What always confused me as a young'un was that US contracts were announced with the whole contract's worth, not just weekly/monthly/yearly pay. And US deals are quite often longer than the 5 year limit in our football, are they not?
In almost all leagues except for the NBA (where there is a 5 year max now on contracts) you will often see 6, 7, or even 8 year deals. The NHL (ice hockey) even has a couple of players on FIFTEEN YEAR contracts.
It's scary to think how high football salaries are now and how fast they are growing when compared to US sports. NFL teams are way down on the list despite being the most popular sport, AND they have the massive TV revenues that european teams just don't have - the NFL makes $5 billion a year from TV contracts alone, which are distributed evenly among the 32 teams (aka $150 million a year), and that's before even adding in tickets in larger stadiums, merchandising deals, radio, advertising, licensing, sponsorships, etc. Salaries also have a hard cap for each team, so it's impossible to spend more than something like $150 million a year. The NBA and NHL have similar structures (though not necessarily as profitable), and even MLB has a structure so that it hasn't spiraled out of control even with more imbalance between teams. With all that combined, it's a very healthy structure setup to continue for a while. When I compare that to how football is going with the wages and billionaires leveraging so much debt to fund teams, it's impossible to think how this is all sustainable.
surely football is more popular worldwide?