MJ Makes More Money Now (Yearly) than Entire NBA Career

Michael Jordan is the highest-paid retired athlete, earning more off his shoes than the $95 million he banked during his 15-year playing career.

*ESPN is reporting that Michael Jordan made more money last year selling his signature kicks than in his entire career playing basketball for the Bulls and Wizards from 1984 to 2003. PBS confirmed the report in an infographic that shows Jordan makes more than $100 million per year off royalties from his Nike Air Jordan brand.

The graphic below shows Jordan is the highest-paid retired athlete, earning more off his shoes than the $95 million he banked during his 15-year playing career.

As ESPN notes, “these figures are not adjusted for inflation; based on his numbers from Basketball-Reference and the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, Jordan made nearly $100 million in 2014 dollars during his three-year stint after his first retirement (1995-96 through 1997-98).”

Matt Powell, a sport industry analyst from NPD Group and contributor to Forbes, estimates that in the U.S., Nike and subsidiary Jordan Brand account for more than 90 percent of basketball shoe sales. Americans spend about $34 billion dollars a year on sneakers between June 2014 and June 2015, of that amount, Michael’s line of Nike Air Jordans raked in $100 million.

It was reported in August that Jordan made $75.5 million from endorsement deals in 2012, which is more than any active NBA player.

Recently a jury at a civil trial ordered a grocery-store chain to pay Jordan nearly $10 million after using his identity on a coupon for steaks.

“I’m so used to playing on a different court,” Jordan told reporters outside the courthouse. “This shows I will protect my name to the fullest. … It’s my name and I worked hard for it … and I’m not just going to let someone take it.”

In March, Jordan came in at 1741st on Forbes magazine’s annual list of the world’s richest people, with a $1.4 billion net worth.

Michael Jordan's Near Miss Trade to LA Clippers, Bulls Doubted Jordan's Talent

Back in 1984 and 1988, the Chicago Bulls had potential trade discussions with the Los Angeles Clippers regarding a possibility of sending Michael Jordan to Los Angeles.  Even though Jordan ended up winning six championships with the Chicago Bulls, his greatness was once questioned. Not once, but twice the Clippers attempted to land Jordan, which would've ultimately sabotaged the Bulls' reign.

As reported by Bleacher Report, back in 1984, when trade discussions were being made in reference to the second draft pick of the Bulls, which was obviously Michael Jordan, Chi-town originally had their eyes on L.A.'s Terry Cummings, a 6'9" power forward who averaged approximately 23 points per game. Cummings was also born and raised in Chicago, which made a trade for him quite tempting. This trade involved a three-team deal, which was to include the Dallas Mavericks, could have allowed the Bulls to gain Cummings, and would have presumably led the Clippers to add Jordan to their franchise.

According to Clips Nation, the second time a potential Jordan trade to the Clippers resurfaced was during the 1988 season. This is when Chicago was having doubts in Jordan's irreplaceable talent. Chi-town felt that Jordan's style of place would not suffice for the Bulls to win multiple championships, due to the team's 4-15 record in the playoffs during Jordan's first four seasons with the Bulls.

As per FanSided's Cliperholics, this is when the Clippers offered an "any combination of five players and/or draft picks," deal. Los Angeles had the number 1 and number 6 draft picks during the 1988 season, and according to Sam Smith's book, The Jordan Rules, Donald Sterling was vigorously looking for a player who was on the same level as Magic Johnson of the L.A. Lakers, for headlines. This led back to the Clippers' desperation for Jordan.

(Photo : Lisa Blumenfeld/Getty Images)

At this time, the Bulls were on the verge of being eliminated in the playoffs by the Detroit Pistons.And the Bulls management was taking into consideration the fact that they believed the team would "never win a title because Jordan's style of one-on-one play eliminated the other players as contributors." But since Jordan attracted the fans, which led to the purchasing of merchandise and tickets, the Bulls owner, Jerry Reinsdorf, couldn't let Jordan go.

Imagine if Jordan had been traded to the Clippers... the Clippers could've actually had a chance to play in the NBA playoffs, which they've never been able get into. But at the same time, the Chicago Bulls would've never won six back-to-back championships either.

By this measure, Michael Jordan can't touch LeBron James

IN THE FIRST 239 days of 2015, 185 black men were murdered in the city of Baltimore. In post-Katrina New Orleans, FiveThirtyEight concluded, black residents are more likely to live in poverty than before the hurricane 10 years ago. The Washington Post recently released data indicating that every nine days, on average, American police kill an unarmed black man. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a 9.1 percent black unemployment rate for July, nearly twice the rate of whites.

White America grows exasperated by the insistence that race still matters, but these facts are a neon sign pointing not at post-racialism but to an entrenched underclass. In Akron, Ohio, hometown of LeBron James, the black poverty rate is 28 percent, 12 points higher than the state average. To James, the numbers are not just a topic, ammunition for winning an argument, but statistical recognition of his life before fame. Days after the anniversary protests marking Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, Missouri, James partnered with the University of Akron and countered the numbers with other numbers, pledging $41 million to send as many as 2,000 at-risk Akron kids to college.

It was a massive initiative, a reminder that, in addition to protest and pressure, the rhetoric of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps means nothing without boots. It was also something else: proof that James is the signature socially conscious athlete of his time. By this measure he need not aspire to be Michael Jordan. He's already run right past him.

James and Dwyane Wade organized the first athlete protest of the killing of Trayvon Martin. James used his power to rally players and challenge the NBA to be decisive on Donald Sterling. James wore an i can't breathe shirt in warm-ups to show solidarity with young black men disposable to society because they lack his talent. Instead of blaming hip-hop or admonishing the less fortunate, he confronted the "dead or in jail" narrative that permeates black male life with a real program backed by real money. He wrote an enormous check as part of staring down a bitter truth: If "dead or in jail" is as good as it gets for black boys who don't have a blinding 40-yard dash time or a bull's-eye jumper, then at this late date in the American story, integration has been a colossal failure.

James does not live independent of his environment, and neither did Jordan. James is in the prime of his youth and earning power amid national protest and Black Lives Matter. His generation is not a new target of police brutality; it is the latest edition of the same old target. He grew up witnessing the collision between the progress of some and the dead ends for most of the kids who look like him, at a time when the term "post-racial" sounds not only ridiculous but naive. America could not be more racial than it is right now.

Jordan, meanwhile, came of age during the most comprehensive wave of conservatism in the 20th century, a political retrenchment that followed the sweeping social ambition of Lyndon Johnson. Jordan was 15 when the Supreme Court struck down minority set-asides in the landmark Bakke case, limiting affirmative action, and 18 when President Ronald Reagan fired 11,000 striking air traffic controllers. Jordan's 1980s were a market correction of the 1960s, not a time of protest or challenge but one of accumulating individual wealth while Great Society, labor union and New Deal gains and attitudes were being scaled back. Jordan's time was when money was celebrated as the only measure. Greed is good.

The similarities between James and Jordan end when their shared No. 23 jersey rests on a hanger, for Jordan has never been known for a single courageous social act. While James attempts to bridge the powerless to a future, Jordan sued a defunct supermarket chain and won $8.9 million over an advertisement that reportedly yielded all of $4. (Jordan said he planned to donate the money to charity.)

James has accepted a challenge of his times so foreign to the 1980s, making him an heir not to Jordan but to the civil rights movement, to Jim Brown and Bill Russell, to the idea of the athlete as activist. Every day of his career has existed under the shadow of Jordan, but as citizen, LeBron does not look up to Michael. It should be the other way around.

How Not to Get Sued By Michael Jordan, or Any Celeb, Over a Simple Congrats Ad What brands can learn from one grocery chain's cautionary tale By Marty Swant

Can you get sued for wishing a celebrity well?

It might seem innocuous, but using an ad to congratulate an athlete or another big name can earn brands their very own personal thank-you—a subpoena.

Last month, a jury decided that Safeway—the parent company of now-defunct supermarket chain Dominick's—must pay $8.9 million to Jordan after using the basketball star's name in an ad placed in Sports Illustrated.

The ad ran in a 2009 Sports Illustrated commemorative issue marking Jordan's induction into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. The ad included a $2-off coupon for steaks. (Jordan says he plans to donate the $8.9 million to charity.)

It's not the first time a celebrity has sued a company that used his or her name in an ad.Vanna White once sued Samsung for featuring a letter-turning game-show robot wearing a blond wig. Bette Midler sued Ford over a vocal sound-alike. Tom Waits sued Frito-Lay. More recently, Kim Kardashian sued Old Navy. Even Cliff and Norm from Cheers have sued Cheers bars over robots made in their likeness.

Although the Safeway suit isn't entirely novel, legal experts say it's a reminder that offering congrats isn't entirely innocuous—if you're selling a product in the process.

"It's one thing to say 'Hey, congratulations, Michael Jordan,'" said Frank Caprio, a patent and trade law attorney at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings. "I don't know if I would be subject to any sort of liability. But if I said ,'Congratulations, Michael Jordan. I'm a big fan. Come buy a car at my dealership,' then you're getting into trouble."

Legal risks aside, congratulating an athlete or another star might not even be worth it, said Michael Dunn, CEO of brand consultancy Prophet. He said it can lead to a slippery slope if an attempt doesn't feel authentic or relevant.

"I think a lot of brands shy away from it because of all of the risks that are manifesting themselves in this case," Dunn said. "And I also don't think it's a very proven way to invest your money and time."

Dunn said if the celebrity isn't already a part of a brand's storytelling, an agency should ask: What is the reason for supporting them now?

"They look more like an opportunistic brand trying to take advantage of someone else's success where they have no role in it," he said. "They shouldn't have been a part of the conversation, and when it feels like that to consumers, it turns people off."

Jordan's case revolved around the grocery chain's violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, which outlines an individual's right to control and choose how his or her identity is used for commercial purposes.

Ben Mulcahy, a partner in the entertainment, technology and advertising practice group at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, said most states have their own version of the statute or have common law that covers similar territory.

Mulcahy said right of publicity law is expanding as media channels expand. So, how can brands hop on the celebrity celebratory bandwagon without getting a multimillion-dollar bill in the mail?

The safest thing, of course, is to stay off the court.

"The line is that it's incredibly risky under any scenario to use the name, voice or likeness of another person without authorization if the use is in a commercial context," he said. "So, any context that is reasonably likely to be characterized as commercial speech under the First Amendment is going to lay the foundation for a right of publicity claim."

Mulcahy said the Jordan dispute was bifurcated by two issues. The first: whether it was commercial or noncommercial use under the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The second: establishing liability because of the commercial use of someone's name, voice or likeness.

Caprio said using another person's name or image is like using another company's trademark.

"Let's say it was Tom Brady and there was some product that had to do something with inflation or deflation and you wanted to conjure up the image of Tom Brady inflating or deflating tires," he said. "I think you're inclined to really get hammered for that."