Is it over rated, or are they just over paid?

[Gray-Wolf]

Are there any people here that are like me? That believe sports are over rated? And the players are over paid?

This is not meant as an attack or a flame toward the sports related threads here. Just curious.

 

[forafireescape]

HECK YES. Please explain to me why they make millions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing productive for society.

You could argue entertainment value, but I still don't think that justifies millions.

 

[SamIchi]

HECK YES. Please explain to me why they make millions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing productive for society.

You could argue entertainment value, but I still don't think that justifies millions.

Argue entertainment value? What else would it be? It's entertainment first and foremost.

An athletes, actors, musicians, all entertainment. There are those who do it for money and those who do it for the love, or both.

As far as the benefits to society, that's subjective.

 

[JNB]

Their wages aren't based on value to "society," but rather return on investment. That, and the old supply/demand relationship. Most of them bring in far more to the team/studio/label than what's paid, so in that analysis, they're still a bargain to the ones writing the checks.

Me, I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for any of 'em.

 

[mkrishnan]

HECK YES. Please explain to me why they make millions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing productive for society.

Arguably, they're actually (incredibly) the very model of productivity in the post-industrial world. Hear me out (I'm not a big fan of pro sports)... a top athlete generates billions in promotional sales. That in turn can keep hundreds or thousands of people in multiple countries around the world employed, making, selling, arbitraging the products, tickets, paraphernalia, that only have market value because of their association with the athlete.

In the post-industrial, developed world, people have their basic needs met, by and large. Therefore the only stable, long term strategy for growth of GDP is to increase the number of monetary turns associated with leisure and the generally unnecessary. Sure, you can grow by meeting the unmet needs of the underdeveloped world, but eventually that well would run dry as the underdeveloped world develops. Then you're left with just developed world, and growth that can only be stimulated via the unnecessary. Athletes are the kings and queens of this market, maybe second only to Miley Cyrus.

As for the money they actually get paid... The money they get paid comes by and large from the fans that chose to support them (and can always withdraw their support and place it elsewhere). To the extent that pro sports teams or organizations are incentivized into a geographical area by tax breaks or city money in helping to pay for a stadium or other real estate needs, the city again by the same argument does so to stimulate allied economic development, including economic product increasing and unnecessary services like restaurants, bars, and night clubs surrounding the park.

Whether you like sports or not, the leisure / luxury / junk markets that athletes stimulate are necessary to continued economic growth, which in turn is necessary in our economic railroad for improving social conditions.

So, unless you can really implement a plan that pulls our train off this railroad, you need them. The question really is how to prevent economic growth through leisure spending from destroying the planet in the process.

 

[ErikCLDR]

I certainly don't think they are over rated. A sport is a sport and whether you appreciate it or not some people do. I love playing sports but I hate watching them.

I definitely think that many professional athletes are overpaid. I don't see how their athletic ability and love the sport really contributes to a better society. I guess they are kinda the same as actors. They do spend their entire life obsessed with their sport so I do have to give them credit for that.

 

[jb60606]

They're pay is relative to the amount of revenue the club/league pulls in. Should the ball club's owner pocket more and the athlete/performer less? I say no. We have no problem ripping the athlete apart for wanting more, but never question those that exploit them.

Sports in general aren't overrated, but they're 'fixed' to a degree just short of illegal. They're getting far too political and manipulated.

 

[SamIchi]

That's quite a post mkrish...

 

[Gray-Wolf]

They're pay is relative to the amount of revenue the club/league pulls in. Should the ball club's owner pocket more and the athlete/performer less? I say no. We have no problem ripping the athlete apart for wanting more, but never question those that exploit them.

This is my point. If they were payed a max salary of $100,000 a year, the costs of going to a game could drop in proportion. It would be cheaper for more to enjoy them. And owners make less, because they need less to pay a player.

 

[rhsgolfer33]

This is my point. If they were payed a max salary of $100,000 a year, the costs of going to a game could drop in proportion. It would be cheaper for more to enjoy them. And owners make less, because they need less to pay a player.

Thats not really the point. More than enough people already go to sporting events that have tickets running from $40 into the thousands of dollars. The teams don't need to make it more accessible to make money, they already sell enough tickets. Look at a Boston Red Sox game, the tickets run any where from about $30 to over $500, but every game sells out. If you don't want to pay or can't, to bad, you don't go. I really doubt even if salaries were at the $100k level, that games would be any cheaper, do you really think owners are going to want to make less just because they're paying there players less? Not going to happen, they'll just keep raking in increase profits with a smile on their faces. There are also a lot of other costs other than player salaries for a sports team. Sure, a $180,000,000 team payroll is a lot of cash, but stadium building/maintenance, travel, lower level teams, trainers, scouts, coaches, management, stadium operations, etc all eat up another sizeable chunk of change as well.

And 100k a year? Thats a joke, thats no incentive to make it to the upper echelon of sports. You can make 100k a year in many professions that would be far easier than being a professional athlete. I'd hate to have to train all year to be at my peak, have tons of media scrutiny and such, for 100k a year? Give me a $40million 4 year contract any day.

By the way, excellent post MrKrishnan.

 

[iJohnHenry]

mkrishnan, WAY beyond my meagre grey matter.

But one thing I do know, supply and demand.

If the fans are continually willing to pay, what, $90 for an NBA seat, then they are the crux of the problem.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

I didn't say any of it would happen. In this world, it is highly UNlikely to ever happen. Just that it would be nice to go back to the old days, where it was more entertaining, but you didn't need to bring an armored car to carry the money to pay for it.

 

[mkrishnan]

By the way, excellent post MrKrishnan.

Thanks!

I personally do kind of think that the franchises in some of the sports need to look at accessibility. But so does Miley Cyrus. I think there's a valid point that they might be eroding their own long term market by pricing themselves out of the reach of their people. But then I think so mostly from an economic standpoint -- I don't really care about fans! And ... *sigh* I am too old to go to Hannah Montana concerts except as a chaperone.

 

[theLimit]

And ... *sigh* I am too old to go to Hannah Montana concerts except as a chaperone.

Same here. If I went without my daughter, I'm sure I would get plenty of disapproving looks.

 

[jb60606]

The only way you can get a league to stop paying its players so much is by NOT WATCHING THEM. A majority of a league's revenue comes from the media, not ticket & merchandise sales.

Stop watching them and observe player salaries drop to WNBA levels ($60k - $100k).

But keep in mind, this will affect the entertainment industry as a whole. If you can get all athletes, actors, actresses, directors etc to work for less, then I support the idea. But to limit it to athletes is nonsense and just a little biased.

 

[rhsgolfer33]

I didn't say any of it would happen. In this world, it is highly UNlikely to ever happen. Just that it would be nice to go back to the old days, where it was more entertaining, but you didn't need to bring an armored car to carry the money to pay for it.

Can't say I don't agree there. Its not so much the tickets that get me, but the freaking food, geez, $10 for a beer, $8 for a hot dog? Out here at dodger stadium they have all you can eat seats in right field. There about $30, best deal out there, can easily eat $30 worth of food there.

 

[jb60606]

and, keep in mind - for every player that makes the mega-millions, there are 10 more that make modest, sub one-million dollar salaries. In a sport like American Football (America's most popular/followed sport), the average salary is just over $700,000, though many make as little as $350,000 - $550,000.

 

[iJohnHenry]

Buffet seating!!! I love it.

Finally, value for money.

And I agree with not limiting our focus on the playing field. Actors get way to much money too. But reality shows, and the Writer's Strike, killed a lot of interest in the dramas.

Remember, every dollar spent on entertaining you is multiplied before it is passed right back to you, in goods and service fees.

Vote with your dollars and your viewing time.

 

[emmawu]

I used to love pro sports and now it seems it should be in the business section.
Just my opinion, but a lot of heart seems to have gone out of it.

 

[Phillyzero]

Obviously overpaid, but there's really nothing we can do about it imo.

 

[solvs]

Sports fulfill a subconscious primal desire that we suppress otherwise, especially in our modern, and mostly sedentary, lifestyle. Same with video games. It's all psychological and stuff.

 

[JNB]

It's all psychological and stuff.

More sage thoughts were never expressed.

 

[solvs]

More sage thoughts were never expressed.

That's me. I'm all, like, smart. And stuff.

 

[robanga]

The beauty of capitalism is that the market determines what people get paid for the most part. For that reason, I can not really say anyone is overpaid if the market is willing to pay them.

 

[BlakTornado]

Are there any people here that are like me? That believe sports are over rated? And the players are over paid?

This is not meant as an attack or a flame toward the sports related threads here. Just curious.

Yes and yes.

I detest sport and the people that get paid so much for doing it.

They don't contribute to society. If anything (particularly in England) they've made it worse.

Look at all the chavs trying to be like their football heroes, thinking they can get away with doing nothing in life because they think they can kick a ball around. Then they get in debt because they have no money to pay for the lifestyle they were hoping to have when they were rich and famous.

They're a waste of space and a waste of money. It wouldn't matter so much if these people were polite, friendly, well educated and intelligent... but they're everything people SHOULDN'T be except physically fit.

I do not see the appeal of them.

That said, I was mainly focusing on football players. Other sports aren't as bad and some people who play other sports (like cricket or tennis) are deserving of the money they get for doing what they do.