• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Moto-esque attempt - Overpaid Atheletes?

leckert

New Member
I searched for this topic and couldn't find it. If it exists, well, get over it!

It was kindly infered by Mr. Kid that I might continue his "stirring of the pot" while he is on vacation. So, humbly, I offer this:

Are professional atheletes overpaid?

Should all leagues have a salary cap?

What should the cap be? Who should set it?

What business is it of ours how much a private business owner (i.e. team owner) pays his employees (i.e. players)?
 
How do you measure the value of an elite athlete? Athletes draw fans, fans bring money, so aren’t the athletes due their fair share? The problem that I see with it is that players get more, the franchise owners don’t wish to lose profits so they pass the problem to the fans by raising the price of tickets and beer.

The fans are the missing controls. I don’t know any way to improve the system unless fans stand together to force prices down by refusing to pay too much to attend games.
 
Robert said:
How do you measure the value of an elite athlete? Athletes draw fans, fans bring money, so aren’t the athletes due their fair share? The problem that I see with it is that players get more, the franchise owners don’t wish to lose profits so they pass the problem to the fans by raising the price of tickets and beer.

The fans are the missing controls. I don’t know any way to improve the system unless fans stand together to force prices down by refusing to pay too much to attend games.

Do you think flying through the air and slam dunking a basketball, or hitting 30 homeruns, or throwing 20 TD passes is worth a million dollars a year?
 
Good on ya, leckert. Moto would be proud.

I think professional athletes have a very limited opportunity to make money, and for that reason they should get paid a relatively high amount per performance/season/contract. They are also celebrities with special talents and are relatively irreplaceable (in the cases of the really big stars).

I think if you endorse paying star athletes according to some 'reasonable' scale, you should also pay CEOs of large companies (who are infinitely more replaceable and have very long careers and make loads of mistakes) according to some 'reasonable' scale. Or is it a free and capitalist country after all?

I mean, I would rather see Pedro Martinez make enough to live well even if he has a bad injury than to see Michael Eisner rolling in uncounted millions for doing a crap job.

On the other hand, athletes who cheat, use performance drugs, etc. should have to give the money back!!
 
leckert said:
Do you think flying through the air and slam dunking a basketball, or hitting 30 homeruns, or throwing 20 TD passes is worth a million dollars a year?


Perhaps, perhaps not. When you’re talking about an elite athlete, how do you determine what their real value is? Before the players had unions, the owners were getting all the money and the players nothing.

I would like to see athletes get their share; I just don't know how to define what that amount is.
 
novella said:
I think professional athletes have a very limited opportunity to make money, and for that reason they should get paid a relatively high amount per performance/season/contract. They are also celebrities with special talents and relatively irreplaceable (in the cases of the really big stars).
I think this is an important point to make. Being a pro athelete is a huge committment, and it should be rewarded. But by the same token, some of the money earnt is outragious! It also disappoints me that some nations don't/can't assist their athletes to the fullest extent of their budgets. For example in many countries olympic athletes receive no money unless they bring home a medal. I feel that tarnishes the concept of what the olympic games mean.

In team sports a salary cap is *enormously* important, because it keeps competition and sportsmanship in the game. Look at how one-sided baseball is these days. Players should join a team for it's location, it's heritage and it's coaches and fellow players, not because of the salary they'll get.
 
Kookamoor said:
in many countries olympic athletes receive no money unless they bring home a medal. I feel that tarnishes the concept of what the olympic games mean.

I think the rule until recently was that Olympic athletes could NOT make any money in their field or they would become ineligible. Most US athletes who wanted to play in the games had to pay for their own training until they actually made the team, but earn nothing professionally until their Olympic careers were over. That was changed only in the past couple of years I think, opening the games to professionals.
 
novella said:
That was changed only in the past couple of years I think, opening the games to professionals.
From Wikipedia:
Amateurism and professionalism

In Coubertin's vision, athletes should be gentlemen. As in most cases only amateurs were considered such, professional athletes were not allowed to compete in the Olympic Games. The exception to this were the fencing instructors, who were indeed expected to be gentlemen. This exclusion of professionals has caused several controversies throughout the history of the modern Olympics.

1912 Olympic pentathlon and decathlon champion Jim Thorpe was disqualified when it was discovered that he played semi-professional baseball prior to winning his medals (he was restored by the IOC in 1983). Twenty-four years later, Swiss and Austrian skiers boycotted the 1936 Winter Olympics in support of their skiing teachers, who were not allowed to compete because they were considered to be professionals, earning money with their sport.

It gradually became clear to many that the amateurism rules had become outdated. For example, many athletes from Eastern European nations were officially employed by the government, but effectively given opportunity to train all day, thereby only being amateurs in name. Nevertheless, the IOC held on to amateurism.

In the 1980s, amateurism regulations were relaxed, and eventually completely abolished in the 1990s. This switch was perhaps best exemplified by the American Dream Team, composed of well paid NBA stars, which won the Olympic gold medal in basketball in 1992. As of 2004, the only sport in which no professionals compete is boxing; in men's football (but not in the women's game) the number of players over 23 years of age is limited to three per team.

Advertisement regulations are still very strict, at least on the actual playing field, although "Official Olympic Sponsors" are common. Athletes are only allowed to have the names of clothing and equipment manufacturers on their outfit. The sizes of these markings are limited.
 
leckert said:
Are professional atheletes overpaid?
Extremely.

leckert said:
Should all leagues have a salary cap?
Yes.

leckert said:
Who should set it?
Internation regulator.

leckert said:
What business is it of ours how much a private business owner (i.e. team owner) pays his employees (i.e. players)?
The price of admission to sports events is dictated by escalating wages.
 
As for Olympic athletes they should be forced to get a job and stop wasting year after year trying to jump over bars and leap across sand. Waste of time! :mad:
 
Stewart said:
As for Olympic athletes they should be forced to get a job and stop wasting year after year trying to jump over bars and leap across sand. Waste of time! :mad:


OK. Why? They aren't being paid with tax dollars, so what difference does it make?
 
Kookamoor said:
I think this is an important point to make. Being a pro athelete is a huge committment, and it should be rewarded. But by the same token, some of the money earnt is outragious! It also disappoints me that some nations don't/can't assist their athletes to the fullest extent of their budgets.


canadians are notorious for this. and i agree, it's a sin.
 
jenngorham said:
canadians are notorious for this. and i agree, it's a sin.
Especially athletes in the Summer Games, which is really unfortunate.

Stewart - I can understand that not everyone appreciates the olympics, but it's part of the global heritage and culture. I just love it when the Games swing around again, and going to see the Games in Sydney was a childhood dream come true! But without money the athletes can't make it, and without the athletes... there goes one of the very few events that most people in the world are aware of and can appreciate, if only for it's historical significance.
 
Stewart said:
As for Olympic athletes they should be forced to get a job and stop wasting year after year trying to jump over bars and leap across sand. Waste of time! :mad:
Wow, someone who's made over 3,000 posts to an Internet message board in the space of eighteen months accusing Jessie Owens of wasting his time. Thanks Stewart, that’s the best laugh I’ve had all day. ;)
 
novella said:
I think the rule until recently was that Olympic athletes could NOT make any money in their field or they would become ineligible. Most US athletes who wanted to play in the games had to pay for their own training until they actually made the team, but earn nothing professionally until their Olympic careers were over. That was changed only in the past couple of years I think, opening the games to professionals.

Wasn't that about 15 years ago when the rules were changed? I believe the first US basketball Dream Team was the 92 Olympics. Then it was the following winter Olympics when the US Mens hockey team trashed the hotel?
 
Olympic athletes are either professional athletes or they get their monies through sponsors. What difference does it make to us if they make ten dollars or ten million dollars?

To be honest, I wouldn't really care how much professional athletes make either if not for the fact that it has driven ticket prices so high that it’s difficult for a typical family man to put together enough money to attend a game.

If you really want to talk about overpaid, lets talk about actors that make twenty million dollars per picture.
 
I'm not a big sports fan, though I have seen a few games myself. I prefer to see local high school and university games. The pro games are too expensive and too far away for me to enjoy personally. If the salaries are too large, that will be passed onto the fans through the owners. When the fans stop showing up, then we'll know when the players are earning too much. I say-let the invisible hand of the market decide what happens.
 
I've only been to one professional game and the rest have been high school or college games and that has not been many. I think that they do get paid too much but if the fans are willing to pay that then that's up to them isn't it?
 
Wow. This is pretty cool. I thought I might have to stir a lot more than this!

Okay, my real feelings:

In America, our professional sports teams are privately owned businesses. I think a salary cap set by any organization other than the Owners and Players associations would be an infringement on free enterprise.

As fans, if we think atheletes are being overpaid, then we should stop attending their games, stop watching them on television, stop buying their hats and shirts and key fobs, and boycot their sponsors. It is not the business of any one other than the players and the owners how much they are being paid. Who sets the limits of "too much"? What if those same powers said that $100,000 per year was too much? What if they said that no company in the US was allowed to pay their employees more than $60,000 per year? That would raise a stink worse than a three-day-dead skunk on an Oklahoma cow path. I despise the redistribution-of-wealth-mentality that says "he shouldn't make so much money, because some people are poor and hungry".

As for the Olympic atheletes: I agree that the olympics were intended for the world's best amature atheletes to compete. The problem with that, though, is that the US has always been at somewhat of a disadvantage, because our best atheletes have been professionals. So we would end up with College atheletes and amatures playing against the best the world could put against us. I think lifting this ban and allowing our professional atheletes to play is a great idea.

And, BTW, if you look at the MLB standings right now, I don't think you will see that the "big markets" are dominating. Oakland, St Louis, and Atlanta are relatively smaller markets. As the f***ing Yankees are proving this year, money doesn't always equal success! (Go Nats!)

Thanks you all, for your posts! This is fun. I may have to join MotoKid in the stirring of the pot!
 
Robert said:
OK. Why? They aren't being paid with tax dollars, so what difference does it make?

Depends in which country you live. Over here, in the UK, our national lottery (imaginatively titled Lotto) pays out half of the takings to the winner(s) and the other half goes to charitable projects and grants for other stuff. Unfortunately, athletes can apply for funding from this fund to pay for their careers which simply involves jumping over bars. I don't believe that money should be given to them. If they want money to doss about all day then they should find sponsorship and should not be awarded money that can go to building creches, hospices, playparks, spazbuses, elderly folk homes, etc.

Artists, also, should get a proper job.
 
Back
Top