Sean Salisbury Leaves ESPN Because of Money Issues

According to the Baltimore Sun, Sean Salisbury has parted ways with ESPN. According to the article, ESPN and Salisbury's split was mutual and no hard feelings were presented by either side in their joint statement. However, shortly after the statements were released, Salisbury, according to a Los Angeles Times article, "felt unappreciated and underpaid and he knew that by asking for a seven-figure contract, the result would be a 'mutual parting.'" His argument was basically that he wasn't a superstar in the NFL and therefore was not going to get paid nearly as high as other analysts who were stars. Is this right? Do companies such as ESPN pay higher salaries to NFL stars versus analysts who either played in minor roles or didn't play at all? In this article, we'll examine two things: 1) Was Salisbury paid less because he wasn't a star? and 2) Should stars be paid more?

When examining if Salisbury was paid less because he wasn't a star, we should look at a few things. Let's examine some of the bigger names for ESPN, specifically when looking at the NFL and who the top analysts are in that area. Some of the major analysts on the network and on-line include: Merrill Hoge (not a star player), Mark Schlereth (offensive lineman, not a star), Chris Mortensen (not a football player), Mike Golic (defensive lineman, not a star), Chris Berman (not a football player) and John Clayton (defiantly not a football player).

So, when we look at some of the major contributors, there are no major stars here. While ESPN does have some former football stars such as Keyshwan Johnson and Emmitt Smith, there are plenty of non-football stars who are analysts and who do quite well. So why wasn't Salisbury paid as high as some players as he claims? Well, if we look to that Baltimore Sun article, which allowed individuals to post responses to the article, we get a glimpse of why. Salisbury was just not that good. Included in the comments are comments such as "his act got stale" "Salisbury was an idiot" and "hoo rah!!! I couldn't stand Sean as a commentator." I would have to agree with them on this fact. It's not that Sean was not a star, he just wasn't that good. This is an entertainment industry and you have to be one or more of the following: smart, charismatic, funny, entertaining or engaging. Salisbury was none of these and ESPN was right in not paying him a large amount of money.

So, when looking at the second issue on whether or not companies such as ESPN should pay football stars more money. The answer is easy: yes. At least initially they should pay football stars more money. The point of any program on sports stations is to get more people to watch their program or at least choose their program over other stations. How can one company do this? Well, if a recent superstar, who got a lot of press when he played is going to retire, why not try to get him to come to your show.

Let's say that Peyton Manning retired this year. Are you telling me that a company wouldn't pay him more than some college graduate who has worked for some local station. Please, of course you pay Peyton Manning more money than someone who was not a superstar in the NFL. You know he was popular when he played, so he will be popular when he is in the studio as an analyst. Now, there is a stipulation however. If said superstar is boring, dumb, abrasive or just plain bad behind a desk, you let him go. Take Joe Montana for example. He was a superstar and got a gig right away after he retired. However, we don't see him on ESPN or any station breaking down games for a reason: he was bad. However, it was worth giving him a shot because you knew that he would bring an audience to the show, unlike an analyst who was not a star.

This also works to the advantage of someone who was not a star. While it may take you a while to break into the business and become a top analyst for some company, once you get there, you don't have to worry about getting fired because you are bad. You got there for a reason, you were good. Look at John Clayton for example. He does a fantastic job for ESPN and you can tell he's never played football his entire life. However, he is smart, funny and engaging, so he gets paid pretty well (I am assuming) and is happy to be working for ESPN.

So, while Salisbury would like to claim that it was because he wasn't a superstar was the reason he wasn't getting paid, the real reason is that he just wasn't worth the money.

Ray Frager, "Carter in, Salisbury out", Baltimore Sun

Larry Stewart, "Sean Salisbury says parting with ESPN was mutual", Los Angeles Times