I think its ridiculous how athletes coming from college can secure multi-million dollar contracts before playing in even one professional game. You see this happen all the time with the team basically just paying for potential and most of the time the athlete either gets injured or turns out to be a complete bust. However, I think that if the athlete is good and has a proven track record of success then he/she deserves to be paid quite handsomely. Just think of how much money gets raked in from ticket sales, people watching from home, and merchandise sales. Its only fair that the athlete gets a cut of that money.
You can find plenty of people to teach a bunch of 4th graders about dinosaurs.
You can find plenty of people to be the Mayor of a city.
How many people in America can do what Adrian Peterson does? Or what Tim Lincecum does? 1, that's how many, them.
People are paid based on what skills they possess, and how hard those skills are to replace. Anybody with a pulse can work at McDonalds, therefore, they make minimum wage. There is basically one person on THE ENTIRE PLANET that can do what LeBron James can do, therefore, he makes millions of dollars.
And do I even need to mention, these athletes bring in millions and millions of dollars for their respective employers? How much revenue does a school teacher make for their district?
Of course they do. Why should we idolise people for doing insignificant work , does being able to run fast or jump high or bounce a ball amazingly well benefit anything? No, it means nothing. Whereas people who are trying to better the world for example physicists get stared at blankly and get criticised for wasting tax payers money on wild goose chases. Oh but of course paying out the ass to see a bunch of millionare playboys run around a field after a ball is money well spent :@
It all depends on the owner. If the owner overpays a lot of their athletes and then raises the price for tickets, food, drinks and souvenirs to make up for their budgeting shortfall then yes the athletes are overpaid. If the owner doesn't overpay their athletes and makes a team that can still be competitive but not have to raise prices then I don't think athletes are overpaid.
yeah its crazy bad how much a foot ball player gets for running up and down the feild but the army are doing with out basic stuff in a time of war and your telling me this is fair any one who said that sports stars deserve it makes me sick and they should go beat them selfs up till they think other wise
No, sports stars draw huge crowds of paying fans. They deserve their piece of that pie. The only other option is less money for the sport players and even more gobs and gobs of cash in the pockets of the owners. There was a time when sports stars had second jobs because they were paid so little. The owners were still raking it in, though. Today, many the women of the WNBA have alternate careers because they don't get paid that much to perform their sport. Of course, the difference is that the WNBA doesn't draw that much of a crowd. But, no one would think twice that Derek Jeter, Tiger Woods or Roger Federer don't put people in the stadium or out on the course.
They bring in hundreds of millions of dollars every year into cities, which is why cities fight for sports franchises, championship games, etc. Sure they get paid millions, but the communities where these teams play benefit greatly from the money they bring in due to their presence, which justifies their salaries.
" I think so. Nobody should be paid millions of dollars to swing a bat at a ball. That's just crazy. Athletes make more money in a year than the mayor of a city does. My health teacher explained on class how Michael Jordan made more money in advertisements than he did actually playing basketball. I believe he was paid $100,000,000 to wear Nike shoes. "
Forget "should". The point is how much you get paid is basically what society values you at.
" I think so. Nobody should be paid millions of dollars to swing a bat at a ball. That's just crazy. Athletes make more money in a year than the mayor of a city does. My health teacher explained on class how Michael Jordan made more money in advertisements than he did actually playing basketball. I believe he was paid $100,000,000 to wear Nike shoes. "
Forget "should". The point is how much you get paid is basically what society values you at. And millions of people want to watch said sport, big companies want to sponsor to sell their products, and the organization wants money by selling off the licence to TV channels and so forth. It makes a lot of money and that's the end of the matter really
" I think so. Nobody should be paid millions of dollars to swing a bat at a ball. That's just crazy. Athletes make more money in a year than the mayor of a city does. My health teacher explained on class how Michael Jordan made more money in advertisements than he did actually playing basketball. I believe he was paid $100,000,000 to wear Nike shoes. "
Well, technically, a mayor doesn't generate any value. He merely administrates a plot of land in which a great deal of value is generated.
Athletes on the other hand only receive value if their owner gets more, so no, they're not overpaid, except in cases where a government is subsidizing the team's operation (e.g, the New York Mets, the Phoenix Coyotes, the Nashville Predators, the Saskatchewan Roughriders, et cetera.)
As for the issue of endorsements, they get money from companies for the same reason Giant Bomb got money from Microsoft for advertising Halo ODST. The same logic applies because the same process is occurring: increased visibility in the market place is something companies value.
" Lets see:- Athlete - Plays the actual sport 2/3 days a week Me:- works 5 days a week Athlete :-Trains and goes to the gym every day Me:- Trains and goes to the gym 4 days a week - would do more if he had the chance, and would love a super expensive personal trainer to take me to the dizzy heights that stars have - but has to work as well Athlete :- earns more in a week than i do in a decade - and is frequently shown in the media spending more than i'd earn in a year- in one night Me :- Is broke pretty much after payday occurs due to unfair taxes and bills that leave with about a quarter of my paycheck Hell yeah they are over paid - they are entertainment, nothing more - and the fact that they are on more money than any one of us is going to see in a lifetime, sheerly because they had a bit more time on their hands is ludicrous - however it is entirely socities fault, only humans could claim to be as advanced and intelligent as we are, and then submit our race to such inequality - its sad to think that there are people who ill live their whole damn live working in some damn shoe factory - just 45 hours a week. every week, just to make sure these faceless co-corporations will still be turning a profit after they are dead - so that a few assholes with all the time in the world sit and use the profits created by that person, to fuel their own bliss. "
You know, there's a reason why Karl Marx's theories of economics have led to nothing more than bloodshed and destruction.
Definitely. I think that many people who are in important, needed positions get the shaft when athletes get huge amounts of money for only playing a sport. Yes, some of them are very good at said sport but not enough to earn millions of dollars a year.
Definitely is the fault of millions upon millions of brain dead idiots who pay billions of dollars towards sporting events.
It's counterproductive towards humanity as a whole, so I'd like to see that fixed. Some people don't care about the suffering or the future of humanity, so they justify it by saying 'that's capitalism'.
There may be some value to a debate if people naturally need to witness acts of pseudo violence and competition emotionally, however.
" Definitely is the fault of millions upon millions of brain dead idiots who pay billions of dollars towards sporting events. It's counterproductive towards humanity as a whole, so I'd like to see that fixed. Some people don't care about the suffering or the future of humanity, so they justify it by saying 'that's capitalism'. There may be some value to a debate if people naturally need to witness acts of pseudo violence and competition emotionally, however. "
But it's not capitalism. Tax dollars are responsible for the construction of several stadia throughout North America.
Are we jealous of their paychecks? Yes, but that doesn't mean they are overpaid. That's the reality here; they get paid a lot because they bring in a lot.
@Suicrat: Things always get screwed up, but you gotta admit there are many billions of dollars put towards these organizations worldwide. edit - by fans specifically
" @Suicrat: Things always get screwed up, but you gotta admit there are many billions of dollars put towards these organizations worldwide. edit - by fans specifically "
But my point is this: There is legitimacy in the concern of how money is being spent when it's your money (i.e., when it's being taxed from you), but if athletes are overpaid for providing sports fans with enjoyment, then so are video game producers, musicians, and filmmakers for doing the same.
What it comes down to is, pro sports in many parts of the U.S. are not a capitalistic endeavour, but a socialistic one, and in those places there is legitimate concern to be had. But that's not capitalism.
People are paid based on what skills they possess, and how hard those skills are to replace. Anybody with a pulse can work at McDonalds, therefore, they make minimum wage. There is basically one person on THE ENTIRE PLANET that can do what LeBron James can do, therefore, he makes millions of dollars.
There's only a handful of people in the world that can solve a rubix cube in under 10 seconds yet they aren't paid millions. It's not just about scarcity of skill, it's about consumer's demand. Yngwie Malmsteen is a guitarist a hundred fold more skilled than anyone in Green Day yet more people want to listen to the Green Day than Yngwie and thus they earn more money.
But my point is this: There is legitimacy in the concern of how money is being spent when it's your money (i.e., when it's being taxed from you), but if athletes are overpaid for providing sports fans with enjoyment, then so are video game producers, musicians, and filmmakers for doing the same. What it comes down to is, pro sports in many parts of the U.S. are not a capitalistic endeavour, but a socialistic one, and in those places there is legitimate concern to be had. But that's not capitalism.
Well lots of videogame producers are usually paid significantly less and their products contribute much more to the welfare of humanity (technology mostly).
Local governments will help fund a stadium being built for the money that will bring in, it's an investment, thus capitalism.
But my point is this: There is legitimacy in the concern of how money is being spent when it's your money (i.e., when it's being taxed from you), but if athletes are overpaid for providing sports fans with enjoyment, then so are video game producers, musicians, and filmmakers for doing the same. What it comes down to is, pro sports in many parts of the U.S. are not a capitalistic endeavour, but a socialistic one, and in those places there is legitimate concern to be had. But that's not capitalism.
Well lots of videogame producers are usually paid significantly less and their products contribute much more to the welfare of humanity (technology mostly). Local governments will help fund a stadium being built for the money that will bring in, it's an investment, thus capitalism. "
It's a forced investment. Governments steal money from everyone, and then put it towards endeavours that not everyone wants. Hence, it's socialism.
It's a forced investment. Governments steal money from everyone, and then put it towards endeavours that not everyone wants. Hence, it's socialism. "
Well we're side tracking a bit. Forced investment and government investment doesn't exactly equal socialism. Obviously the public wants these stadiums built as well, it's often a public & open decision. Small businesses want the extra traffic, citizens often want to be able to attend the stadiums, government wants the extra tax dollars. All about greasing the wheels of capitalism. I agree there is a factor of government intervention to be concerned about, but the bigger concern is the materialistic, counterproductive results of these actions by all parties involved.
@Diamond: Bullshit. If value is taken against people's will, then it's not capitalism. There's another word for it too, fascism, but they're essentially synonyms, the only difference between the two concepts is the presence of nominal (read, not actual) private enterprise. But then again, socialists have been saying since the 80s that you need nominal private enterprise as well, so like I said, they're essentially synonyms. The public is not one entity. It's millions of individuals. And if the construction of these stadia were sustainable in a free market, then owners wouldn't come with cap in hand for tax money, they'd collect voluntary funds from investors (like what the Steinbrenners did to build the new Yankee Stadium.)
Also, the concepts of materialism and counterproductiveness are opposites.
@Suicrat: lol OK so you don't want to take this discussion seriously, good for the thread as we can both shut up. The public DOES want stadiums, and the government has always funded all sorts of development in all sectors of society. Without government, capitalism could not exist, there is no such thing as free market capitalism because without government it would just be barbarism. Materialism and counter-productivity are neither opposites nor synonyms. What is good for business is not always good for people as a whole.
" @Suicrat: lol OK so you don't want to take this discussion seriously, good for the thread as we can both shut up. The public DOES want stadiums, and the government has always funded all sorts of development in all sectors of society. Without government, capitalism could not exist, there is no such thing as free market capitalism because without government it would just be barbarism. Materialism and counter-productivity are neither opposites nor synonyms. What is good for business is not always good for people as a whole. "
Okay, let's break this down into separate clauses so that the terms can be understood, and we can operate with clarity.
Free market capitalism does require a government, it requires a government to deter the initiation of force (and when it initiates force itself, it doesn't do a good job of that.)
There has never been free market capitalism, but that does not mean there is no evidence to suggest free market capitalism would not be preferable to the current economic system, because the evidence can be seen in the degrees of liberty with which particular segments of the global economy, and particular geographic regions operate.
Free market capitalism without a government would not be free market capitalism, it would be anarchy. Anarchy and capitalism are not the same thing.
Productivity requires material resources, and a recognition of the existence of material reality (AKA materialism), so if a process is counter-productive, then it is also counter-materialist.
No. They create entertainment for billions of people. So long as we watch the sports (and therefore the ads), they deserve that much. If they paid less, less talented players would play, and therefore it wouldn't produce the same amount of entertainment.
Log in to comment