Originally Posted by thought
of course it's a scheme for the rich to get richer; i just think the accounting behind it is kind of interesting. you depreciate an asset to match the expenses to the revenues it earns over the course of its useful life. typically as an asset gets older it gets less productive and a declining balance method of depreciation would reflect that. in that sense players and capital assets are a lot alike. after a certain point in their careers, players get less and less productive as they age. the depreciation would account for that.
based on principle it's fucked. theory wise though i think it's kind of cool.
I think it's a reach to treat players as capital assets. Although I don't know exactly how they account for it, it just seems their is no way you can accurately predict a players future production and depreciation. And in the end, one players performance means nothing as far as revenues, it's all about the team.
What it does do is give these teams justification for spending these large sums of money on these players.