How do they sleep at night?

Yeah, that's probably true. I'm certainly not doubting that the quality of the equipment/fields has improved (which may contribute some to players' increase in 'skill'). This may be pedantic to pick just one sport, but I mention it because it's what recently brought to my attention to this question again. I think it would be hard to say that cricketers have gotten 'way better.' Batsmen didn't even have helmets! so they really had to rely on their ability. I'm not saying that they were necessarily better in old times, but they were probably no different. Same deal with tennis. Wooden racquets limited the diameter of the head so that it was, like, half the size of today's racquet heads—that takes skill to use.

Anyways, even if you're both right (which you probably are), and skill has improved. Does that justify the lack of a required outside job/receiving an overly bloated salary? I don't care how bad Pele may have been and how good Crynaldo might be; he certainly isn't 10,000 times as good.

That is true. However the amount of money generated by any given thing is proportional to amount of people who will sponsor it. Sports give people enjoyment ---> people pay to watch them ---> money is earned.

Is it any worse than the ceo of a major conglomerate, lets say insurance, earning 700k a year? Of course not. The only reason people gripe is that sports star's are in the spot light.

You also have to look at the fact that the average career of a sports star is far less than that of, well nearly everything else, appart from President of the USA. This means that their salaries also have to reflect this.

I don't really care either way, but i can understand the reasons behind the sallaries. I also think that sport is possibly more deserving than many other high paying professions since it gives people something to look forward to, even aspire to, it creates enjoyment and gives an outlet for non violent competition. (except for english soccer fans)

I agree about the CEO issue (I think that's what Trev was getting at). In fact, I do probably think it's almost worse than that of sports stars. BUT, there's also the fact that I don't think people do gripe that much about sportsstar salaries, yet they DO gripe about CEO's. CEOs are probably universally disliked, whereas sportsstars are Fing loved—no, worshiped.

And you can't be seriously arguing that their short career life is a disadvantage? (actually, considering the amount of money they get paid for doing sweet F.A, I probably would agree) What, they can't get another job? Well, I guess they have no other skills, which isn't entirely their fault, but that wouldn't be a problem if they were required to maintain some sort of level of education and training outside of their play group.

I understand your point about the money generated just reflects the amount of money put in, but I think that that may be one of my main gripes. Should there be any sort of change (moderation) in public perception/attitude towards sports (in our own opinions, disregarding the futility of trying to change everyone else's minds)?

I agree that sport is a valuable cultural distraction/pastime (for whatever reasons), but it was still the same even before this ludicrous nuclear explosion in funding occurred; people didn't enjoy sport any less before when there was less money involved, and personally I think now it's lost some of its charm and dignity, or something.

So is your argument that you don't like sports salaries specifically or just a generalistic gripe about social priorities in spending? Because if its a generalistic gripe i will jump on the band wagon and argue that way, but i am unsure what you want to argue about?

You seem to agree with all our points and then still get angry, which says to me that you aren't all that pissed off about the sport issue and are more pissed off about accountants (or more specifically the way priortisation is given to those things which are going to make money rather than those things which are purely altruistic in nature)?

I'm not having a go at you i just want to know how to respond to make this as interesting as possible.

Yeah, good point. Sometimes my rants do get a bit blurred, as I twirl in every direction—and just to make it clear, like you did, I'm not entirely angry or anything, I mean, I am a little outraged at the target of the topic, but I'm enjoying this discussion and am not getting too heated or anything.

Ok, I mainly picked sports because 1) I was listening to the cricket commentators the other day 2) it's true that sportspeople's salaries are often quoted in various media 3) I know comparatively more about what sports people do in their 'day jobs' than what CEOs of various companies do. And so for those reasons I've focused on sportsstars, although, as you've pointed out, it can, and probably should, be extended to other businesses. Which is why I'll ask you "Do you see a complete difference between the two?" I mean, I know you've mentioned the value of sport, which I agree with, but I don't see how that justifies the amount of spending on players.

So, to try and clarify as best as possible (because that last paragraph was kinda hazy): My gripe is of the more general nature, but I am just focusing on sports salaries as an example of the whole. I acknowledge that it's not really the individual sportsperson who is at fault (since they just take what is offered. Although, if they weren't just in it for the money and restricted themselves to just playing where they grew up, for example, then I doubt the prices would be able to sky rocket so high). Maybe some, maybe lots, of the fault lies in the population at large putting too much of a priority on sports: would managers (or whoever) spend so much on players if the general audience didn't care so much if they won or lost? Maybe some blame lies on the managers who are putting out these ridiculous financial offers to players. I don't know where the 'blame' lies exactly, I was just wondering if we do or do not evaluate it as a problem.

maybe they dont sleep at night... but maybe they have enough money, so they decide to donate to research...

If it was a problem, there would be no easy solution.

besides to work we need a goal or incentive, otherwise motivation lacks! so maybe these players just need a LOT of motivation
it would be a dream job, but you are putting your body through a large amount of physical stress, regardless of the advanced surgery to help you recover, i would think it still pays a toll on you later...

Skyman wrote:maybe they dont sleep at night... but maybe they have enough money, so they decide to donate to research...

Oh how I wish that were true.

Skyman wrote:If it was a problem, there would be no easy solution.

That's true. But then, most problems don't, do they? Now that's some philosophy!

Skyman wrote:it would be a dream job, but you are putting your body through a large amount of physical stress, regardless of the advanced surgery to help you recover, i would think it still pays a toll on you later...

Also true, but physical strains I think I could put up with if I had myself several mansions and a young crazy stripper wife. Also, I put myself through strains playing sports—my ankle has, and never will be, the same again—and everyone who plays sport does. And I payed for that. So, in essence, I do the violin thing in regards to their injuries. Although, their injuries can be more serious—and that could be a reason for them to not train as much and to take the game less seriously, yadda yadda...

p.s. I love the new avatar, Skyman. (Kudos to Glen. He's finally done something of value)

Also big ups on the avatar skyman, looks awesome.

Ok so the arguement is now branching and is two fold. On on branch we have the general dissatisfaction with social non-support of research and on the other a dissatisfaction regarding the inflated salaries of various professions. We also have a sub-argument, which is my favorite, over whether or not sport stars should be regarded in a different light to CEO's who could, in theory, be earning the same monies.

I will focus my energies, first on the CEO etc vs Sports Stars debate. And, as always, i will argue against Andy

Andrew.C wrote:physical strains I think I could put up with if I had myself several mansions and a young crazy stripper wife

thats right its a trade off (or incentive)

and I would like to thank Glen for my Avatar also.
althought what does it say on Glens as the white writing under "WHY" is to small...

It says "Because Mentok wills it!" A spectacular piece of redundancy.

OMG i had a massive amount of text that didn't get in because Skyman posted at the same time!! NOOOOOO

let me just say

LMAO.

ok.. here goes.

It's my lunch break, i have a glass of water and my rush mix tape and, as always, no date.

Bring it on.

Three questions and my answers:

Why do CEO’s etc. and sports stars earn so much money?
Do they deserve this money respectively?
Opinion: who is more deserving?
Opinion: is it right?

Hokay. CEO’s etc. have the capacity to earn squillions of dollars. The reason for this is fourfold. They have generally worked in the industry for most of their adult lives and so have much experience to offer their respective companies. They are, for the most part, highly skilled at delegation and at management as well as having the capacity to deal with high levels of stress and (most of the time) long hours. Of course you could argue that they could easily apply all these things to a job without earning over 300k a year, and you would be right. The only problem with that is that the stress levels, due to both consumer pressure and internal expectations is very high so in order to make people want the job in the first place you have to offer them something in return. The other reason, and this is the fourth fold, is that in human terms we measure our success, generally (I am going to say ‘generally’ a lot in this post as I realise that there are a lot of people out there who don’t act this way. However ‘a lot’ doesn’t mean ‘the majority’) by our relative power and wealth compared to other people. They, in turn, do the same. As power and wealth traditionally go hand in hand to endow someone with power you must usually endow them with wealth as well. The CEO of a company must appear to be powerful, they must then be renumerated with salary packages that reflect this power. This is not only for their benefit but also for the benefit of the company. A CEO who drives a Hyundai and lives in a flat in Waitara is no where near as intimidating as a CEO that drives a Mercedes and lives in a house at Potts Point.
Sports players have the capacity to earn squillions of dollars. The reason for this is not quite as convoluted as the CEO’s (which is entirely open to debate btw), but equally valid. What a sports player brings to the table is roughly the same as a CEO – demonstrable skill of a high order, experience (when considering that they have devoted much of their lives to a single sport, even if that is from a very young age), capability of handling stress. Those that get paid the most are generally the best in each of these categories. The reason they earn so much money, however, is more because people pay to see games and people pay for merchandise. Managers realised early on (thanks to player strikes) that people are paying to see the players, not the game. Think of the Louvre. Certainly there are a lot of people who pay to get in because of all the art in there, to while away the hours staring at paints from everywhere. However, how many do you think only go into the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa. They go to see the best, the one they’ve heard about. If you have the best players people will want to see them. People like to see things (be it art or sport or the blurred middle ground between) done at their best! So they pay. Managers will always market their players, they always have, even in the days that you are talking about where the players were forced to have second jobs to support themselves. The revolution came when the players realised that the managers and owners actually did very little where as the people doing the work, them, were not the ones earning the dough. So they began to ask for more money to reflect their skill and their drawing power, and they got it.

that was answer one.... the rest to follow

I eagerly await your next installments.