How do they sleep at night?

$500,000: that's how much our whole state will contribute, at the moment, to further developments in stem cell research; you know, that area of research with the potential to ease thousands of people's suffering.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/06/1997675.htm

Sure that's good and all but let's compare it to, oh say, some premier league football players:

Henry: £112,000, a week.
Ballack: £121,000, a week.

And here's some American sports clowns:

Shaquille O’Neal: £200,000 a week.
Alex Rodriguez: £250,000 a week.

http://money.uk.msn.com/guides/salarycentre/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4750681

That's muthaf'ing pounds!

Henry plays in Spain. Point invalidated!

Fair doesn't really come into it. Thousands of people want to watch athletes do their thing. It's just a fact. It's not that they deserve the money, it's just that the money they earn is a natural outcome of the market surrounding professional sports. Stem cell research does not generate income, it just costs money; so it has to exist on subsidies and donations.

Marc wrote:Fair doesn't really come into it. Thousands of people want to watch athletes do their thing. It's just a fact. It's not that they deserve the money, it's just that the money they earn is a natural outcome of the market surrounding professional sports.

You described it nicely, but that's all you did. Picture this 19th Century discussion:

19th Century Skeptic: "Hey, isn't slavery totally gay?"

19th Century tool: "Nah nah nah, you see, people want slaves. They're gunna pay for them. It's the market dude, face the facts. It's reality in your face."

This may be an accurate description of the way things are. The question is: 'Should it be the way things are?'

Marc wrote:Stem cell research does not generate income, it just costs money; so it has to exist on subsidies and donations.

What's all this guff i'm hearing about the market and generating income? Surely generating income just means that someone somewhere is willing to give their money for that something. I think "costing money" and "generating money" are the same thing (i think(?) ). It's just people don't usually wanna pay for medicine until they're the ones that need it.

Anyways...dictatorship. *rubbing fingers together in Zoidbergesque manner*

I don't think slavery really equates to professional sports.

By "generating" money, I mean that people invest in it, and other people pay for it, so that it's profitable. If you put money into research, all* you get out of it is research.

*By "all" I don't mean to belittle research. This is merely to illustrate the point that this is probably a commonly held view among people with capital.

And why is it always my job to argue things I don't believe in/care about?

$500,000: enough to say you contributed to important research but not so much as to piss off the religous nuts who are opposed to the advancement (ie. evolution) of the species.

PS. On a big pile of money with many beautiful ladies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/funds-alone-holding-us-back-bionic-eye-team/2008/04/22/1208742940215.html

Same old story.

Well, at least it appears they're gunna do the best they can (which is pretty damn fricken good) with the resources they're given. Go, you good thing.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/funds-boost-for-cloning-research/2008/06/19/1213770827359.html?sssdmh=dm16.320655

This is kinda related to this post.

What's people's opinion on modern day sportspeoples not being required to have a day job, whereas not even one generation ago professional sportspeoples needed to hold down a job as well as maintain their sporting prowess. Or does the dubious increase in skill compensate for the relatively sheltered/pampered existence of modern sportspeoples?

The increase in skill is hardly dubious, my man.

I wouldn't consider the hours spent training each day to be 'pampered' nor do feel their jobs 'shelter' them any more than a non-sports job paying a similar amount.
Fact is the people who watch spectator sports pay their salaries so if they have a problem with it they can turn off their tv and play sport instead.

Marc wrote:The increase in skill is hardly dubious, my man.

Explain how.

Trizender wrote:I wouldn't consider the hours spent training each day to be 'pampered'

Yeah, poor guys. Hours of playing a game they love. That would suck.
I would be doing that right now, for free, if it weren't for the fact that everyone else is lazy! (or maintaining their social lives or some crap, whatever) and I don't even love sports as much.

Trizender wrote:nor do feel their jobs 'shelter' them any more than a non-sports job paying a similar amount.

Good point. Maybe I would class them in the same boat. But we can ignore them for this argument, yeah? I don't think it detracts from the main line of argument.

Trizender wrote:Fact is the people who watch spectator sports pay their salaries so if they have a problem with it they can turn off their tv and play sport instead.

But maybe that's my point: Why people don't have a problem with it. And I don't think any more people watch sport today than they did previously...? So it can't be entirely attributed to just the viewers, can it?

Andy, seriously, you just have to look at the quality of the play even twenty years ago compared to now in just about any sport. The quality of play is sooo much better now, the skill of the players through the roof by comparison.

Look at pele play in some highlights, sure he was good but now days he would be MUNCHED by the goal keepers.

Look at an old baseball game and then look at today. The crispness of the throwing, the mindset of the players, the quality of the pitches... its all better.

And yes, its is a pitty that research doesn't get more dollars. But there are so many charities out there that do really good work that you can't give to all of them. Its a by product of capatalism, which is incidentally a working system when judged by the comparison to its peers.

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.