Are pro athletes overpaid

drew70 · Nov 13, 2008

"Overpaid" as in getting paid too much? Too much for what? What is the negative consequence of their high salaries? From what I'm reading in this thread most of the affirmative answers seem to be based on envy and sour grapes. "I work just as hard or harder and I only make a measly 40K."

What do you propose should happen? Some of even gone as far as to suggest that the money these atheletes make should be taken from them and disbursed to more needy.

That is socialist thinking right there. Spread the wealth. But then again, that's where our country seems to be heading these days, so maybe we'll see it happen.
__________________

Sleepy Jean · Nov 13, 2008

Goodieluver said:
No they are not

1. An athlete has to pay taxes in every state he plays in since its work
2. Since he makes more money, he gets taxed more period
3. They are paid to entertain you. If you want to go down the line, then actors shouldnt get paid for blockbuster movie roles because "anybody can do it"
They get paid millions because they do what anybody CANT do. Everybody can't hit a 90 mph fastball consecutively or play 16+ games of football with no injuries and be competitive.

If you want to do the argument that "I work and dont get that money" well, mcdonalds people work hard and only get minimum wage. Athletes are paid for their skill and performance level and market value

It's still too damned much money...period!

No one should make that kind of mad scratch -- NOBODY!

Saying professional athletes are overpaid is like saying corporate CEOs are overpaid.

Peace

Sleepy Jean · Nov 13, 2008

drew70 said:
What do you propose should happen? Some of (I think you meant to say some "have") even gone as far as to suggest that the money these atheletes make should be taken from them and disbursed to more needy.

Yes, I think that should happen.

[QUOTE-drew70;1878011]That is socialist thinking right there. Spread the wealth. But then again, that's where our country seems to be heading these days, so maybe we'll see it happen.[/QUOTE]

I hope you're right, even though you haven't a clue as to the definition of socialism.

NO ONE needs to be making the kind of money Alex Rodriguez makes. It's obscene. I don't care how talented you are.

__________________

[/QUOTE]

Swizzle Stick! · Nov 13, 2008

I don't know how much Alex Rodriguez makes but the co-creators of Guitar Hero and Rock Band just got a 300 million dollar bonus check for "doing well".

I'm sure Alex Rodriguez doesn't make 300 million dollars so I would have to say no they don't get overpaid. They pay what you're worth and if they're not then do something else. 🙂

Goodieluver · Nov 13, 2008

Cy/MiG said:
Goodie makes some good points, but the answer is still YES in my book.

Baseball and Basketball players for sure get WAY too much money.

At least there's 'severe injury risk' in Hockey and Football, so I can forgive that a little.

But overall, athletes are paid far too much (espescially if/when you factor in endorsements).

And athletes don't NEED agents, they choose to sign with them to boost their image and marketability.

Baseball doesnt haven injury risks? You get broken bones, torn ligaments in shoulders and knees, the risk of getting a 90 mph fastball hit you in the body. Yes its not the same risk as other sports but regardless

Goodieluver · Nov 13, 2008

Sleepy Jean said:
Yes, I think that should happen.

A movie i saw last night had an operating budget of 7 million dollars(low for movies)
I suppose you would say thats too much money for a movie and instead of movies, money should be for the needy?

Goodieluver · Nov 13, 2008

Sleepy Jean said:
It's still too damned much money...period!

No one should make that kind of mad scratch -- NOBODY!

Saying professional athletes are overpaid is like saying corporate CEOs are overpaid.

Peace

So, lets throw this out there

How much should the say michael turner of the atlanta falcons get paid? Lets declare him a stellar back already. Medical reports state that the abuse the average running back takes in a game is equal to a individual getting in a car wreck. You do that times 16+ games
You think that is worth only 35k?

Cy/MiG · Nov 13, 2008

Goodieluver said:
Baseball doesnt haven injury risks? You get broken bones, torn ligaments in shoulders and knees, the risk of getting a 90 mph fastball hit you in the body. Yes its not the same risk as other sports but regardless

You contradicted yourself in the same paragraph! :devil:

Seriously, my point is that there have been players paralyzed and/or killed in football (or hockey).

Football and Hockey are CONTACT sports. Baseball is not.

Yogi Berra is alive and kicking.

Earl Campbell has major knee and back problems.

I don't mind seeing football/hockey players getting larger sums of money considering the (potentially serious) risks they take.

A-Rod getting 300+ million however...

Cy/MiG · Nov 13, 2008

Swizzle Stick! said:
I don't know how much Alex Rodriguez makes but the co-creators of Guitar Hero and Rock Band just got a 300 million dollar bonus check for "doing well".

I'm sure Alex Rodriguez doesn't make 300 million dollars so I would have to say no they don't get overpaid. They pay what you're worth and if they're not then do something else. 🙂

Very good point.

In that respect (or by comparison), no athletes are not overpaid. (and DAMN--WTF do they need 300 million for?!)

But in general, compared to the average working person in the US, Athletes are ridiculously overpaid (and actors/actresses/musicians moreso. CEO's, etc are another can of worms.)

Redmage · Nov 13, 2008

Sleepy Jean said:
It's still too damned much money...period!

No one should make that kind of mad scratch -- NOBODY!

Saying professional athletes are overpaid is like saying corporate CEOs are overpaid

Well, here's the thing.

A professional sports team pulls in a lot of money, because fans, television networks, and advertisers all like them. You can say, "Well, fans shouldn't give them so much money," but that's fairly silly. People are entitled to spend their money however they like.

Now, a team that wins makes more money than a team that loses, because the winners pull in more fans to their games and more viewers on TV. A team with a really excellent player likewise pulls in more money, because people like to watch him play.

So, Joe Greatball knows that the team he's signing with is going to make several hundred million dollars in the coming year, and that a good bit of that will be because of him. Are you saying that he should take no account of that when negotiating how much of that money he'll get? Because that's just not rational or realistic.

Cy/MiG · Nov 14, 2008

Redmage said:
Well, here's the thing.

A professional sports team pulls in a lot of money, because fans, television networks, and advertisers all like them. You can say, "Well, fans shouldn't give them so much money," but that's fairly silly. People are entitled to spend their money however they like.

Now, a team that wins makes more money than a team that loses, because the winners pull in more fans to their games and more viewers on TV. A team with a really excellent player likewise pulls in more money, because people like to watch him play.

So, Joe Greatball knows that the team he's signing with is going to make several hundred million dollars in the coming year, and that a good bit of that will be because of him. Are you saying that he should take no account of that when negotiating how much of that money he'll get? Because that's just not rational or realistic.

That's a damned good point, Mage. They do make about even money compared to what money they produce. And they are entitled their due.

However, can I ask you this:

What happens when the fans are left with the check?

What happens when the player bolts after taking his money, leaving a franchise in dire straits?

Or when the player is locked into a contract, but then either gets injured or decides not to produce and make the team better? Should he still then get his money?

Or even worst, what happens in the rare, but realistic, case when the owner screws over the loyal fanbase and leaves town---like with what happened in Seattle and potentially Buffalo? Where's the taxpayers and ticket-holder's compensation?

Free market is a great thing, but at some point fans deserve better than what they put in. They essentially pay salaries and for stadiums and still the shaft half the time.

Basically, the way I see it, while athletes might make what they produce, most players and/or owners eventually treat fans like a cash cow and milk it until they're not thristy anymore.

Then they move on to a new cash cow.

Can they? Sure. But its greed and it don't make it right.

It doesn't really bother me [as much] that athletes are overpaid. It's their disloyalty, greed and selfishness that adds to my abhorrence of them [and the system].

And when players and owners essentially hold franchises and cities for ransom, it shows the ugly side of sports in general.

Cy/MiG · Nov 14, 2008

Goodieluver said:
So, lets throw this out there

How much should the say michael turner of the atlanta falcons get paid? Lets declare him a stellar back already. Medical reports state that the abuse the average running back takes in a game is equal to a individual getting in a car wreck. You do that times 16+ games
You think that is worth only 35k?

The NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL could all establish base salaries (like they do for rookies to avoid 'inflation').

Vets would earn more than rooks, top picks more than lower-drafted picks, all-stars more than fringe, journeyman and utility players.

Basically, in theory, there could be a pay structure based on performance and time in the pros.

They COULD put a ceiling (like they do with NFL/MLB franchise salary caps) on players salary's, establishing signing bonuses and incentives on the side.

The profit produced could then be used to fund stadiums, team actvities, public functions, etc, etc, etc. (and possibly even keep ticket/parking prices from rising to astronomical levels)

And it could go back to the city that gave the money to the owners in the first place.

So, in essense, the money now spent to pay ridiculous salaries or to pad an owners wallet would insure the long-term stability of the franchise and the city it's in, to avoid 'going into the red'. That way situations like the Sonics, Browns, Oilers, Whalers and countless others wouldn't happen.

Advantage is two fold:

-Players still make their due in salary [and bonuses attached on the side] while owners still have profit, though not nearly as much.
-Cities keep their franchises without the threat of tax hikes for stadiums and/or their favorite team being hijacked from them.

Redmage · Nov 14, 2008

Cy/MiG said:
What happens when the fans are left with the check?

I'm not sure how that could happen. The fans pay for their sports one game ticket at a time. Each ticket entitles them to see one game. If for some reason that game isn't played, then the fans can rightly demand their money back.

What happens when the player bolts after taking his money, leaving a franchise in dire straits?

If they can sue him, they should. If they can't then they should write their contracts better.

Or when the player is locked into a contract, but then either gets injured or decides not to produce and make the team better? Should he still then get his money?

Again, it depends on how the contract is written. Some have clauses that pay the player per game played, for example.

Or even worst, what happens in the rare, but realistic, case when the owner screws over the loyal fanbase and leaves town---like with what happened in Seattle and potentially Buffalo? Where's the taxpayers and ticket-holder's compensation?

Depending on how he does it, there may be grounds for a lawsuit there.

Basically, the way I see it, while athletes might make what they produce, most players and/or owners eventually treat fans like a cash cow and milk it until they're not thristy anymore.

If fans put up with it and keep giving such teams their money, then there's not much sympathy for them.

Cy/MiG · Nov 14, 2008

Redmage said:
Depending on how he does it, there may be grounds for a lawsuit there.

True. Of course, most lawsuits are shot down (either by the owners trying to move or the commish) or take too long that the team moves anyways, essentially nullifying the suit.

But it is a possible, if not desperate course of action.

Redmage said:
If fans put up with it and keep giving such teams their money, then there's not much sympathy for them.

I'd normally agree with you, if I didn't know people who loved their sports teams like children, parents or siblings (myself included).

I take it you're not a 49ers or Raiders fan? :manicd:

It is sad, but true though, that the fans are as much to blame as the players (all things considered).

Sleepy Jean · Nov 14, 2008

Goodieluver said:
So, lets throw this out there

How much should the say michael turner of the atlanta falcons get paid? Lets declare him a stellar back already. Medical reports state that the abuse the average running back takes in a game is equal to a individual getting in a car wreck. You do that times 16+ games
You think that is worth only 35k?

How did you come up with the figure $35,000? Did I ever say Michael Turner should make $35,000 a year? I'm a socialist, remember. Everyone working full time should make more than 35 thou a year.

So, let's throw that out.

Sleepy Jean · Nov 14, 2008

Redmage said:
Well, here's the thing.

A professional sports team pulls in a lot of money, because fans, television networks, and advertisers all like them. You can say, "Well, fans shouldn't give them so much money," but that's fairly silly. People are entitled to spend their money however they like.

Now, a team that wins makes more money than a team that loses, because the winners pull in more fans to their games and more viewers on TV. A team with a really excellent player likewise pulls in more money, because people like to watch him play.

So, Joe Greatball knows that the team he's signing with is going to make several hundred million dollars in the coming year, and that a good bit of that will be because of him. Are you saying that he should take no account of that when negotiating how much of that money he'll get? Because that's just not rational or realistic.

You just explained why my husband and I never buy the brands we see being advertised on TV during sports broadcasting.

dlsosetx · Nov 14, 2008

Do fish swim?

Goodieluver · Nov 14, 2008

Sleepy Jean said:
How did you come up with the figure $35,000? Did I ever say Michael Turner should make $35,000 a year? I'm a socialist, remember. Everyone working full time should make more than 35 thou a year.

So, let's throw that out.

I threw out 35k as an average base salary

But the fact is, if you do not have salary diversification, you will not have certain jobs done and you will not have art\entertainment like we do now

Adam · Nov 14, 2008

Absolutely. I mean, come on, they turn down millions on a regular basis. I understand that the economics of the sports they play are as they are... but sheesh, put a regular Joe in a situation like that and see how fast they jump on that kind of money.

Goodieluver · Nov 14, 2008

Adam said:
Absolutely. I mean, come on, they turn down millions on a regular basis. I understand that the economics of the sports they play are as they are... but sheesh, put a regular Joe in a situation like that and see how fast they jump on that kind of money.

Thats the point

a regular joe cant do things like this

A regular Joe cant run a 40 in 4.5 seconds every time, every game for half a year, keep that shape and strength and take guys running full speed into them on a weekly basis

Are pro athletes overpaid

Guest

TMF Master

TMF Master

TMF Regular

3rd Level Indigo Feather

3rd Level Indigo Feather

3rd Level Indigo Feather

2nd Level Yellow Feather

2nd Level Yellow Feather

1st Level Black Feather

2nd Level Yellow Feather

2nd Level Yellow Feather

1st Level Black Feather

2nd Level Yellow Feather

TMF Master

TMF Master

TMF Regular

3rd Level Indigo Feather

1st Level Indigo Feather

3rd Level Indigo Feather