Is John Swofford worth $2.7 mil?

[orange79]

Not trying to be argumentative, but I think your use of the term "market" is charitable. We're talking about fewer than half a dozen people at the top conferences. Is that really a market? Or are P5 executive salaries being decided ad hoc, with some exogenous influences, like the SEC's insane and ridiculous preoccupation with paying any amount of money to win (mostly) FB games?

At any rate, regardless of the above issue, we have the ACC NW ... that's apparently languishing. I don't see any particular leadership magic going on. And I definitely don't see how any ACC CEO can justify a multi million dollar salary given the Raycom situation. Not only is this reducing conference revenues by adding unnecessary cost, it's shafting Northern schools (like SU) who don't get the sweetheart media preferences granted to, say, UNC. It's an embarrassing and inappropriate old-boy system that needs to go away. Then we can talk about what these guys are really worth.

Well, we could call it an oligopoly, if you want. With price-fixing? Who knows? Still a market, even though small.

Totally agree about the old boy network.

 

[TheCusian]

Not trying to be argumentative, but I think your use of the term "market" is charitable. We're talking about fewer than half a dozen people at the top conferences. Is that really a market? Or are P5 executive salaries being decided ad hoc, with some exogenous influences, like the SEC's insane and ridiculous preoccupation with paying any amount of money to win (mostly) FB games? At any rate, regardless of the above issue, we have the ACC NW ... that's apparently languishing. I don't see any particular leadership magic going on. And I definitely don't see how any ACC CEO can justify a multi million dollar salary given the Raycom situation. Not only is this reducing conference revenues by adding unnecessary cost, it's shafting Northern schools (like SU) who don't get the sweetheart media preferences granted to, say, UNC. It's an embarrassing and inappropriate old-boy system that needs to go away. Then we can talk about what these guys are really worth.

No need to look at the word "market" and think textbook big economics definition. A market can be any situation where value is attributed to like things.

The Raycom thing is an old agreement, I think. But it's relatively small potatoes when there is that much money on the table and the ledger is healthy.

 

[longtimefan]

No need to look at the word "market" and think textbook big economics definition. A market can be any situation where value is attributed to like things.

The Raycom thing is an old agreement, I think. But it's relatively small potatoes when there is that much money on the table and the ledger is healthy.

According to the piece linked above, the deal was signed in 2010, and saved Raycom.

Certainly the TV coverage of SU hoops and football is not nearly as good as it was before the move to the ACC. Raycom is probably the biggest reason why.

 

[Dave85]

Well, we could call it an oligopoly, if you want. With price-fixing? Who knows? Still a market, even though small.

Totally agree about the old boy network.

I agree with your way of thinking. When I think of market I think of multiple companies competing with each other on price and service. There are no inefficiencies because the competition forces each company not to allow it in order to stay in business. Employment is not really a product companies are selling. It's not like someone is going to come in and take Swofford's job because the other person's marketing savvy or advertising. The board, which Swofford is probably a member, is not even looking to buy anything so this is not exactly a market.

I don't have a problem Swofford making $10 million dollars per year. But just don't call it a market. Calling it market is just pretending. It's more like an arrangement than a market. If the board doesn't like Swofford's performance he gets ousted or doesn't get his annual 20% raise. Even if he doesn't perform well most executives get huge pay raises regardless of a company performance based on the argument the company could have done much worse.

 

[Dave85]

You made the point about Swofford's salary. Whether you think it is defensible or not, it is in line with the market. In this case, it is a small market, but a market nonetheless - the market of P5 conference commissioners. If you think he makes too much, that's fine. But it wasn't the main thrust of the thread. And if you meant "Just exactly who is the ACC competing with?", the answer is the other 4 P5 conferences, and to a much lower extent, the G5 conferences (which, IMO, should be called the O5 - for Other 5 ). Unless I am totally misunderstanding your point, which is certainly possible.

I wasn't making the comment his salary isn't defensible. I wasn't thinking he was making too much. I was trying to understand the other side of the equation. With Swofford's type position, what determines how much is enough? Maybe he should be getting $20 million dollar per year because nobody really cares one way or the other. That is what I was wondering. Maybe there's a social norm where if he makes more than $19 million per year people will riot. I don't know which is why I posed the question in the first place. How much is enough?