Salary Disclosure, NDAs and NCAs

[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.