Sean Salisbury's Complaint About ESPN is Ridiculous

So, Sean Salisbury is leaving his job at ESPN based on his belief that just because he didn't have an All-Pro career he can't make over $1 million as an analyst. Guess what? He's right. He is right that he shouldn't be paid over one million dollars a year. He feels it is not fair that the super star athletes make more money than he can as a commentator. His problem is that he fails to realize you get paid based on your resume and knowledge. Many times superstar athletes know the game better than the bench warmers and that is why they excelled while the bench warmer sat on the bench. The other issue is you are paid for what you can do for your employer. Former superstar athletes will bring in more viewers than an average athlete or below average one like Salisbury.

Think about working at your job, who are the ones that get promoted? They are the ones that excel at their job and perform it better than everyone else. In the world of sports these people are rates as "All-Stars" or "All-Pro's" and the top get the title of MVP of the league. They don't have these titles in your office, but in reality the same logic works in both situations. Why would you want to hire someone who performs at an average or below average level at your job as a consultant or analyst in the future when they leave the workplace? The answer is that you wouldn't want to do that. So, broadcast companies have a decision to make. Do they want to hire an All-Star athlete or one who never performed at a high level to comment on the performance of other players. They choose to hire the one that excelled at their position.

On another note, television is about viewership. How many of you know Shaun Salisbury's career stats, or even what teams or years he played? Probably very few except for Minnesota Vikings fans. Meanwhile you all know who Joe Theisman played for or Troy Aikman. Guess what, you are more likely to watch someone analyze an NFL game that you know about the accomplishments of then you are to watch someone you know very little about. This is why television stations like ESPN hire successful athletes to be commentators.

The only part of Salisbury's argument that does make a little sense is the high salaries. Yet, he was not complaining about the high salaries paid in the field he works, he was just complaining that he couldn't make as much as others in his field did. If he had made the argument that all sports analysts for broadcasts are overpaid I would have agreed with him. The argument he made though leaves him looking like he is whining instead.