It’s an artificially inflated number paid by broadcast rights. He’s the best player in baseball, so he has the most lucrative contract in baseball. He has value as a player, but does he have a commercial value of $426 million over 12 years?
Another measure of commercial “worth” and probably one of the best measures for a professional athlete is the value of endorsement deals. Trout makes about $3 million annually on that front.
By comparison, LeBron James, the biggest star in basketball, makes nearly twenty times what Trout does in endorsements.
Could most Americans even pick Trout out of a lineup?
Trout is overvalued within baseball, and his endorsement portfolio probably reflects his actual true value as a professional athlete.
Now, is the overvaluation of baseball (and college lacrosse for that matter) vulnerable to an inevitable fall or collapse? Depends … if we keep having massive competition in businesses peddling “sports content”, then we’re going to keep seeing giant revenue going to baseball and Dartmouth lacrosse will keep being aired nationally every week. Media outlets are desperate for “content”, no matter how good or bad, or how popular or unpopular, that content is. Remains to be seen.
Also, there is precedent for things of inherently zero value maintaining great value, and U.S. paper money is the greatest example. Paper money has almost no intrinsic value. But it has great value because the U.S. government says it has value and stands behind it.
Anyway, I note the Dartmouth-Brown men’s lacrosse game is airing on subscription ESPN+ this weekend. I have been catching snippets of Dartmouth games recently, just hoping they can finally get that Ivy win.
DocBarrister