At one marketing-overrun startup, the suits were calling two hour meetings every afternoon and then wondering why I wasn't getting any work done. So I installed a cuckoo clock in that meeting room. The CEO loved it; he even helped wind it. I knew I'd succeeded when one of the marketing types looked at the clock and said, "I hate that thing." I don't remember if the meetings got any shorter or less frequent, but they…
The training is what provides the ability to charge for admission and airtime royalties for games. The meeting is what gives you a product or service offering.
The question shouldn't be "how much is this costing us in salaries" but "is this meeting productive, and more productive than the alternative activity which could be performed at this time" -- the opportunity cost basis, in other words. Salary/billable is simply the wrong metric.
To the sports metaphor, the question concerning training would be "is this training improving our skills / ability / capability / teamwork", as compared with alternatives (rest/recovery, marketing, travel, game time).
Where meetings often get derailed is that participants:
• Don't understand one another.
• Have different agendas.
• Are simply incompetent.
Identifying these challenges and addressing them, without bogging all participants down in the process is far more productive than simply showing the cumulative pseudo-cost of the meeting.