Sports Illustrated released its annual listing of top-paid athletes today. For some, the findings are no surprise. For example, Tiger Woods holds on to the top spot, raking in more money than Phil Mickelson, LeBron James, and Floyd Mayweather Jr (ranked second, third, and fourth) combined. Also, NBA players made up 26 of the top earners (counting Amaré Stoudemire who was mistakenly listed as a baseball player).However, the data leads to some interesting findings. Here are three observations:
The above numbers seem to show that the business of sports has lost some of its racial baggage, since endorsements and salaries are higher for non-Caucasian athletes. But that’s not the whole story. If we start with the premise that salaries are a good indication of a player’s worth to a team, at least within his league (and I use “his” because a woman hasn’t yet broken the top 50 mark for earnings), then it should follow that the more talented athletes should rake in the greater share of endorsement dollars. But a closer look at the numbers shows that Caucasian and light-skinned athletes make more sponsorship money as a ratio of their salaries than non-Caucasians. Just look at the chart.
The ratio here is endorsements/salary, so a higher ratio indicates a greater amount of endorsement money over salary money. What we see is that, on average, a greater percentage of the Caucasian group’s total earnings come from endorsements. For an example of this, take two NBA players: Jason Kidd (white) and Jermaine O'Neal (black). Both make an identical salary, yet Kidd pulls in exactly twice as much money in endorsements.
Fifty data points is still a relatively small sample size, and the salary indicators point to an equal playing field, but these numbers should be a reminder to sponsors who use athletes in their marketing that the disparities that David Falk bemoaned may not have disappeared.
