to hire youngsters with new knowledge to take care of the PC/Servers rather than keep the grey beards who know everything. Then it became cheaper to outsource the hardware and opsys and customer support staff. Cloud computing (Other Peoples Computers), took away the last of the on site hardware. Instead of needing thousands of competent IT folks, some for each company, you now need a few hundred, some for each Cloud computing team. My IT earning potential is over & I've aged out of the system.

I saw it coming and planned for the eventual aging out. Some folks didn't see it coming, didn't plan, and got blind sided. It just goes to show why everyone should make the most they can while they can. Sharing salary information is one step in not getting taken advantage of by your employer. They won't like it because it will force them to pay the quiet ones the same as the Type A folks. They won't like it because it tips the scales back towards even in salary negotiations and they've enjoyed the scales tipped firmly to their side for years. It's a small thing that can have major consequences for most workers.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

No, I don't agree. I've covered that in great detail. In simple terms I believe it creates conflict both with fellow workers and employers.  The downside is that employees can become disgruntled for perceived unfairness which may or may not be true. That's still true even if they get more elsewhere. Employers don't like to have to replace employees leaving. OTOH, you can't make everybody happy. The guy signing the pay check has to make those calls. That's just business.

Are you unfamiliar with annual salary reviews? Employers tell you what they think and / or what you need to get more. Employees don't always agree with that assessment.

Over time I think the salaries for all positions would balance out fairly evenly across the league, if one team is squeezing multiple players to save on the cap, the word would get out and they will lose players until they are forced to revise that practice.  If a current player has open access to a CFL salary list they will take notice if they are getting paid well below equivalent positional players and be motivated to advise their agents to take corrective action during future contract negotiations.