If we're setting up a heirarchy in which doctors deserve more than NFL players because the former are "life savers," then how shall we set up the heirarchy of doctors. Does the GP in a small hospital in West Virginia deserve more than the plastic surgeon in Southern California? Because I guarantee there is an significant wage disparity between them. What about dentists? Opthamologists? While we're on the subject of wage disparity, where is the justice in the fact that the ICU nurse who spends hours with her patients is compensated only around a dime to a quarter on the dollar of what the doctor (who may see the same patients for only minutes) she works under is compensated?

Professional athletes, actors, musicians, performers of all kinds are an easy target for righteous outrage over the stacks of cash they receive despite the fact that the "millionaire jock," represents only a small percentage of professional athletes even within their own sport. For every major baseball player making mind-boggling millions, there are plenty making league minimum. And while league minimum is still a pretty comfortable stack of cash, there are literally hundreds of players below that playing the minors for wages ranging from modest to poverty-level. In football, where there is effectively no minor league system, the difference is not so much in relative wages, but in either playing the game for good and even great money or not playing the game at all.

Despite your single-minded focus on American Football, NFL players represent only a small percentage of professional athletes as a whole. For that matter, individuals who make their living as athletes represent only a small percentage of the population as a whole. If you truly believe that wage disparity is a societal problem, professional sports represents a smokescreen at best. The compensation of the top level of management of the combined Fortune 500 represents a level of wealth of which the big four sports can only dream and the disparity between the wages of C-level executives and the wages of the average employee of their companies is, in the U.S. anyway, much further out of line than the disparity between an NFL quarterback and a life-saving cardiac surgeon.

Now Playing: CNN's "American Morning"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nickel-Z:
Ah, understandable that posting my bitterness against sports in a fans area wasn't the best place to do so . I must nonetheless point specify that I don't hate sports because they are sports. I dislike sports because the game has turned to greed and corruption. Its sad that many of the men in football would QUIT if they weren't paid above and beyond what they most definitely should be paid. On top of that, they may not quit, they might just switch teams. Now where is the justice in that??? Look, I have a slight suspicion that no matter what I say you folks won't agree, but I just needed to clarify my feelings.

I'm wondering if you disagree that doctors deserve less/more than these players? If so, is that what sports are about these days? Do I work hard for my education so these football (american football) playing guys can totally bomb out of school and make stacks more than I? Nay, I feel more than a little inclined to say that its a one of societies problems. We aren't moving forward because our priorities are off!!! Ahh I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop.

---

This better states your point, I think. And I agree with you about the greed present in the upper echelons of most pro sports, and I would add dishonesty. The steroid "scandal" in baseball just cements how much of it there is in the pros. I think that's certainly good reason not to like sports...but I'll still hold tight to my claim that, even with corruption and greed and dishonesty, there are plenty of genuinely inspirational stories. And these include people making tens or hundreds of millions but who truly LOVE the game and take pay cuts to play for a winner or to stay with a team. I think it's easy to target athletes...but what about the corporate execs who take MASSIVE salary increases while laying off the little man? What about CEO's who fail outright at their job yet get "golden parachutes" worth the GDP of a small country when they are fired for failing? I don't see how this kind of thing is any more unjustifed than paying a ballplayer a large amount, particularly if people are willing to shell out their hard earned cash to see them. (I'll leave the question of whether or not they should WANT to see them open...but I could jump on the movie, music, or TV habits of the American public just as quickly as their sports-viewing habits)

I also agree with your assessment of college athletes...I find it patently unfair that college athletes are held to a lower standard academically while the average scholarship student would lose her free ride if her grades dipped. That's certainly a problem that the NCAA (headed by a philosopher!) needs to address, seriously. I think the amount of money college athletes make for a university justifies them being paid a reasonable stipend (the average grad student TA, for instance, gets between 15,000 and 30,000 a year as a stipend and gets tutition remitted) for their "work" on the field, but it also means they should be held to the same standard as all other students.

i like to play basketball and soccer.. they are fun and challlenging..

quote:

some of the english are pretentious, trying to sound more clever than they really are.

We're not all like Tony Blair.
Neither of the sports listed interest me, TOCA racing, motocross, superbikes and kick/boxing.

My favorite sport is actually tennis. I also love playing basketball, but not watching it..and I love watching football, but not playing it.

This is tangental, but does anyone else think it's awful how players and coaches get fined and get threatened by bans just for criticizing the referees? It's even counterproductive -- if you try to censor somebody's viewpoint, all you do is lend it validity. If coaches were allowed to criticize the refs everybody would simply take everything they say with a grain of salt, thinking it's just self-serving.

As for sports players' salaries....part of me wants to say "Millions to play sports? RIDICULOUS!" But the more political side of me says "Hey, people are willing to give them that much money to provide that service. Why not let them?" So as much as I hate that pro athletes make that much money...I can't bring myself to say we should stop them. (I guess the economics courses I took gave me a few libertarian leanings.)

i like basketball and i like badminton too.

Football (that's soccer in US)

I must be mad, I'm travelling to Turkey to see 90 minutes of football on Wednesday! Liverpool in the European Champions Cup. Go Reds!

I agree with Bob - controversy is part of sport, take it away and sport is the poorer. On mega-salaries, I'd much rather the money earned from sport go to the stars on the field rather than suits in the boardroom.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
This is tangental, but does anyone else think it's awful how players and coaches get fined and get threatened by bans just for criticizing the referees? It's even counterproductive -- if you try to censor somebody's viewpoint, all you do is lend it validity. If coaches were allowed to criticize the refs everybody would simply take everything they say with a grain of salt, thinking it's just self-serving.

As for sports players' salaries....part of me wants to say "Millions to play sports? RIDICULOUS!" But the more political side of me says "Hey, people are willing to give them that much money to provide that service. Why not let them?" So as much as I hate that pro athletes make that much money...I can't bring myself to say we should stop them. (I guess the economics courses I took gave me a few libertarian leanings.)

I've always been surprised that some coach somewhere hasn't called on the ACLU to defend their right to criticize league officials. I agree with bob that the inability to criticize simply leads to the feeling that league has something to hide...and it leads to backhanded attempts to subvert the system like the failed Jeff Van Gundy/Yao Ming thing.

Nothing plays better for the "athletes deserve what the fans are willing to pay for them" argument than the old standby: Robert Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument from the libertarian classic Anarchy, State, and Utopia. If the fans are willing to pay it, how can it be unjust or unfair?

If Yankee fans keep the coffers full, and Steinbrenner is willing to dump whatever's in them into ridiculous contracts to mediocre players, what's wrong with that? The sad part, though, is if the fans continue to attend games for BAD teams. Steinbrenner's baseball people are just not hitting on all cylinders the last few years. I can understand Randy Johnson (although I think his age made him a stretch) and Carl Pavano, but the money they threw at JARET FREAKIN' WRIGHT was laughable. When the Yankees fall (which will be soon), they're gonna be a bad team for a few years because of the decimated farm system...it'll be like the early 90's for them.

The only thing that has the Yankees on life support is the MLB's laughable lack of a salary cap.

I really don't understand the argument that is alwyas made for justifying inordinate salaries. It is apparent that CEO's and (some) professional athletes are overpaid. How could you argue that it is right that someone should make millions of dollars a year for a job that is actually rather enjoyable? You can make an argument that, yes, it is regrettable that some people make far more money than they should at the expense of everyone else, but there is no way to rectify that without causing more harm than you undo. I don't agree with that assessment, but I can at least see the logic. A lot of the arguments in favor of free markets seem circular: the free market is best, and free markets dictate that certain people make enormous sums of money. Therefore, it is a good thing that they make that much money.

That said, I do agree that the outrage expressed at athletes' salaries is mostly stupid. People don't seem to understand that if the players' salaries are reduced that only serves to increase the owner's salary, and he's richer than just about any of the players. Even more obvious is the fact that executives in business everywhere, who are far more numerous that pro athletes, make far more money than they should, yet there are more complaints about athletes' salaries.

Also, my favorite sports are cross-country, track, baseball, and basketball.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
The only thing that has the Yankees on life support is the MLB's laughable lack of a salary cap.

Why should there be a salary cap? If there is a salary cap, then there also needs to be a cap on the amount of profit owners can make. You know that the owners of these teams are all very rich, and are undoubtedly avowed free-market guys, yet when it comes to their players salaries they want limits imposed. Why is it that everyone wants a salary cap, but no one calls for a "profit cap" on owners?


And I can't stand to hear owners whining about their teams losing money every year. Everyone knows that is a joke. Every time an owner sells a franchise it's for far more than he bought it for.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Also, my favorite sports are cross-country, track, baseball, and basketball.

Any thoughts on Alan Webb and Dathan Ritzenhein facing each other in the two-miler at the Prefontaine Classic on June 4th, RL? Shades of Bob Kennedy and Todd Williams in '95?

Now Playing: NPR's Fresh Air

Was the last time those two guys faced off in the Foot Locker High School Cross Country Championships about 3 years ago? It should be great. Those two are the future of American distance running. They even had a Sports Illustrated article on Ritzenhein recently.

I don't follow world-class distance running like I used to (I'm more into Indiana high school cross-country since my brother runs now), but I'll definitely watch that race. Should be a good one, right between both of their best distances.

By the way, a guy I ran with in high school and still talk to now and then was in a fantasy baseball league with Todd Williams last year. I thought that was awesome.

Baseball should have a salary cap so..the same teams don't keep winning every year.

If you want parity, then you should be for more revenue sharing, not a salary cap. Like I said before, the only way a salary cap would make any sense is if there were also a cap on profits. Then the ratio between profits and salaries would forever remain the same, barring and accounting tricks. It's just amazing that nobody ever mentions a profit cap, but tons of people want a salary cap.

RL what you said really doesn't have much to with Bob's previous post. He made no mention of who gets what money, he simply said that without a salary cap the Yankees can pay quadruple the amount of money as some other teams can afford. By not having a cap it gives the Yankees the opportunity to hire as many all-stars as they want making the playing field based on who has more money in the bank as opposed to actual competition. And if a ratio between profits and salaries is used then larger cities, ballparks, and what club sold the most peanuts will become a factor. I think that Bob is saying that regardless of where the money goes, there needs to be a cap for the sole reason to make things fair.

Bob specifically said salary cap. That means limitations on what players make, but not on anything else. I think that's unfair and I think it has nothing to do with parity. If you want more parity, you simply have to have more revenue sharing; it's as simple as that. No other changes are needed (except perhaps a rule that forces small-market teams to spend the money they get from revenue sharing instead of hoarding it like the D-Rays).

I'm in favor of more revenue sharing, even though I'm a Red Sox fan. It's just not fair for fans of about a dozen teams to know going into the season that their team has no shot at going to the playoffs. How bad would it be to be a Brewers fan? Or the Royals?

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Was the last time those two guys faced off in the Foot Locker High School Cross Country Championships about 3 years ago? It should be great. Those two are the future of American distance running. They even had a Sports Illustrated article on Ritzenhein recently.

I don't follow world-class distance running like I used to (I'm more into Indiana high school cross-country since my brother runs now), but I'll definitely watch that race. Should be a good one, right between both of their best distances.

By the way, a guy I ran with in high school and still talk to now and then was in a fantasy baseball league with Todd Williams last year. I thought that was awesome.

I believe you are correct re: Ritz and Webb at Foot Locker.

I was working off memory when I posted the original question earlier this week. I should have visited the Prefontaine Classic web site because Ritz and Webb are only part of the story when it comes to the two-miler. On May 18th, they announced Hicham El Guerrouj had entered. Then on May 24th, Eliud Kipchoge was announced for the race as well.

Wow. I think we've turned the corner from good race to one we'll be talking about for years to come.

You'll have to let me know if your borther's cross country schedule brings him anywhere close to Bloomington. My wife and I attend many of the meets and I'd like to look out for him. IU is hosting the NCAA Mideast Track and Field Regional this weekend. Wouldn't you know it, scheduling is going to keep me away both nights. Of all the regionals this weekend, this will probably be the strongest field.

That's a pretty great story about Todd Williams. I don't know if you know, but Bob Kennedy owns two running stores in the Indy area now along with Ashley Johnson. Shortly after they opened we walked in one day to find Kennedy helping a lady who was excitedly chatting about how excited she was to start running. It was pretty clear that she had no idea who was fitting her for her first pair of running shoes. He's a great guy that way. He always has time and a kind word for any and all runners.

Now Playing: NPR's Morning Edition

Wow, that's gonna be a great two-mile. A must see. My brother's a good cross country runner, but he's also a really good baseball player, so he plays baseball in the spring. He's just a sophomore, so I doubt he would've made regional anyway. Our regional is pretty tough (it's the Fort Wayne one).

Once about 4 years ago, I went down to watch the cross-country state finals in Bloomington and we stopped at an Arby's. While we were in there, Bob Kennedy stepped in for a couple seconds, then walked back out. I don't know what he was doing, but it was really cool just to see him. From everything I've heard about him, it sounds like he's a real cool guy. Hopefully, Ritzenhein can break his 5000 meter American record someday.

I just think that winning a championship when you have three times the median payroll is less legitimate than winning because your whole team is on steroids.

Think about it. What would you pick, $70 million of players on steroids, or $200 million of players not on steroids? I'd pick the ones with three times the price tag.

So basically..I don't feel any of the championships the Yankees won in the 90s they really earned.