Are Athletes Paid Too Much?

Published on December 13, 2004 By wnx_decoy In Sports & Leisure

I'm sorry if this topic has been used up before but I am debating it in my senior skills class and I would like some input from some of you if you'd be so kind. My teacher said that she'd like it more if we had something like that and I figured this would be a GREAT way to do so.

My stand is that athletes aren't paid too much. The main points that are brought are for my arguement are that it's dangerous, the practice for the sports is intense, and they bring the people in so they make the money. If there are other points you have please help me out or if there are any good points you want to make for the opposing side I could hand them over to my debate partner. Thank you.

Capt. over and out!

Comments (Page 1)

trina_p

on Dec 13, 2004

I have absolutely no idea - but you asked me to reply so I am.

I watch some sport, hear about salary caps on the news but rarely pay any attention to it. Also I'm Australian and I think it works differently and I know nothing about Aerican athletes apart from what gets said in the news if one is busted for drugs or charged with rape.
Sorry to be absolutely no help whatsoever - apart from getting this into the recent forums section

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 13, 2004

If you believe in "free markets" then there should be no caps and no efforts to control player's salaries. When people get sick of it they will stop going to games and stop watching...then the salaries as well as the price of the tickets will come down. On the other hand, many cities in the U.S. pay for new stadiums with tax dollars. They say it creates jobs but that is debatable...construction jobs in the beginning are high paying but when the stadium is finished, then it only produces lower paying jobs. Instead of using tax money for athletic stadiums, wouldn't it be put to better use to pay firemen or police officers more money? Does an athlete's job have more value to society than a school teacher, a fireman, or a policeman? If the answer is yes...what does that say about us as a society and our alleged moral "values?" Just some random thoughts...

Zoologist03

on Dec 13, 2004

I don't really think they need to be paid too much at all. If they're going to be in "danger" playing sports and running around, it's because they chose to do it. Being an athlete takes much skill and practice but it's nothing unique, like finding a cure for cancer. I think it's a bit stupid to pay someone millions for playing a game all the time and practicing....but, that's just me....

Sorry I couldn't take your viewpoint, Capt.,
~Zoo

Death_By_Beebles

on Dec 13, 2004

The payment levels of pro atheletes are only too high when the populus decides as a collective that they don't want the prices of their tickets at 300 dollars apiece for nosebleed sections. Really, consumers choose to pay athelete that much because they pay high ticket prices.

I don't think that atheletes should be payed extremely large sums of money, but I don't buy tickets, so I don't have the right to complain.

Does that help?

Peace,

Beebes

NotSoSmellySarah

on Dec 13, 2004

I'm so against them being paid so much, so sorry, wish i could be of some help...

wnx_decoy

on Dec 13, 2004

Well, I guess I could give these replies to Andrew seeing as how none of you are helping me any.

Thanks anyways because I'm sure he'd be glad to get the added bonus.

Capt. over and out!

mindlar

on Dec 13, 2004

Taking a shot at the easy one: athletes are not overpaid because we live in a free market society where people are paid what other people are willing to pay them.

The most highly paid professional athletes are paid what they are in large part because they are both very good and in short supply. Due to the short supply of exceptional players and the relativly high demand for good players, their salaries are to be expected. The revenue that the team's owner can possibly receive due to the increase in ticket sales for a winning season gives them an incentive to hire the best possible players, which costs them quite a bit of money due to the previously mentioned short supply of top rate players.

Salary caps are typically put in place to prevent the teams that have more wealth from completely dominating the field by buying up the very best talent. Due to the salary caps, a top player would be paid more but can't be because the owner has been disallowed from paying as much.

The discussion typically does not talk about the "typical" professional athlete who's salary is under $100K per year because they are not in the limelight. For example minor league baseball players are professional athletes, however their salaries are much more in line with those (even lower in some cases) than typical professionals in other fields.

When this topic comes up, those arguing against the salaries often attack the question as being invalid because they don't believe that the athletes should be paid as much as they are. The money being paid to the athletes is typically a transfer of money from a private individual/company to another private individual. The money is not coming out of tax revenues, so it is not a direct competitor for the salaries of government employees like teachers, firefighters, or police officers.

cyphr

on Dec 14, 2004

I don't think they're paid too much for the same reasons, there is a limited number of athletes that can play at that level. Therefore, hitherto, hence, economically speaking since there is a limited supply (of players), more will be payed for them by the consumer (GMs, owners).

HOWEVER (it's good to see your argument from the opposing side as well), compared to teachers, athletes get paid WAY too much. Entertainment won't teach our kids how to read and write.

Pam Johnson

on Dec 14, 2004

Here is something that may help your argument.

1. Big time sports are important money gathers for major cities. Least take Seattle for an example; first it has the big three sports draws (baseball, football, and basketball). This is important because these types of sports help bring in large conventions which in turn bring large amounts of business revenue. Thus, along with the business revenue come the taxes, Taxes which include convention use tax, hotel/motel tax (this also includes RV parks and other outdoor parks), and other taxes that the state and local tax commissions can gather.

2. Now this will help you cement your argument (Backup). When you have several big name players on your team then you have what is called a draw. The draw from a big name (e.g. Jason Alexander, Hasselback) helps ensure that your stadium is full for each home game.

3. Here is what the argument is all about; yes the players should be paid whatever a team can afford. Players like Jason Alexander are big draws. People go to the games to be entertained by these star athletes, thus they are in reality no different that a hollywood star that makes $12,000,000 (e.g. Uma Thurmand for Kill Bill Vol I).

4. The idea that they choose to play the game is not important. The idea is that they are doing what they are being paid for, which, is to play a game that the viewing public want to see.

As long as the public is willing to fork out the price of a ticket, a hotdog, a beer, etc. then who are we to complain. As to the cost of the stadium that is something that over time will pay for itself in revenue brought in by taxes (for different venues), ticket sales, and the saling of refreshments along with other sports junk that the ticket buyers may purchase at the stadium. There is a great deal of money that goes through a stadium on game day, and that is what pays the players.

Big name players give you big draws at the box office, so yes they should be paid because of the money they bring to a community.

Pam

Independent1

on Dec 14, 2004

If you take a good look you will notice that pro athletes salaries started to skyrocket when cable TV was further deregulated in 1996. So although I tend to agree with free market economics, the fact is that companies like Disney buy up networks like ESPN and then force the cable companies to offer all or nothing channel tiers. Broadcast rights provide the lions share of sports revenues so people need to look past ticket prices when addressing this issue. So "everyone" with cable or satellite tv service, not only the fans are paying for these salaries. Why should someone who only wants family programming for their kids be forced to help pay for athletes salaries? Congress recently looked at this issue but decided against forcing the cable companies to provide a la carte channel purchases. Several industry experts testified before the congressional committee on how the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the door for Athletes to ask for such exhorbinant salaries. Some industry estimates say about half the price of a basic cable tier is now attributable to the price of sports programming.

In any case I'ts not truly a free market when government sides with the cable, media, and sports companies as opposed to the consumer. Instead of requiring a la carte channel purchasing, or requiring media conglomerates to unbundle programming, the consumer get v-chips to block out the unwanted programming they are being forced to pay for in the first place.

In any case I don't blame the athletes for trying to get their piece of the pie, but when the media conglomerates buy up networks, cable companies, and sports teams...... the consumer loses, particularly when many are being forced to pay for ESPN, FoxSports, etc. even if they don't want them.

apdelong31

on Dec 14, 2004

I just want to point out that the previous post by "me" was actually by apdelong31, my brother, because he was using my computer which is automatically logged in under my name.

I, on the contrary, do feel that athletes are paid too much. When you're earning more money than you can spend, you need to start donating that extra money to charity. Think about it: there's no good reason to be rich if it is literally impossible for you to spend your riches. And I'm sure that even with their mansions and BMW's, most athletes are sitting on a fortune that they will never touch.

"I've got a family to feed." - Latrell Sprewell, commenting on why he is seeking an extension on a contract that will pay him $14.8 million a year.
EDIT: GAH, NOW I AM HIM!!! Ok, this post is actually by cyphr, and the previous post by "cyphr" is actually by "apdelong31". My brain just exploded.

focus

on Dec 14, 2004

I think you mean "Shaun" Alexander, not Jason Alexander (George from Seinfeld, duckman, etc).

focus

on Dec 14, 2004

That comment was for Pam, sorry if there was any confusion, I don't post much...

wnx_decoy

on Dec 14, 2004

It's ok focus, I don't think it was a problem.

I just want to take the time to thank you all for your comments because after around 11:00 am Wednesday morning I will no longer have time to look for more info. and I really think that those were a lot of insightful replies too, thanks to everyone.

Capt. over and out!

Madine

on Dec 15, 2004

Yes athletes are paid to much, and the "free market" of sports is subsidized by sweetheart stadium deals.

Salary caps make sense because teams are selling competition. The Cleveland Browns don't want to drive the Pittsburgh Steelers out of business.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!