Meh. I think that a flawed analysis. There are far MORE CEOs than there are professional hockey players. You get into scenario's like Nortel where the upper managers are taking the glut of the company profits home with them while the workers get stiffed.
And while it may be true that Iginla's salary may or may not affect the beer vendor's salary, there is something wrong when a company's revenue is spent on remuneration mostly to the CEOs and very little to the people doing the actual work of producing the product for the corporation. Hockey may be one of the few examples where the workers actually get paid reasonably well in comparison with the CEOs.
The gap between the rich and the poor is growing. Capping executive salaries is one means of curtailing that gap.
But even in that hockey analysis... their salaries *HAVE* been capped as a percentage of revenue. If CEOs want to tie their salaries to how well the company is doing, I'm happy with that. What pisses me off is the Nortel situation where the company was going bankrupt and the CEOs were making out like bandits.
|