Originally Posted by The Doctor
You still seem to be either missing or ignoring my point that when a game is rigged the team being forced to lose is going to be paid as well. They're paid to lose, they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. I can't fathom how you don't grasp that concept, considering you seem hell-bent on bringing up their payment and endorsement income and such. If a player is paid to throw one game every other season or so, then he's really not going to be too choked up about it. Especially if, as you say, they care more about the money than the game itself. His endorsements and sponsors and the like aren't necessarily drastically affected if he and his team-mates throw a single game.
Your point only potentially holds any kind of validity if we're talking about the rigging of an entire season. If we're talking the scripting of an entire competitive sport, though, then the economics are distinctly different, and neither of our arguments make any real sense anymore.
You still stuck on the point that the team is payed to lose, but the only circumstance in which you had a reason for a team to throw a game i threw out. By talking about how a team wouldn't need to get another team to throw the game so they can get this endorsement because if you give your team big enough incentives to win than they wont lose.
So if you can think of another circumstance that this is true than im open ears