PDA

View Full Version : Do actors/athletes/musicians/celebrities deserve what they are payed?


Prime
06-29-2007, 10:41 AM
Many celebrities from various fields make large sums of money. Do they deserve it?

Discuss.

Pho3nix
06-29-2007, 10:52 AM
Do they deserve it?

In my opinion, no.

I think people like cops, firefighters, nurses etc deserve more money than a man/woman who happens to be good at running after a ball and kicking it into a rectangular space with a net.

JediKnight707
06-29-2007, 11:24 AM
Yes they do.

Athletes are payed huge amounts of money because they entertain us. That's like asking if we should pay a comedian for making us laugh. Of course we should. It's his job and he deserves money for it. And why does an entertainer deserve so much money?

Because they have an ability that a normal person does not. Whether it being able to kick a ball far, run fast, whatever, they have the ability to do that. And us normal humans find something entertaining about watching someone who has better physical condition run around. They deserve money for being able to acquire that special ability. And we can bitch and moan all we want, but we're the ones that fund these peoples large salaries. As long as humans will live, we will continue to pay these people and wonder why we don't get paid that much.

I think people like cops, firefighters, nurses etc deserve more money than a man/woman who happens to be good at running after a ball and kicking it into a rectangular space with a net.

So we should pay someone who drives around in a car and puts people in handcuffs? Or we should pay someone who points a hose at a fire?

ET Warrior
06-29-2007, 11:30 AM
Athletes are only able to make the amount of money they do because we supply the money to pay them with.

I certainly don't think they need that much money, but they do provide a great majority of people with entertainment that they want.

ChAiNz.2da
06-29-2007, 11:39 AM
Continuing from the Performance-enhancing drugs and sports--does it diminish sports? thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=179978)...
--------------------------------------------

Unless specifically targeting a specfic "group", I'm going to use the term "Performer" as an 'include all groups' term (eg. athletes, actors, musicians, celebrities, etc.)

They do, to a large degree. (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:miY5XBiYmK4J:online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/pt-af323_athletechart.pdf+pro+athlete+charitable+dona tions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca) Many athletes are actively involved with charities and charitable events, and donate large sums of money to various causes. For example, David Robinson gave $5 million to establish a college prep school in one of the San Antonio's poorest sections. (http://www.nba.com/features/hoop_Mar00_robinson.html) Dispite a lot of the negative (deservedly in most cases) media some athletes receive, there are also a lot that do give a lot back to the community.
This I definitely agree with you, and I do respect such notions (as long as it wasn't a court order to do so in penance for some crime ;) )

However I honestly think those athletes that do contribute out of goodwill are few and far between. And it's not only athletes I'm targeting.

I'm often seeing waaaaaay too many other performers (mostly musicians and actors) wanting to start their own clothing line rather than support a good charity :rolleyes:. And those that do donate, some are very meager. I mean $100,000+ is indeed a large sum of money, but when you're making that much in a day just in interest sitting in your bank account... please. Those that do start donating over the million mark are much more closer to 'appropriate'.

And if anyone mentions because of Tax-write off limits, then that cheapens the donation even more (imo) :xp:. There's no limit to what you can donate, only a limit on what you can claim (write-off) annually. And even so, it's a 20% adjusted gross income, annually, before any tax write-off limitations are imposed. If you're only donating in order for a write off, you're donating for the wrong reasons (PR is NOT an acceptable reason.. hehehe).

I agree that there are some that breach contracts, etc., but most use "legal" negotiations and teams or whoever agree to sign a contract that gives a certain salary. It is a two sided agreement. In team sports they can only threaten to move to another team if they are free agents, and that is their right. It is the owners who outbid each other that drives up those salaries. Why? Because those skills and players are extremely rare. Again, it is the owners that set the market, not the players, and it is the owners to cave into player demands.
In hindsight, yeah, I should have considered this and perhaps I did take a bit too big of a bite from the athlete's arse.. hehehe. You're absolutely right Prime, and thank you for the insight. Though (and I don't blame them in the least).. you rarely hear a performer denying the steep pay. ;)

One thing I do question though is the "extremely rare" part.

I think that is a good idea, actually :) I'll start one... (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2336951#post2336951)
Thanks for the thread Prime! :thumbsup:

SilentScope001
06-29-2007, 12:05 PM
Yes. They deserve what they are paid. We demand to have fun, that is why they get paid that high value.

More importantly, it is scarce. We don't have many actors, athletes, musicians and celebrities. Hence, they are able to dictate prices. Hate that they are paid that much? Increase the supply. Suddenly, an "Athlete-In-A-Bottle" sounds appealing, if everyone has access to steriods and can suddenly hit as good as anyone else, then we can decrease the prices for athletes, as the supply would automatically increase and they would not be valued as much.

ChAiNz.2da
06-29-2007, 12:30 PM
More importantly, it is scarce. We don't have many actors, athletes, musicians and celebrities.
You're kidding right? :eyeraise: Half of California's population (an intended hyperbole) are starving artists. Hell, half of Knoxville's local bands pretty much armwrestle for a gig. We may be short of "mainstream" seasoned performers but we're no where near short on supply.

Just because the talent/athletic scouts put a pricetag on what they deem as talent doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's actually quite refreshing to see Indy films getting more recognition these days on order to showcase some of this lost talent that "Hollywood" deems not up to snuff.

As far as athletes go, I see plenty of benchwarmers no matter what game I'm watching.. definitely not a shortage there, maybe a little short on the dramatic show-boating (imo). If they're not any good at playing the game.. how are they on the team in the first place? Yet I still see them sitting down game after game to make way for the guys that have sponsorship obligations for product air-time ;)

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing where performers are actually deserving or earning the ridiculously large amounts of money they're getting. You only make $400,000 a year to run the (US) country (good or bad)... I don't see how reciting a few lines, tossing a ball or strumming your guitar entitles you to make ten times that.

Pho3nix
06-29-2007, 12:33 PM
So we should pay someone who drives around in a car and puts people in handcuffs? Or we should pay someone who points a hose at a fire?

Yes. I think It's ridiculous when David Beckham (for example) gets paid x amount of money to play soccer in the U.S, usually in 6 digit numbers.

SilentScope001
06-29-2007, 12:38 PM
More importantly, it is scarce. We don't have many actors, athletes, musicians and celebrities.

Let me explain then. I meant, not very many (HIRED the professional indursty) actors, athletes, musicians, and celebrites. You can have amueters, but unless you can enter the indursty, then you do not count. You are in the majority...which lies a big problem, since the non-indursty market for all of these things are croweded with other non-indursty people like you. Prices goes down for all those concerned.

Half of California's population (an intended hyperbole) are starving artists. Hell, half of Knoxville's local bands pretty much armwrestle for a gig. We may be short of "mainstream" seasoned performers but we're no where near short on supply.

Exactly. The reason they are starving is because there is an oversupply of artists. That brings the price of artists down, which means overall, they all lose money. This is an example of why PRICES are the ones that go down. Since you are nowhere short on supply for artists, that is why they are starving.

If there were only a few artists, they would all be rich. And there are a few artists who do get seen as "Hollywood materials" (or indursty-grade), hence those artists are the ones that get paid a lot. However, most artists, due to the oversupply, have to starve.

And, as for the many benchwarmer who get $200,000 a year, this still means that they are seen as rare. Why don't you go down there and head to the trials and see if you can get the job of being benchwarmer? If some nobody can do it, then we can fix the problem and the prices will go down. However, the nobodies still have to go through tests, just in the rare case that someone has to USE them. Again, they have to be seen as "indursty-grade", and if there is a limited supply of "indursty-grade" baseball players...you can expect prices to go up.

Indie movies may be better than these professional movies made, but it is all "subjective" and that "invisible hand" doesn't care about wheter stuff is good or bad. All the market cares about is "supply and demand", there is overall higher demand for "indursty-grade" actors/atheltes/musicians/celebrities and overall lower supply for those people. We need to increase supply to decrease prices...

If you want to condemn why people DEMAND this sort of "useless fluff", I'll be right in line with you. But prices are set due to people demanding them, and I doubt we can lower demand. Increasing supply however may be a possiblity, if we advance technology enough to produce the fabled "pill" that can allow us to do anything.

Makes me wonder however of the possiblity that those already in the indursty wants to keep indursty standards high are doing so to ensure that there is still scacre supply, and hence make them be able to continue to charge prices as normal. Somehow, it makes me wonder if those starving artists should do this.

ChAiNz.2da
06-29-2007, 01:24 PM
Let me explain then. I meant, not very many (HIRED the professional indursty) actors, athletes, musicians, and celebrites. You can have amueters, but unless you can enter the indursty, then you do not count. You are in the majority...which lies a big problem, since the non-indursty market for all of these things are croweded with other non-indursty people like you. Prices goes down for all those concerned.
Ahh.. much clearer. My observation was based on my interpretation of what you meant (meaning in "total" grand scheme). :)

Still, this decision to enter the industry is decided by whom? It's certainly not me, or if it is.. I've been failing to receive my voting card in the mail. If it's based off of performance or ticket sales, well it's a little hard to judge or respond to the performance when they're not given the opportunity in the first place. Hence my "Just because the talent/athletic scouts put a pricetag on what they deem as talent doesn't mean it doesn't exist." comment.

Exactly. The reason they are starving is because there is an oversupply of artists.
By "artists" I meant 'performers'... however I can see you're basing it off of your initial meaning and I see your point :)

And, as for the many benchwarmer who get $200,000 a year, this still means that they are seen as rare. Why don't you go down there and head to the trials and see if you can get the job of being benchwarmer? If some nobody can do it, then we can fix the problem and the prices will go down. However, the nobodies still have to go through tests, just in the rare case that someone has to USE them.But that's the point.. they're ARE capable of playing / performing, they DO exist, we DO have the supply.. but the exorbitant salaries still exist and it's not because there's a shortage of players, nor in rarity of skill .. but moreso in the rare case that we need to use them? That doesn't compute. We could literally flood the market now with "nobody" VERY-capable performers.

If you want to condemn why people DEMAND this sort of "useless fluff", I'll be right in line with you. But prices are set due to people demanding them, and I doubt we can lower demand. Increasing supply however may be a possibility, if we advance technology enough to produce the fabled "pill" that can allow us to do anything.
Perhaps so and I can definitely see your point (and agree with you).. but after I reached a certain age and realized just how much I was paying for a ticket and realized what little I was getting out of it... well. Let's just say now that I don't contribute to the performers any longer.. at least in the magnitude I did. My demand died along with my youth-charged naivety.

Frankly, I'd rather snuff the industry(ies) out entirely (temporarily) so that no one gets paid.. see how much they'd take to come back to even having a job in the first place :devsmoke:

I can accept the supply & demand argument for so much, but I'm still seeing more "strong-arming", stubbornness & primadonna-ing by the well-seasoned rather than an open free market/imdustry/pool. This is mainly why I still don't believe they deserve what they get paid. I'd rather not have to wait till the performer dies, retires or steps aside in order to see the next generation of talent which is exactly what's crippling the market today.

JediKnight707
06-29-2007, 02:12 PM
Yes. I think It's ridiculous when David Beckham (for example) gets paid x amount of money to play soccer in the U.S, usually in 6 digit numbers.

So you're saying that some dude that rides around in a big red truck and points a hose at a fire for a few hours deserves better pay than an athlete who busts his butt twelve hours a day, everyday, and then has to play in front of 100,000 screaming fans?

SilentScope001
06-29-2007, 02:21 PM
Still, this decision to enter the industry is decided by whom? It's certainly not me, or if it is.. I've been failing to receive my voting card in the mail. If it's based off of performance or ticket sales, well it's a little hard to judge or respond to the performance when they're not given the opportunity in the first place. Hence my "Just because the talent/athletic scouts put a pricetag on what they deem as talent doesn't mean it doesn't exist." comment.

I'm going to assume that it is indeed based on performance and ticket sales. Yeah, they don't give new talent a chance, but new talent is always a risk, and it is better to stick with what works rather than what (likely) doesn't work. However, risk is always necessary in order to gain return (and something new could count on more demand for that new thing), so innovation is possible within the indursty. I wouldn't count on it though.

But that's the point.. they're ARE capable of playing / performing, they DO exist, we DO have the supply.. but the exorbitant salaries still exist and it's not because there's a shortage of players, nor in rarity of skill .. but moreso in the rare case that we need to use them? That doesn't compute. We could literally flood the market now with "nobody" VERY-capable performers.

I do see your point. I also note that there is some sort of Baseball Player's Union as well, that help to dictate prices, and that they also pulled a strike some time ago. Prehaps this is another culprit in the reason benchwarmers get paid so much, to guarrante job security.

I think again another misunderstanding exist. The benchwarmers for the MLB teams get paid a lot, but they have to get hired first. Are there any non-benchwarmers Baseball Players who can reach the indursty standards and enter into the team and get hired, either as benchwarmers or as actual players? If so, then would prices decrease overall due to competition, or would the union mandate at least a floor to make sure that all players do not suffer.

Perhaps so and I can definitely see your point (and agree with you).. but after I reached a certain age and realized just how much I was paying for a ticket and realized what little I was getting out of it... well. Let's just say now that I don't contribute to the performers any longer.. at least in the magnitude I did. My demand died along with my youth-charged naivety.

I don't have any demand for any of the indursties either. However, most people do demand, and hence the prices are bound to increase. In the macroeconomic scale, people like you and me don't matter that much.

Frankly, I'd rather snuff the industry(ies) out entirely (temporarily) so that no one gets paid.. see how much they'd take to come back to even having a job in the first place

I can understand your sentiment. :)

I can accept the supply & demand argument for so much, but I'm still seeing more "strong-arming", stubbornness & primadonna-ing by the well-seasoned rather than an open free market/imdustry/pool. This is mainly why I still don't believe they deserve what they get paid. I'd rather not have to wait till the performer dies, retires or steps aside in order to see the next generation of talent which is exactly what's crippling the market today.

It is indeed possible that there is some subtle manlipuation of the market thanks to "high standards", in order to decrease supply, altough there is no proof, and it is unknown if they are doing so intentionally. For the most part, however, I trust in market forces to dictate most (not all) of the activity. After all, all the "price fixing" for people in the Indursties have no effect unless there is an actual demand for the market at that price.

Totenkopf
06-29-2007, 02:47 PM
In a word, no. Are they entitled? As much as you or I if we win $100 million in the lottery. By which I mean, you've essentially entered into a contract which states that you'll be given X in exchange for Y. Entertainment is big business, and business is one of the ultimate gambles. If there is any blame to pass around, it really goes to the CEOs/execs who agree to such a compensation structure. No one in their right mind wouldn't try to get as much as they could (they can always decide what charities/causes to give $$ to themselves). Even if the stadiums are only 1/2-full, if the ratings are there for tv, the ad revenues flow in like a cascading river of seemingly endless wealth. That is a large part of what fuels the drive for bigger salaries. Despite the $$ that we throw (even globally) at entertainers, there is only still so much that is spent. The way it is allocated is in large part the reason there ARE so many "starving" performers.

ChAiNz.2da
06-29-2007, 03:03 PM
So you're saying that some dude that rides around in a big red truck and points a hose at a fire for a few hours deserves better pay than an athlete who busts his butt twelve hours a day, everyday, and then has to play in front of 100,000 screaming fans?
uhh.. Absolutely....

Considering the people "riding a truck pointing hoses" could possibly save my life, my loved ones and my property, while risking their own lives in doing so. Who actually does something useful. As opposed to the guy "busting his butt" by exercising and 'playing' in between commercial shoots and photo ops...

yeah, give the "truck rider" a phat raise... go ahead and subtract it from the guy busting his butt "playing a game" :rolleyes:

Totenkopf
06-29-2007, 03:11 PM
Man, if I knew how much benchwarmers actually made in pro-sports....I'd tried a little harder. ;)

JediKnight707
06-29-2007, 03:59 PM
uhh.. Absolutely....

Considering the people "riding a truck pointing hoses" could possibly save my life, my loved ones and my property, while risking their own lives in doing so. Who actually does something useful. As opposed to the guy "busting his butt" by exercising and 'playing' in between commercial shoots and photo ops...

yeah, give the "truck rider" a phat raise... go ahead and subtract it from the guy busting his butt "playing a game" :rolleyes:

Can you belive the pressure that these athletes face? I was put in a spot where I had to shoot a penalty shot to win/lose a game, and I was absolutely terrified. And it was just a stupid league game. As a lifelong athlete, I feel for the people that have to get in front of 100,000's of screaming fans with billions watching on the magical tele and they have to make a precision shot.

If that person misses his penalty shot and his team loses the World Cup, he will be forever known as the person who lost the World Cup. If a fireman has a house burn down, then the firefighters gave it all they had, and it was bad luck, people move on.

Do I think that our law enforcement and such are underpaid? Certainly. But do I think that athletes are overpaid? No. Am I saying that the only reason that they are paid such high salaries is because they can stand up to pressure? No. But you have to ask yourself if you would be more fit to stand in an athlete's cleats or a fireman's boots.

ChAiNz.2da
06-29-2007, 04:23 PM
Can you belive the pressure that these athletes face?
If that person misses his penalty shot and his team loses the World Cup, he will be forever known as the person who lost the World Cup. If a fireman has a house burn down, then the firefighters gave it all they had, and it was bad luck, people move on.

Again, I'm not sure what to think. You're comparing stage fright or the stigma a missed penalty shot will do to a life & death job where if they don't perform their job accurately or mis-judge a person (or their self) could die. That's not pressure? That's just "bad luck"..oopsie..?

I'm sorry but I do NOT sympathize with the athlete for losing a game. Stigma or not, what does the person that risks his life, or witnesses a death that may have inadvertently been caused by their decisions go through? No comparison.

But you have to ask yourself if you would be more fit to stand in an athlete's cleats or a fireman's boots.
Given the ramification.. I could easily 'play ball' moreso than to have to bear the responsibility our Law Officers and Firefighters have to deal with every day of their lives. I could very much easily 'move on' from a lost game than I could a lost life.

Prime
06-29-2007, 04:46 PM
Though (and I don't blame them in the least).. you rarely hear a performer denying the steep pay. ;)No, but you often see athletes at least taking less money than they could get with another team either to play for a winner, and to a lesser extent allow the team to sign better players to become a winning team.

One thing I do question though is the "extremely rare" part.Why? How many people do you know are 6'11, can run like a deer, and shoot the 3? Or are 6'6 340lbs and can run a 4.5 40 yard dash? I don't see any walking down the street. There are lots of tall people, and there are lots big people, and there are lots of fast people. But only rarely do you get a combination of physical, mental, and skillful gifts in one person. Look at someone like Lebron James. 6"8", 240lbs, extremely athletic, great skills (shooting, ballhandling, rebounding, etc.), and mentally tough. How many people do you know like that? Or a Kevin Garnett? Or Julius Peppers? Getting all those characteristics in one person is indeed an extremely rare thing!

As far as athletes go, I see plenty of benchwarmers no matter what game I'm watching.. definitely not a shortage there,But who are those benchwarmers? They are all ex-college stars who were at the very top of the college ranks or international teams. Every one of them has been a success at previous levels. Even those people are rare in the general public.

There are, say, 300 or so Division I schools in the US? So say that is 3600 D1 male ballplayers. There are 30 first round draft positions (meaning guarunteed contracts) in the NBA per year. That is at most less that 1%, not even including competition from international players. That is for even that high level of player to just to get a shot at the pros. Teams are only interested in the <1% of them. There are millions and millions of basketball players in the world, and only about 360 jobs in the NBA.

If they're not any good at playing the game.. how are they on the team in the first place?Because they are extremely good at playing the game. Any one of them would completely destroy any joe off the street.

Have you every watched Joes vs. Pros where they match up "regular joes" who are usually people who have had some level of athletic success (like college or whatever) and match them up with (for the most part retired) professional athletes? They all pretty much get destroyed, even though the challenges are completely lopsided in favor of the average joes. Not the greatest show, but it does make apparent just how ridiculously good professionals are.

Yet I still see them sitting down game after game to make way for the guys that have sponsorship obligations for product air-timeBut those guys with the sponsorships have them because they are the best. Do you think Nike wants to pay James $90 million dollars? Of course not. But they do because there is literally no one else in the world that brings what he does to the table.

Which brings up another point (the rant continues! :) ). They also wouldn't ever pay it if they didn't think his endoursement would generate magnitudes more in profit. If they are generating that much profit because in large part to him and other athletes, should they not get a reasonable percentage of the money they generate?

Look at NCAA athletes. They are limited in having a job or in any way profiting from their position, yet they generate millions and millions of dollars for their universities. They do get scholarships (no small thing I agree), but otherwise do not benefit from the school generating money through them (by selling their jerseys, game revenue, etc.).

But that's the point.. they're ARE capable of playing / performing, they DO exist, we DO have the supply.. but the exorbitant salaries still exist and it's not because there's a shortage of players, nor in rarity of skill .. And I argue exactly the opposite. :) There is indeed a shortage of players and talent at that level. There are lots of people in this world that can shoot a jump shot. But there are only a few that can do it consistently with an athletic giant trying to stop them from doing so.

but moreso in the rare case that we need to use them? That doesn't compute. We could literally flood the market now with "nobody" VERY-capable performers.Capable at a certain level, maybe, but capable at the top level? No. And who are people willing to pay to see? Usually people want to see the absolute best.

but after I reached a certain age and realized just how much I was paying for a ticket and realized what little I was getting out of it... well. Let's just say now that I don't contribute to the performers any longer..I went the opposite route, on sports at least. I used to get the cheaper upper bowl type tickets. Then we started to get the more expensive close seats. I'll never go back because of how different it is. I'm willing to pay a larger amount of money for the opportunity to see the truly elite players.

I can accept the supply & demand argument for so much, but I'm still seeing more "strong-arming", stubbornness & primadonna-ing by the well-seasoned rather than an open free market/imdustry/pool.But that is the free market. Why do owners who are paying them put up with such behavior, when you and I would likely be fired from our jobs for doing similar things? Because it is a lot easier to find a replacement for us than it is to find a replacement for them. Why do teams still sign Terrell Owens? Because there are very few people who are as talented as he is. So rare, in fact, that they continue to take a chance on him. If there really were a multitude of equal replacements, he would have been gone years ago.

We should be so lucky. :D

yeah, give the "truck rider" a phat raise... go ahead and subtract it from the guy busting his butt "playing a game" You can do that - by convincing the public to stop paying for sporting events, concerts, CDs, movies, mechandise, and asking government to jack up our taxes. Ultimately, it is society that has decided what to pay these performers. :)

Samuel Dravis
06-29-2007, 04:55 PM
People are payed what others are willing to pay them. If a performer makes 50 million, well, I don't care because what other people do with their money is their business. I wouldn't have seen any of it anyway; I don't provide the service that the performer does.

If you wish to tax the hell out of people with higher income, go ahead. What does it matter anyway, people who make 'too much' money deserve to have their money taken from them forcefully by the government. They had it coming, they should have known better than to be popular/good at what they do/provide a valuable service.

I'm in favor of higher public servant salaries, but few people in Texas seem to care, so they don't get raised. There still seem to be plenty of do-gooders though, and The People have decided that those people are adequate. Fair enough.

Jae Onasi
06-29-2007, 05:03 PM
I think 10 million dollar annual salaries are obscene. However, some of these guys are going to have maybe a 5-10 year "work life" and may not be able to work after leaving the sport--I'm thinking particularly of football (American) here. A lot of their joints are shot after playing for a number of years. The average life expectancy of football players is somewhere around the early 50's, which initially really surprised me, but considering the pounding they take, it's perhaps not so much of a surprise after all. I think their salary should account for the beating they're going to take in professional sports and the fact that they will need more health care (joint replacements, etc.) and if they die young, their family will need financial support.

That being said, some of the salaries are just beyond ridiculous.

Samuel Dravis
06-29-2007, 05:31 PM
That being said, some of the salaries are just beyond ridiculous.Why are they ridiculous? Is this just a gut reaction or is there a reason they shouldn't be paid what market value dictates?

Jae Onasi
06-29-2007, 05:54 PM
I don't know anyone whose work is really worth 10 million a year.

Samuel Dravis
06-29-2007, 06:00 PM
Well, apparently that amount - and more - has been decided as their worth, hasn't it?

ChAiNz.2da
06-29-2007, 06:26 PM
No, but you often see athletes at least taking less money than they could get with another team either to play for a winner, and to a lesser extent allow the team to sign better players to become a winning team.
Duly noted. :)
Why? How many people do you know are 6'11, can run like a deer, and shoot the 3? Or are 6'6 340lbs and can run a 4.5 40 yard dash? I don't see any walking down the street. There are lots of tall people, and there are lots big people, and there are lots of fast people. But only rarely do you get a combination of physical, mental, and skillful gifts in one person. Look at someone like Lebron James. 6"8", 240lbs, extremely athletic, great skills (shooting, ballhandling, rebounding, etc.), and mentally tough. How many people do you know like that? Or a Kevin Garnett? Or Julius Peppers? Getting all those characteristics in one person is indeed an extremely rare thing!
Perhaps so, but I'm not seeing this mysterious shortage of 'fantasy' players that get drafted and/or signed each and every season. They're obviously around and don't seem to be the extreme rare case as alot of people are suggesting. Granted there's a huge difference between a great player and a Legend, but even "just" the great players seem to be satiating the crowd's appetite for a good game.. or am I missing something?

But who are those benchwarmers? They are all ex-college stars who were at the very top of the college ranks or international teams. Every one of them has been a success at previous levels. Even those people are rare in the general public.

...

Because they are extremely good at playing the game. Any one of them would completely destroy any joe off the street.

Have you every watched Joes vs. Pros where they match up "regular joes" who are usually people who have had some level of athletic success (like college or whatever) and match them up with (for the most part retired) professional athletes? They all pretty much get destroyed, even though the challenges are completely lopsided in favor of the average joes. Not the greatest show, but it does make apparent just how ridiculously good professionals are.
Precisely. Please let me clarify any misconceptions. I've never stated the benchwarmers weren't any good, and if I have then I'll be the first to apologize. My point in pointing out the benchwarmers was a rebuttal in statement that we have this seemingly shortage of great players while that's simply not the case. We have entire rows warming the wood that never get a chance in the limelight unless it's pre-game warmups.

I wholeheartedly agree that even the "average" professional benchwarmer could smoke the every-day player... why are we not pulling from this pool of talent until it seems that some "Star" player is going to be out of the picture on a permanent basis?

My argument was that these benchwarmers may just as well be as good, if not better than today's "Star" but we'll never no until one of them pops a knee or breaks their multi-million dollar contract :rolleyes:

But those guys with the sponsorships have them because they are the best. Do you think Nike wants to pay James $90 million dollars? Of course not. But they do because there is literally no one else in the world that brings what he does to the table.

Which brings up another point (the rant continues! :) ). They also wouldn't ever pay it if they didn't think his endoursement would generate magnitudes more in profit. If they are generating that much profit because in large part to him and other athletes, should they not get a reasonable percentage of the money they generate?
O noez! I gots Prime rant! Can I bow out now, this isn't fun anymore... hehehe j/k bro :)

Aaahh.. so now we're getting to the meat of the subject. So we're saying it's the bundles of cash the corporations are piling in that's making these salaries so lucrative, or is it the supply & demand of the athlete themselves.. or just for the fancy shoes that rolls out on the product line that seem to have the staying of power of maybe a school year given the current fashion trend. Then parents get hit up for another $180 a pop for the next-gen Star's product. But because these companies are pouring so much money into the system to cash in on the disposable cash market, they're to blame?

Or is it a combination of it all rolled up in one. I'm getting mixed signals from the supporters of the salaries.

Look at NCAA athletes. They are limited in having a job or in any way profiting from their position, yet they generate millions and millions of dollars for their universities. They do get scholarships (no small thing I agree), but otherwise do not benefit from the school generating money through them (by selling their jerseys, game revenue, etc.).
They don't? Seems to me it puts them in the spotlight for the Pros... heckuva benefit if you ask me. Especially with the insane amount of money to be made. ;)

And I argue exactly the opposite. :) There is indeed a shortage of players and talent at that level. There are lots of people in this world that can shoot a jump shot. But there are only a few that can do it consistently with an athletic giant trying to stop them from doing so.

Capable at a certain level, maybe, but capable at the top level? No. And who are people willing to pay to see? Usually people want to see the absolute best.

The reason why I mentioned the pool of "benchwarmers" (which I hope my conception of them is clearer now). We don't know that. Definitely not as viewers and without game time against the "giants" no one else in the business will either. I'm still not seeing this shortage gang. And please forgive me if I'm coming off dense, but I'm getting this sensation from the supporters that we're dredging rivers to come up with bodies to play these games... when I'm seeing TONS of them every game night :giveup:

I went the opposite route, on sports at least. I used to get the cheaper upper bowl type tickets. Then we started to get the more expensive close seats. I'll never go back because of how different it is. I'm willing to pay a larger amount of money for the opportunity to see the truly elite players.
And I don't see a problem with that, as many of you have stated it's a demand issue and I fully respect that. However, I can't see this career choice as a deserving party for the insane amounts of cash that passes hands. I would much rather see this money go to the people that DO deserve it. Those that enrich our lives, that protect our lives, that teaches our children. THOSE are the people deserving of such high salaries.. not a person living out their hobby.

A decent living.. yeah, as any person is entitled to such... but millions upon millions of dollars, usually pissed away on high dollar cars, 7 homes and court settlements? On than the rare occasion we get a performer who actually does something with it to enrich lives, teach children and such, the ratio is horribly out of balance.

But that is the free market. Why do owners who are paying them put up with such behavior, when you and I would likely be fired from our jobs for doing similar things? Because it is a lot easier to find a replacement for us than it is to find a replacement for them. Why do teams still sign Terrell Owens? Because there are very few people who are as talented as he is. So rare, in fact, that they continue to take a chance on him. If there really were a multitude of equal replacements, he would have been gone years ago.

......

You can do that - by convincing the public to stop paying for sporting events, concerts, CDs, movies, mechandise, and asking government to jack up our taxes. Ultimately, it is society that has decided what to pay these performers. :)
Alas here I'm in total agreement with you man. Though your words are sharp as daggers, they bleed the truth. Something I can't say I'm personally happy about, but yet something that without a "miracle" isn't going to change anytime soon.

Though I wouldn't give up our free market or our freedoms in general for anything, it's just a little disheartening that someone who happens to be play good sports, born with a voice or weighs 75 lbs soaking wet can cash on gross amounts of money in while those that really count, who helped shaped these mega-stars, who are the ones that deserve to be paid above the norms are the ones that go home at night adjusting their budget so they can pay their utility bills for the month... go figure.

Prime
06-29-2007, 11:32 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that even the "average" professional benchwarmer could smoke the every-day player... why are we not pulling from this pool of talent until it seems that some "Star" player is going to be out of the picture on a permanent basis?To put it bluntly, because they are not good enough. Teams want to win, which pretty much means playing the best players the majority of the time. If those bench players were good enough to compete with other teams, they would play more. These other players do serve a role on those teams, even if it is only as a practice player to push the starters. Also note that such players may "only" be making a few hundred thousand, not multi-million dollars.

O noez! I gots Prime rant! Can I bow out now, this isn't fun anymore... hehehe j/k bro :)But isn't that the funnest part? :D

Aaahh.. so now we're getting to the meat of the subject. So we're saying it's the bundles of cash the corporations are piling in that's making these salaries so lucrative, or is it the supply & demand of the athlete themselves.. or just for the fancy shoes that rolls out on the product line that seem to have the staying of power of maybe a school year given the current fashion trend. Then parents get hit up for another $180 a pop for the next-gen Star's product. But because these companies are pouring so much money into the system to cash in on the disposable cash market, they're to blame?

Or is it a combination of it all rolled up in one. I'm getting mixed signals from the supporters of the salaries.It's a combination. I would break it down something like this (the free agent case is probably simplest):


Teams/businesses know that people are willing to pay top dollar to see top players and a winning team. Better product on the field, more people want to watch. They have a budget like any other company where they think they can make a profit by spending it wisely.
A player who is of a high quality becomes available and his services or open for bidding. Teams think he can help them win because he has qualities that are better than most other players.
Teams make offers for the players services, knowing that the highest offer is likely to be selected by the player. They know that other teams are going to offer millions, so they offer millions+. This sets the market for that level of player. Because players of this caliber are so rare, they feel they need to offer this cash. Why? Because the fans are hypocritical. They say, "these guys shouldn't be payed so much." They then proceed to get mad at the team (e.g. not buy tickets, etc.) when top players leave and the team starts losing because they refuse to pay what other teams are paying.
Team that signs the player wins more, meaning more games/more people per game = more tickets sold = more games on TV = more ad revenue = big $$$.
Companies looking for endorsers see that the player brought success and has a favorable presence to the public. They offer the player millions to endorse their product because they know only such rare people carry the clout with their demographics. They sell more product and make huge $$$.
If no company or team would offer multi-million dollar contracts, the players wouldn't be making that money. But teams pay that money because they know fans want those players to play for their team and won't pay if they aren't. Their market value gets determined by what the teams think the minimum is that they have to pay to get the player to play for their team.

They don't? Seems to me it puts them in the spotlight for the Pros... heckuva benefit if you ask me. Especially with the insane amount of money to be made. ;)But again, only a very small percentage of those players ever get a shot at the pros. The vast majority never makes more than your average salary at an everyday job.

The reason why I mentioned the pool of "benchwarmers" (which I hope my conception of them is clearer now). We don't know that. Definitely not as viewers and without game time against the "giants" no one else in the business will either. Make no mistake, those in the business do know. There are people whose full time job is to know and evaluate talent. In most professional sports, the majority of pro prospects are identified by the time they enter high school. Players are constantly evaluated and ranked and given an opportunity. Those who produce consistently play.

I'm still not seeing this shortage gang. And please forgive me if I'm coming off dense, but I'm getting this sensation from the supporters that we're dredging rivers to come up with bodies to play these games... when I'm seeing TONS of them every game night :giveup:They are pretty literally dredging the rivers. Scouts travel to every corner of the globe in search of talent, because it is so rare. It just isn't easy to replace even a benchwarmer.

For example, Brevin Knight was waived today by the 33W-44L Charlotte Bobcats, who missed the playoffs. By no means an elite team. They decided Knight wasn't wanted. His resume includes:

- Named to the All-Pac 1st Team in 1995, 1996 and 1997.
- Selected to the Sporting News All-America 1st Team in 1997. Named 2nd Team All-America by the AP.
- Won the 1997 Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award as the nation's most outstanding senior male basketball player under six feet.
- Played the NBA Rookie All-Star Game in 1998.
- Selected to the NBA All-Rookie 1st Team in 1998.

Where does a team go to get a replacement? Especially one that isn't already under contract elsewhere? There isn't anyone just sitting at home with those credentials and skill level.

And I don't see a problem with that, as many of you have stated it's a demand issue and I fully respect that. However, I can't see this career choice as a deserving party for the insane amounts of cash that passes hands. I would much rather see this money go to the people that DO deserve it. Those that enrich our lives, that protect our lives, that teaches our children. THOSE are the people deserving of such high salaries.. not a person living out their hobby. I agree. "Deserve" is never the right word for what they make. My only point is that I don't begrudge them for taking what is offered to them for the talents they bring.

Totenkopf
06-30-2007, 05:10 AM
"Deserve" is never the right word for what they make. My only point is that I don't begrudge them for taking what is offered to them for the talents they bring.

Basically QFE. Also why I made distinction between deserve and entitled. I would disagree with Prime that it's society that has decided WHAT to pay these players, except in the loosest possible terms. We plop our $$ down, but have always done so, for entertainment. It really isn't till the concept of "free agancy" that you begin to see the entertainers taking a much larger cut of the money earned off their sweat. Between that and the advent of tv and mass market coverage, the salaries/compensation of entertainers has exploded to new and arguably ridiculous levels which were originally probably restricted to the backers/producers of entertainment (sports, music, film...).

mimartin
06-30-2007, 01:58 PM
Deserve? No, but Iím not going to argue against athletes getting every penny they can get out of ownership. However, that does not make it right for ownership, to forces cities and municipalities through extortion to subsidize playersí salaries with public money.

Iím all for free market economics, but financially strapped cities should not be borrowing millions just to support billionaires. I understand the great prestige and great shame a pro franchise can bring to a city. I live near Houston remember the Houston Oiliers and Houston Texans? Houston was help hostage to spend millions on improving the Astrodome (which were needed) with threats that Bud Adams would move his property to Jacksonville. After the City of Houston made the improvement demanded by Mr. Adams the Oiliers then started demanding a new stadium less than two years later. It had nothing to do with the field or the stadium; it was all about luxury boxes and money.

Why should tax money be used to support the salaries of billionaires and millionaires? If it is a private enterprise why do tax payers finance and pay for the faculties they use to entertain us? Iím not guaranteed a certain income in my business if people fail to purchase my product, why do city give sport franchisees such guarantees?

I donít have a problem with anyone making all that they can in a free market, the problem with pro sports in the US is it really isnít a free market till they pay a fair market value (like any other business) for their faculties.

I love sports. I would be greatly disappointed if Houston did not have a pro baseball and basketball team. One day I hope we have a pro football team again.;) I also love the new baseball, basketball and football stadiums we have; I just have a problem with everyone making money off the deal except the people of Houston and people that could care less about Houston's sports having to foot the bill.

Nancy Allen``
06-30-2007, 06:13 PM
No, absolutely not. Actors deserve to be rewarded for their efforts sure but not to the extent that the money could be used in solving so many problems. Besides, they call the stuff we see today acting? Glamor maybe, plastic surgery definetly, but a lot of the things that have had good acting are long gone. Murdock in A Team, who was crazy (post traumatic stress I think) but still could be serious when needed (look at A Nice Place to Visit), let's see actors today pull that off. Athletes are a little harder, as especially the top level athletes they train like Olympians (who get not nearly as much money by the way) in their chosen field, they earn, the key work here is earn, a lot of what they make. This even more true of those who are true professionals, those who don't act like spoilt brats when someone is making millions more than they are, or those who make time for their fans. Fifteen years ago I would say they do earn the money. But fifty million? A year? Is it possible to spend that much money? Why shouldn't soldiers or public servents (medical, firefighters, police officers) or scientists working on ways to beat life threatening disease or even those working to eliminate poverty, hatred, bigotry, why shouldn't they earn anywhere near that amount?

SilentScope001
06-30-2007, 10:31 PM
Why shouldn't soldiers or public servents (medical, firefighters, police officers) or scientists working on ways to beat life threatening disease or even those working to eliminate poverty, hatred, bigotry, why shouldn't they earn anywhere near that amount?

Because how much money do we give them?

If we reward police officers with tons of money, then who will we taken it from? Those who are paid far too much money? Would cops be able to form their own personal fan club who will defend them in case of any accusation of "police brutality"? What about teachers? If they are rich, will they be able to purchase their own small harem of women just like those rap artists? (Make sure all the people in the Harem are at the legal age, and have them conduct their acitivty outside of class, and all would be fine, no?) Or medical professionals, being millionares, also get the repuation of being egoistic brats with strange terminology?

And I haven't even gotten to the tabloids that will cover all those scandlous professions.

We have a limited amount of resources, and if we pour resources into one career, the other careers will complain about being underpaid (nobody complains about being overpaid).

And fine arts suffer. Sure, I don't see CHIC FLICK VI as a good movie, but many people do. And I do like Citizen Kane, but that may not be made if the movie indursty wasn't popular at all, or if there wasn't any money associated with it. We lost some great stuff, but we also gained some stuff.

Samuel Dravis
06-30-2007, 11:04 PM
The last musician I supported I just payed $12 dollars for a CD directly from them. I think that was a fair price, because I really love that band and I listen to their music all the time. Their 50 minute CD was worth the half hour it took me to make the money to pay for it, and I decided it was worth my time. Multiply my support by however many people like them, and suddenly there are big numbers. All those fans are perfectly free not to buy their stuff, of course, but they do anyway. I don't see how this band should be expected to artificially limit their income when they have no reason to do so; indeed, you can see them as doing their fans a favor in that they provide good entertainment for what I found was a fair price. 50 mins of jammin' music that I can listen to *forever* compared to half an hour? Heck yes, I'll pay that.

And yes, they do deserve compensation for their services - I'm not paying them for how long they spent thinking up their tune, I'm paying for the value of listening to the finished product. With sports, do you pay them for all the years they spent practicing, or do you pay to see them when they're good? Yeah. Thought so.

There's a difference between someone whose work can be enjoyed by nearly everyone simultaneously and someone who work is more limited. The cop can only be in one place at a time; the people decide a fair price to pay them for their services. Note that the musician/athlete/celebrity/software developer/artist/columnist/inventor etc., does not share that hindrance to their money making power.

Having a more marketable skill/whatever DOES NOT make the money ill-gained. It doesn't even make it the slightest bit shady.

Good things to keep in mind for career paths, however. ;)

Achilles
06-30-2007, 11:10 PM
Many celebrities from various fields make large sums of money. Do they deserve it?

Discuss. Well depending on how one interprets the wording of the question...

These groups are playing with money that we provide them. If anyone "deserves" to eat their fill from the money trough, it's the individuals putting forth the work. In other words, if it's between a performer (using Chainz's meaning) and the guy behind the guy, I'd rather see it go to the performer.

With that said, I think it's a sad commentary on our society that the general public is willing (dare I say eager) to play that game. So long as we continue to buy sport jerseys, season tickets, pay-per-view, concert tickets, cds, movie tickets, dvd's, etc we'll be adding fuel to the fire. We vote with our dollars, so if any of us aren't happy with what we see, we should probably look to ourselves for a solution.

*steps off soapbox*

Corinthian
07-02-2007, 03:22 AM
They make that much money because we're willing to pay for it. That's how the economy works, people don't get paid what they deserve, or construction workers would get paid more than office workers, they get paid for how commonplace their talents are. Not many people can do what Peyton Manning does, and not many people look like Brad Pitt. Is it fair? Not really. But that's the way it works.

Prime
07-02-2007, 08:37 PM
Why should tax money be used to support the salaries of billionaires and millionaires? While a lot of what you are saying is true, remember that pro sports teams and stadiums also generate a lot of money for satellite businesses in the community.

Totenkopf
07-02-2007, 08:49 PM
Well, let them and the sports fans subsidize the stadiums and other perks. I see no reason why these super rich guys NEED to be subsidized when there are bigger priorities for tax revenues. Fact is, if no one gave them sweetheart deals, they'd still build their stadiums, but charge more for the fans and others to use them. Same goes for athletes and execs in general. Many of these guys would still play their sports at a fraction of the price (but naturally don't have to) or star in movies, etc.. when the alternative is a much lower grind of a job.

Nancy Allen``
07-02-2007, 08:56 PM
Actors, athletes, mucisians and celebrities don't deserve what they are paid. No, that money should be given to their minders.

mimartin
07-03-2007, 12:57 PM
While a lot of what you are saying is true, remember that pro sports teams and stadiums also generate a lot of money for satellite businesses in the community.

My business brings patrons to the Quiznos next door, but they are not helping me with my rent.

That said you are correct I did not think it all the way through. The stadiums also created jobs from parking to new restaurants and bars in the area. I will not say it revitalized downtown Houston, because there was no downtown night life before the baseball stadium and basketball arena. Still billionaire should be responsible for their toys at least to a larger extent than they are now.

One of my main gripes is cities use hotel taxes to pay for sports facilities. To me that hurts tourism which intern has a downward effect on the city economy and the very restaurants and bars that benefit from the stadiums.

Also, why should tourist have pay for the stadiums that most will never use and they did not have a voice in the government that created it?

Corinthian
07-04-2007, 03:15 AM
This is like asking "Should Nuclear Physicists be paid the same amount as Police." Now, yes, a Policeman's job is more dangerous, but at the same time, being a policeman requires no special talent. The pool of potential police officers and the pool of potential Nuclear Physicists are very different sizes, and the same goes for actors and athletes...to some degree.

Empress Padme
07-14-2007, 12:58 AM
they get way over paid . Teachers, cops , firefighters, librarians, they deserve the big bucks. However there are some musicians like Green Day , Bon Jovi, Sting, U2 that do try to use their money to make a better world. So maybe it comes down to how well a person who gets way overpaid does with the money.Since nothings gonna change soon to fix teachers salaries

Prime
07-14-2007, 10:18 AM
Teachers, cops , firefighters, librarians, they deserve the big bucks. Why? There are many people who are able to fill those rolls (I understand their importance to society).

Nancy Allen``
07-14-2007, 10:32 AM
they get way over paid . Teachers, cops , firefighters, librarians, they deserve the big bucks.

Empresses, Queens, Senators. You may think they earn a lot, but in reality if you were to become a professional athlete odds are you'd make more than they would.

Why? There are many people who are able to fill those rolls (I understand their importance to society).

Actually it takes a great amount of discipline for a police officer to be able to make a judgement call in a life or death situation, to make the right one, as well as a great amount of knowledge on everything from the law (and realising the law does apply to them as well for those who ignore the road rules) to how best to respond when the law is broken. Example, threats are made, threats are against the law and rather that undertake the task of following through the matter these things are often swept under, the officer in question not wanting to bother. Take things a step further, the Special Weapons and Tactics unit or your equivilent. You look at their training alone and tell me they don't deserve a pay rise. Besides which for people such as firefighters and police officers especially, they put their lives on the line. Which would you rather do, risk your life to save others or sign a contract guarenteeing big dollars for little effort and less maturity?

Rabish Bini
07-18-2007, 06:24 AM
No.
If anyone deserves that much money it's the people in the army, police force, fire department, health department and things like that. They save lives and bring criminals to justice.
Do I see David Beckham saving my life? No.
Do I see Brad Pitt bringing justice to criminals? No.
So either start saving peoples live or else it's time fore a paycut!

Prime
07-18-2007, 10:51 AM
Actually it takes a great amount of discipline for a police officer to be able to make a judgement call in a life or death situation, to make the right one, as well as a great amount of knowledge on everything from the law (and realising the law does apply to them as well for those who ignore the road rules) to how best to respond when the law is broken...Take things a step further, the Special Weapons and Tactics unit or your equivilent. I'm not arguing that they are untrained or aren't good at their jobs. But anyone, assuming they meet the minimum requirements, can be trained in the same way and be effective. The pool of potential candidates is not small, so the demand is lower, thus they are payed less. Someone who can be a high level professional athlete is much more rare than someone who can become a police officer.

You look at their training alone and tell me they don't deserve a pay rise.I'm not really sure what they are paid, but I assume that it is market value?

Besides which for people such as firefighters and police officers especially, they put their lives on the line. True. And I am not diminishing that importance. But there are lots of people, if appropriately trained, that can perform the same task.

Which would you rather do, risk your life to save others or sign a contract guarenteeing big dollars for little effort and less maturity?Is this a trick question? :)

But I wouldn't say minimal effort, or necessarily less maturity. It takes a many years of effort and sacrifice to make it to that level, and effort to stay at that level, since everyone else is trying to take your job. As for maturity, that varies, as with any walk of life. Not all athletes are immature, just as not all firefighters, soldiers, and police officers are mature.

No.
If anyone deserves that much money it's the people in the army, police force, fire department, health department and things like that. They save lives and bring criminals to justice.Again, I am in no way trying to say that they aren't more valuable to society or that they aren't good at what they do. But I presume that they do get hazard pay and they are aware of what the job description is. And, ultimately, they are more replaceable (not trying to sound unsympathetic, because I'm not).

Do I see David Beckham saving my life? No.
Do I see Brad Pitt bringing justice to criminals? No.But could any police officer play soccer on Beckham's level? No. Could Beckham have become a police officer, fireman, or soldier? Yes.

Totenkopf
07-18-2007, 01:37 PM
Funny thing is, w/o the rise of free agency, we'd be discussing whether the owners deserved all that money rather than the players/actors/etc.. I'd still contend, though, that they are NOT worth the money. Simple reason being that many of them would gladly play/act/sing at a mere fraction of the price they actually get. Everything else is like winning the lottery. Beckham may be worth more than 100k/yr, but NOT $50 mil (except to a franchise owner with a skewed perspective on reality ;) )

John Galt
07-18-2007, 02:11 PM
Who cares whether they "deserve" it or not. As long as people are willing to spend their money to see movies and sporting events, and buy sports and movie memorabilia the athletes, stars, celebs, etc. WILL be paid that much.

AS long as they earned it, and people are willing to pay for it, they ought to be paid that much. If you think their earnings are unjust, just don't pay to see them, and encourage other people to do likewise. In my book, abjectly lowering the amount of money they make because it is "an obscene amount" is immensely unjust.

Nancy Allen``
07-18-2007, 06:48 PM
Things may get to a point where what actors or athletes get paid are so outrageous that the sport or Hollywood simply wouldn't be able to support it. We see this happen all the time, sports teams who run into financial difficulty because of someone who is overpaid (I'm talking about someone who is paid tens of millions of dollars and underperforms compared to someone who excels for a fraction of the cost) for example.

Totenkopf
07-19-2007, 12:25 AM
Who cares whether they "deserve" it or not. As long as people are willing to spend their money to see movies and sporting events, and buy sports and movie memorabilia the athletes, stars, celebs, etc. WILL be paid that much.

AS long as they earned it, and people are willing to pay for it, they ought to be paid that much. If you think their earnings are unjust, just don't pay to see them, and encourage other people to do likewise. In my book, abjectly lowering the amount of money they make because it is "an obscene amount" is immensely unjust.

Yeah, I pretty much pointed that out previously myself. I agree that they are entitled to whatever they can squeeze out of their employers, just that they are not inherently WORTH that much in any objective sense.

Rabish Bini
07-19-2007, 07:00 AM
Again, I am in no way trying to say that they aren't more valuable to society or that they aren't good at what they do. But I presume that they do get hazard pay and they are aware of what the job description is. And, ultimately, they are more replaceable (not trying to sound unsympathetic, because I'm not).

But could any police officer play soccer on Beckham's level? No. Could Beckham have become a police officer, fireman, or soldier? Yes.

Let me say it this way:
Who would you rather pay more for some one who saved your life, which will last the rest of your life, or someone who plays a sport on TV and it only leaves you happy for a little while after the match.
It's obvious who I chose.

SilentScope001
07-19-2007, 01:39 PM
Who would you rather pay more for some one who saved your life, which will last the rest of your life, or someone who plays a sport on TV and it only leaves you happy for a little while after the match.

Technically, I pay less already.

To get the sports, I have to either watch ads for free or pay $100 for a ticket.

If I have to go to the doctor, I end up paying lots of Insurance periumums afterwards, and lots of money to that Doctor to begin with.

It's not me who is paying more for sports, it is the community, it is the franschies, and it is ad reveune people. If you really want to raise money for doctors, why not let them set aside a certain amount of place for Ads?

John Galt
07-19-2007, 01:50 PM
... they are not inherently WORTH that much in any objective sense.

Good point.

Prime
07-20-2007, 03:25 PM
Let me say it this way:
Who would you rather pay more for some one who saved your life, which will last the rest of your life, or someone who plays a sport on TV and it only leaves you happy for a little while after the match.
It's obvious who I chose.Honestly? I would want to pay the athlete more. I can get someone who is qualified and skilled to save my life for what I am paying now. Why would I want to pay more than that? I mean, what does giving them a lot more actually achieve?

Totenkopf
07-20-2007, 05:04 PM
Another way to look at it might be that you could hire on more people for vital services that actually do something beyond entertain us at exorbitantly inflated values. Frankly, it always seemed stupid to me to pay someone $100+m for a multi- yeared contract in what are essentially team sports. If the rest of the team is mediocre, you've got yourself the equivalent of a hideously expensive white elephant. But, hey, it's the owner's $$$.

Rabish Bini
07-21-2007, 01:25 AM
Honestly? I would want to pay the athlete more. I can get someone who is qualified and skilled to save my life for what I am paying now. Why would I want to pay more than that? I mean, what does giving them a lot more actually achieve?

What does paying athletes that much money actually achieve? I'd rather pay for people to save my life.

Samuel Dravis
07-21-2007, 01:44 AM
Most of the time those people aren't saving your life. :p

While they're busy doing something else, you might decide to listen to some music or watch some sports. ;)

Rabish Bini
07-21-2007, 01:47 AM
Touche, but they're still saving others lives.

SilentScope001
07-21-2007, 01:54 AM
You know, a nuclear apoc might come in handy to fix the imbalance. Nobody is going to watch Paris Hilton while their city is aflame and the mobs start forming.

Actually, never mind. Athletes would be paid the big bucks to be in militas.