| dynalow |
04-22-2014 12:12 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTI
(Post 3319225)
Your reference to a single superstar player in a league where the total player roster was in the hundreds is very cute, adorable almost, but as irrelevant to the other players and their careers as was the decision in Flood v Kuhn. The players lost before the Supreme Court, but they found their way through the NLRB which eventually killed off the "reserve clause."
|
Superstars make super money. Average Players make average money. No surprise there. Still that way, no?
The median salary ---all salaries, not just MLB --- in 1955 was around $4,400.00 according to the Census Bureau & Ask.com. I don't know what the average or median MLB salaries in 1955 were. I would guess they weren't too far below the average or median male salary. But what's the money point, anyway.
Personally, I enjoyed growing up in the 50's & 60's. What's with the reference to "cute, adorable and irrelevant"? I lack formal education in legal argument, so help me out. I'm speaking of memories of my youth, you inject Curt Flood and the "man"? :confused::confused:
FWIW, I enjoyed watching the lowly Senators in Griffith Stadium as much as the lofty Yanks and the Amazin' Mets. Gawd, they were bad.;) |
