Can We Stop The Hypocrisy About Highly Paid Athletes?

If you're so upset that a few athletes are highly over-paid for their profession, then don't go to a U2 concert or buy their CD, don't go to a Bruce Springsteen concert, don't watch Desperate Housewives or The Sopranos, don't go see a Tom Cruise movie, don't buy an Aerosmith CD, and on and on.

Just because a few athletes who have a talent that's highly in demand make a lot of money, that doesn't make them "evil" and deserving of your scorn or abuse. Athletes are entertainers and they are compensated like all other entertainers that draw a crowd. In fact, in comparison to other mass-media entertainers professional athletes in general are underpaid. Most offensive linemen in the NFL make less than Ashlee Simpson, and their careers are much shorter.

As for the false argument of big media vs. small media markets, that's straight owner/MSM meme bullsh*t. A salary cap does not make a league competitive. For the last 15 years in MLB, there have 10 different WS champions, from big and small markets. Over that same period in the NBA, a salary cap league, there have only been 6 different NBA champions. Moreover, no one ever mentions the luxury tax that big market teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox pay to the smaller market teams when their payrolls go over a certain amount.

ask them for some example.

I guarantee, 90% of the time, they will only name black players.

:evilgrin:

Seriously though, most of the arguments I hear regarding overpaid athletes is that someone playing a game really shouldn't be paid more than, say, teachers or the people that run the country. No doubt, some of the comments are driven by racism, but I'd be willing to bet you that 75% of the people who make these comments aren't even sports fans to begin with (ie. it's harder for them to name ANY players).

most of that criticism seems to come from people who think sports are stupid to begin with, so they can't begin to imagine why anyone should get paid so much to do something so dumb

i say whatever; the people pay for it, the money is there, so why not? it's not like they're taking that money away from people who really need it, those who really need that money wouldn't see it no matter how small a player's salary is

acting is also stupid if you think about it. It doesn't save lives. It doesn't propell humanity forward either, but some actors are also grossly over-paid.

explain the mystery of life, when it's part of a movie or play that's a real work of art. The problem is that actors are not compensated so much for good acting as they are for being popular, because that's what fills the seats at the Cineplex: popularity, not quality.

By the same token, as has been pointed out, it's not only superior athleticism that brings the big bucks to a player, it's his popularity, which may depend on other factors, such as looks, controversy, and other "star" qualities. The fact that it's MOSTLY athleticism, though, indicates to me that professional sports in general are more about diversion and passing time and less about enriching life.

Mario Lemieux and Larry Bird made my childhood better.

be the life of an athlete who is also an exemplary human. But I am suggesting that art, sometimes in the form of great acting in a play or film, is life-expanding for society itself, rather than just to inspire us as individuals. I don't know what "Sahara" is; I'm guessing it's a bad movie.

I'm differentiating here between art and entertainment, also. Most of what is paid for in great sums of money is entertainment, whether it's Britney Spears or Alex Rodriguez. The masses of people don't really want art, but despite that fact, all of society is moved forward by the ideas, perceptions and expressions of art. Entertainment, however, is just that: It keeps people occupied without having to think about stuff.

If players are overpaid, look at the people overpaying them. Ultimately? It's the general public that's willing to pay $50 a ticket.

being well-paid. The first time it occured was for the "Fight of the Century" between Ali and Frazier in the Garden. As a boxing fan, I prefer that athletes get the bucks, rather than Don King. Same holds true for the Yankees, Giants, and the Knicks.

I agree with the first half, but not the second.

Pointing to the NBA is convenient because their salary cap has more loopholes than the U.S. tax code. Further, it's a lot easier to keep 11 players together than it is to keep 25.

There is a rather large disparity between the high payroll teams and the low ones, and there's really no denying that. The Royals or Devil Rays really haven't got much chance to beat the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels. And yes, I'm a Red Sox fan, and I don't think the system is fair at all.

I am still listening to the "Joshua Tree" nearly 20 years after it was made. Its considered one of the greatest albums of "Rock & Roll" of all time by. For years it has provided me pleasure and enjoyment. It has added to the culture of the world. When a football player makes a touchdown what does that provide? In the end when the dust has settled they are playing a game nothing less.

You don't think DVDs and Videos of championship seasons also give people pleasure and enjoyment ten, 20, 30 years after the fact? Ask a Met fan about their '86 WS championship, that too was 20 years ago.

Sports ARE a part of culture. They always have been, they always will be, and they're every bit as important as music, artwork, or anything else. Just because you don't see the importance or understand the inner workings of the games, or the immense talent involved, that doesn't diminish its value, just as someone not understanding the Mona Lisa doesn't diminish its value.

...If you could point me to a thread or a post or an article where someone says that a particular athlete doesn't deserve to make x amount of dollars for providing one form of entertainment, but that Jim Carrey deserves X amount of providing a different form of entertainment then I'll be right there with you.

But pretty much I think if someone's disgusted by high salaries it cuts across the board.

If any organization or business generates revenue from entertaining people then they deserve to get paid. What's up for debate is who deserves what portion of that payment.

He thinks U2 is worth their high salary, but not athletes.

...based off of how many records they sell. If a ball player makes millions of of his image or likeness then he totally deserves every penny of that. He's earning a specific monetary amount for a specific good and/or service rendered.

Look at it this way:

I don't like U2, I don't buy their album, I don't go to their concerts, then I don't give them any of my money. If enough people think and feel like me, U2 goes broke and that's the end of it.

If I loved Dennis Rodman but thought that Michael Jordan was an overrated showboat, if I went to a Bulls game during that era or even paid to see the home game of a team they were playing, then I had to contend with the fact that I was paying Michael Jordan's salary.

If I loved Stanley Kubrick's direction but loathed Tom Cruise, then I had to accept the fact that if I wanted to see Eyes Wide Shut that I had to pay a part of Tom Cruise's salary.

I don't think the OP was saying Athletes didn't deserve their salaries, just that it was an apples to orange comparison.

U2 no doubt receives money from their record label beyond royalties as part of a multi-record contract, just like all overblown stars do.

...which is a loan. Until that loan is paid back with record sales, they do not collect a dime.

That is why you have million record selling artists who don't see a dime. Unless I'm missing something most athletes collect at least a base salary even if they suck, and if they do end up sucking they don't get that salary withheld.

There's extra money being exchanged as well. If it were a simple matter of a "loan", there wouldn't be much incentive to sign. And further, they don't have to pay the money back if they produce the contractually obligated number of CDs and they don't sell.

Is that the reaction that's being looked for in this thread? I can't tell. As mentioned in other posts I'm most definitely not a complainer as to athlete's salaries. I say more power to them.

I just commented on the fact that there is a more a direct correlary to what a musician makes based on who partakes of their work, than that of an athlete or an actor. Yes, if you're talking about the evils of the major label system you're right. But the fact is that musicians can and do make much money based specifically on how many people pay to buy product specifically by them and/or to see only them perform. There are countless artists who make, produce, and sell their own product and book their own tours and get direct correlation of monetary input for product output. No matter how much one wants to make the case, that is not the same thing with team sports. If the discussion were about sports memorabilia or licensing then you'd be talking about the same thing. But massive advance deals like U2 or REM or Mariah Carey are totally not the norm in the music business.

So don't get on my back if you don't think it's an apples to apples comparison.

I'm not looking for a "Sports rule!" response, but I am going to fight against an anti-sports one.

The difference between highly paid athletes and highly paid artists isn't that great. Artists are generally paid for future work. Athletes are often paid for past work. Michael Jordan was grossly underpaid until the Mid-90s when he finally got something like $30 Million a year. He was - frankly - a lesser player at that point (though still the best in the league) but he was paid for past performance. And the fact that he increased the value of the franchise exponentially.

And I still have Pittsburgh Steeler posters from the 70s.

And I still have my Stanley Cup t-shirt from '91.

that keeps us all healthy and sharp, but another stupid diversion all about living vicariously through celebrities and their lifestyles. Ideally, sport should be something that encourages men to be engaged with each other in an intimate way, through competition and "sportsmanship," but unfortunately quite the opposite has transpired: through the endless watching of TV sports and monitoring the play of others, men are occupied in a distraction that keeps them from knowing each other as humans.

I'm a fan of professional sports and am slowly working on the goal of qualifying for the Boston Marathon. (Gimme a decade or two.)

Furthermore, I don't see the phenomena of sports as spectacle necessarily promoting alienation. A game can be used as the focal point for a social gathering (e.g. a superbowl party) or as fodder for watercooler chat. Sports can even help unite a community. Every time the Leafs win a playoff series or when Canada won the gold in hockey, there were spontaneous celebrations in the streets here in Toronto, as is the case in many cities across the continent.

Since the baseball strike of 1995, I have not paid for one ticket to any pro sport event.
Like wise I have not paid over $15 for any musical event, even ones that have had multiple entertainers.
My dollars will not go to support over-rated over-priced events.

...at least with music an artist gets paid directly for a cd purchased and a concert attended to see them specifically perform.

An athlete gets paid for the people who buy tickets to the game as well as the millions of people who are watching the event on TVs from around the world.

All athletes and entertainers get paid based on their ability to draw a crowd, not their talent alone. Karch Kiray was probably the greatest beach volleyball player ever, but he didn't make as much as a below average baseball player because his sport didn't draw a big enough crowd.

Because I'm pretty sure if I buy a CD by one band, their portion of the royalties doesn't go to another band. If I go to a concert by band Y, I"m pretty sure that the venue doesn't give that money to band Z.

When athletes have built into their contract that they get paid per home run or per out or per basket or whatever then it will be a direct correlation.

If anything movies and actors/directors salaries are the closer equivalent to what you are talking about.

In baseball arbitration, if Pitcher A is the same age as Pitcher B and has very similar stats, then an arbitrator will award Pitcher B with the same contract as Pitcher A. Also, athletes have tons of incentives in their contracts, number of innings pitched, whether they make it to the All-Star game, whether they win a MVP. Curt Schilling got a huge bonus because the Sox won the WS.

...just as if an actor puts asses in seats, he deserves to get paid as well, even though a certain portion of those people in the seats may be going because they like the genre of the movie or the director or any number of other reasons.

My only argument is that the comparison to a singer or band is definitely somewhat different in that slightly more so than either athletes or actors/directors there is a much more tangible way to calculate how many people specifically are paying to see that particular individual or posess a piece of their work/output.

Up and coming artists have a chunk of their money taken and given to people like Britney Spears who signs a multi-record deal with their label.

..is that a new development? or just a misconception?

..and if they do sell they get a piece of that sale. Small as it may be, I don't think that's really a disputable fact. We could debate whether their portion is fair enough but unlike sports there is a tangible product to sell. If it does not sell they do not get paid. If it does, they do.

those athletes don't get paid either. Remember the XFL?

If each player on a team (we're still talking about Team sports, right) gets paid equally, and/or they get paid per hit or per basket or per field goal, then it's a one to one comparison. But they don't so it's not.

based on the various collective bargaining agreements. From there, athletes get more compensation based on their individual performance. In fact, several athletes have incentive clauses in their contracts which directly pay them for their performance on the field.

If a musician can't sell a CD or can't draw a crowd to his/her concert, they don't get paid. If an athlete cannot physically perform, then he/she cannot get paid. It's an apt comparison.

I'm going to see a team play. And the team that they are playing.

If I don't like u2 I don't have to have them in my life if I don't like them.

I agree with what you say, and Mark makes a great point below when he says these people hate sports already.

There are 30 major league baseball teams which have no more than 25 players at a time. Each team has one AAA franchise, on AA franchise, and usually two A franchises, as well as a rookie league team or two. There are numerous unaffiliated minor league teams around the country. There are young people all over the world who dream of being Major leaguers someday. Only 750 of them will be there at any given time. So for a guy to not only make the Majors, but to stick around and star for a while, there are astronomical odds. They deserve every penny they get. And in some cases I belive they actually do enrich society. A lot of them do charitable work which does not get publicized, because the sports media, as almost all media, are sensationalistic and choose to focus in on a guy who may have done something "wrong" rather than the many many guys who are good guys.