• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

When will the greed in pro sports end

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<<

<< That is just being greedy. >>

What some people call "greedy" another calls "getting what you can while you can." I mean I've known people making $15,000/year as a convenience store clerk who think that doctors are "greedy" because they may make $200K per year.

Greedy is popularly defined as "any time someone makes a whole lot more than I do." >>


Very true...
 
Unfortunately it won't end because somebody out there is going to be willing to pay what they are asking for. Then the fan gets to pay for it (bending o**r with pants down and no vaseline). Maybe if most of us regular fans can't afford to go to the stadiums anymore and a few teams declare bankruptcy then the idiocy might abate. I am trying to stop watching most sports in general, I only watch college football and that is also on the decline.

on another point, how come no one cares when an actor gets 20 million for one movie, they do far less than an athelete.
We do care since we can actually reduce that sum by not going to see that movie and hopefully it will bomb. Also, a string of bombs will reduce that paycheck. 🙂
 


<<

<<

<< That is just being greedy. >>

What some people call "greedy" another calls "getting what you can while you can." I mean I've known people making $15,000/year as a convenience store clerk who think that doctors are "greedy" because they may make $200K per year.

Greedy is popularly defined as "any time someone makes a whole lot more than I do." >>


Very true... >>



That's just it I'm not mad that he is making millions I'm mad that it may hurt my team. It is the team I care about If football didn't have a cap I would love it if fact I would be saying why don't they pay the man want he wants to keep him. I want the team to win Super Bowls so that he can make 20 million in one year if he wants and still make money doing ads. I think my point is that "getting what you can while you can" can cost you more than you make. And to prove it just look at Jordan he took pay cuts for his team (while living of his endorsments which he got for winning game) at first the he signed for 30 mil for one year and 31 the next that's how you do it.
I make 26 thou a year and I'm not mad about it I just think it stupid to handicap yourTEAMfor your sake. And to me anyone who is in a TEAM sport and does that is GREEDY
 
That's one reason I will not pay any money for ANYTHING in any way related to professional sports, not clothes, not tickets, not memorabilia...nothing. I won't watch them on tv, I won't vote favorably to any taxes or community projects. It's the only thing I can think of to say 'enough is enough'. I imagine if enough people did that (which of course they won't because people are basically stupid sheep) it would eventually pull them out of it. Oh well.
 


<< I make 26 thou a year and I'm not mad about it I just think it stupid to handicap yourTEAMfor your sake. And to me anyone who is in a TEAM sport and does that is GREEDY >>


I guess...but these guys have no ties to the team they're playing for...Shaq grew up in Texas, played college ball in Louisiana, and now plays for Los Angeles...Kobe's from Pennsylvania and plays for L.A.

Heck, the only people who've got any incentive (besides money) in the whole operation is the fans from L.A.

Now, if these guys were playing for team USA or something, there'd really be something to get excited about 🙂
 
I see no problem with any body getting what they can in this economy.

Ask your self something,

If you knew that you could get 75K a year and you boss offered you only 50K would you stay or ask for the 50?

We all negoitate for better salaries the difference is Most of us can be replaced, ther aren't many Strahans at the Unemployment lines begging for work.

Bottom line is that the players are WHY we Watch. Buy tickets, jackets, caps and programs.

very few of us are in that position of generating the amount of revenue that these players do.
 


<< Ask your self something,

If you knew that you could get 75K a year and you boss offered you only 50K would you stay or ask for the 50? >>




Actually I have declined higher salaries 3 times in my life. Granted, I've never made over 30k a year, but I've been offered more and turned it down.

Once was out of loyalty to a company that had treated me well; I passed on a 9k a year raise.

The other two times would have required me to work for people/companies I didn't agree with; one raise was 6k, one was 11k.

The point is that money is NOT important. If you have food, clothing, and shelter the only thing you need to do is be yourself and do what you believe in. I only made 17k last year, but if you came to me tomorrow and offered me 20 million a year to work for a tobacco company, I'd refuse because I hate them. Hell, if you offered me 20 million just to hold up a sign in downtown portland that said 'smoking rules' for a week I wouldn't do it because it's still wrong. What's more, if you offered me say, $200,000 a year to manage the company I currently work for, I would refuse. Managing this company SHOULDN'T earn anyone more than 60-100k a year and that's the most I would take - because I KNOW that my earnings have direct impact on others and the macro economy. It isn't about supply and demand, it's about right and wrong and basic values and compassion.
 
True...there are other things of value besides money but to say money has no value is pretty invalid...All else equal, we'd all take a higher-paying job over a lower-paying one.

Furthermore, remember that money doesn't really exist; It's just a placeholder. You could measure value in anything you want--ducks, gold, midgets, loyalty, etc.


<< Once was out of loyalty to a company that had treated me well; I passed on a 9k a year raise. >>


The value you place on loyalty is >9k/year. Supposing everyone has the same values as you, if you took this loyalty around with you, you could buy a Jumbo Jack at Jack in the box for less than 1/9,000 loyalty*years
 


<< That's one reason I will not pay any money for ANYTHING in any way related to professional sports, not clothes, not tickets, not memorabilia...nothing. I won't watch them on tv, I won't vote favorably to any taxes or community projects. It's the only thing I can think of to say 'enough is enough'. I imagine if enough people did that (which of course they won't because people are basically stupid sheep) it would eventually pull them out of it. Oh well. >>




So because someone pays money to go to a sporting event they are "stupid sheep"?

What about people who go to movies,the opera,concerts are they all stupid sheep as well?


It's one thing to vote no to public money going to finance private stadiums but please define "community projects"
 


<< Actually I have declined higher salaries 3 times in my life. Granted, I've never made over 30k a year, but I've been offered more and turned it down. Once was out of loyalty to a company that had treated me well; I passed on a 9k a year raise. The other two times would have required me to work for people/companies I didn't agree with; one raise was 6k, one was 11k. >>

lol! You are talking about two different animals now. None of the reasons you cited for turning down higher salaries had square one to do with money. They were for other reasons such as your spurrious moral objection to tobacco or some loyalty you had to your company.

These guys are getting paid to do something they obviously have no moral, ethical, or other objection to; play professional sports. This is what they WANT to do.

And you're speech about turning down more money even if it was for something you wanted to do your whole life is not only utterly unconvincing but irrational and illogical to boot. Give us a break, eh?

It was proven long ago that economics is not a zero-sum universe, but if you want to be a flat-earther be my guest. Those who support these salaries with their dollars can vote those dollars at any time. Apparently, you're in a distinct minority among sports fans because there seems to be no palpable migrating of money OUT of professional sports.
 


<< I see no problem with any body getting what they can in this economy.

Ask your self something,

If you knew that you could get 75K a year and you boss offered you only 50K would you stay or ask for the 50?

We all negoitate for better salaries the difference is Most of us can be replaced, ther aren't many Strahans at the Unemployment lines begging for work.

Bottom line is that the players are WHY we Watch. Buy tickets, jackets, caps and programs.

very few of us are in that position of generating the amount of revenue that these players do. >>



If I thought that not taking the 75k now would allow me to get 100k one or two years later yes I would.
But as someone pointed out football players have a short window to "get it while they can"... so I guess I will just have to live with it🙁
 


<< But as someone pointed out football players have a short window to "get it while they can"... so I guess I will just have to live with it >>

Most of these guys are feeling the effects of abusing their bodies before they even get into the big leagues. Despite the longevity of some recognizable names, most players have about 8 to 10 years to make their money before they lose their game due to injury or age, and you never know when a career-ending injury can strike. It could be in their 3rd year, it could be later. You bet they try to get as much as they can, while they can, and the vast majority of people would do the same. They get these salaries because they CAN, that's the ONLY difference between them and you.
 
Until they start with constant salaries for each player, the greed will continue. I am particularly dissapointed with Strahan, because of his disregard for the salary cap and big signing bonuses are the hardest on the cap.
 


<< So because someone pays money to go to a sporting event they are "stupid sheep"? >>



I didn't define the sheep bit that way, just stated that groups never come together in positive functions like that...they're too independant, too greedy, too sheeplike. Wasn't meaning sports people, just groups in general (read victims of groupthink, or any other text on social endeavors).



<< What about people who go to movies,the opera,concerts are they all stupid sheep as well? >>



I can go to a symphony for $12-40 a show, movies are $6, etc. I don't go to concerts if they charge over about $40. It's robbery and I won't contribute. Also, the first violin for say, the Portland Symphony earns around 80-110k a year, not 25 million.



<< It's one thing to vote no to public money going to finance private stadiums but please define "community projects" >>



I was pretty much referring to sub-state level money raising functions.



<< lol! You are talking about two different animals now. None of the reasons you cited for turning down higher salaries had square one to do with money. They were for other reasons such as your spurrious moral objection to tobacco or some loyalty you had to your company. >>



I know that, but the point is that it is part of those morals that I not be paid more than I am worth. I understand my own value. These guys are smoking crack if they think they deserve millions for playing with their balls in uniform in front of people. They're not the only ones of course, business people, stock people, politicians...they're all guilty of insane greed and lack of vision. Oh well.



<< And you're speech about turning down more money even if it was for something you wanted to do your whole life is not only utterly unconvincing but irrational and illogical to boot. Give us a break, eh? >>



*shrug* of course you wouldn't believe it, you likely suffer the same condition as so many other people today (no offense, just a statistical fact). But there are others like me that think you should only get what you need/deserve, and anything else hurts humanity. Philosophy is more important, and it's where these idea's come from. I swear by whatever manner you choose that I will never accept more than I'm worth for a job. Of course you still won't believe, because if people like me exist then it proves inadequacies in commonly accepted beliefs/ideals, maybe even your own...and those truths are far too hurtful to deal with.



<< Most of these guys are feeling the effects of abusing their bodies before they even get into the big leagues. Despite the longevity of some recognizable names, most players have about 8 to 10 years to make their money before they lose their game due to injury or age, and you never know when a career-ending injury can strike. It could be in their 3rd year, it could be later. You bet they try to get as much as they can, while they can, and the vast majority of people would do the same. They get these salaries because they CAN, that's the ONLY difference between them and you. >>



Utterly unconvincing argument. As a security officer my 'career' can end any time in sudden death from armed robbers...a fair bit more serious than an injury that merely prevents playing certain physical sports...but let me tell you, I don't earn anywhere near what these idiots claim to be worth. Every job can end at any time, just ask any IT professional today. I could change careers, (and I will when I have my secondary education degree) to earn more money, like become a lawyer. But I have a moral objection to most money making careers so I will just sit tight. I CHOOSE to earn less to have a job that fits my beliefs, and I CHOOSE not to earn more than I'm worth...THAT's the difference between them and me.
 
I just got in an argument with my roomate about this topic. When does one become greedy? When you are making more money than you need to stay alive? I have a part time job now that pays about $20k/year, I'll be graduating from college in may and looking for a full time job that pays more, am I greedy? I can live on my salary now, and since I have two roomates to help cut down expenses, I would say that I'm making way more than I need to stay alive. I'm not trying to be an ass, when do you all believe athletes are becoming greedy, if at all?
 


<< I can go to a symphony for $12-40 a show, movies are $6, etc. I don't go to concerts if they charge over about $40. It's robbery and I won't contribute. Also, the first violin for say, the Portland Symphony earns around 80-110k a year, not 25 million.

 >>



Your argument about how much the first violin for the Portland Symphony doesn't stand up because I assume they don't have a half a billion dollar T.V +radio contracts.I also assume that the Portland Symphony doesn't attract these type of numbers (these are just my guesses and don't take into account good/bad sports towns or playoffs/exhitbitions

Football 16 games 60k-80k or so per game
Baseball 162 games 20k-30k or so per game
Basketball 82 games 15k-25k or so per game
Hockey 82 games 12k-20k or so per game

If anything a guy playing the violin for 80-110k a year sounds overpaid but then again I don't know how often they play or what kind of money they bring in


And as far as anything over $40 dollars being robbery you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree.As much as things cost today $40 dollars doesn't seem to unreasonable.


I will give you one thing though I wish movies were $6 where I live
 
We should probably start a 'greed vs capitalism' thread, but oh well, I'm lazy.



<< When does one become greedy? When you are making more money than you need to stay alive? I have a part time job now that pays about $20k/year, I'll be graduating from college in may and looking for a full time job that pays more, am I greedy? >>



Ok, tough answer, because it's fairly subjective. I'm not talking socialism/communism, where everyone is equal. Where I have a problem is worth vs income. I've had a lot of different jobs, paying from minimum wage to almost 30k a year. I've studied many careers, salaries etc, and I see that for some reason we appear to award careers in inverse proportion. People who need to study very hard, learn many things, risk much, continually grow and adapt etc seem to be paid little. While people who do little, risk little, change little etc seem to make millions.

Teachers make squat, police make squat, security doesn't EVEN make squat...actors make millions, singers make millions, sports figures make millions business people, stock traders, etc. ??? What's up with that? What someone needs to live isn't entirely the issue...what they deserve to be making is. If your job is life threatening, you should make more. If your job saves peoples lives, you should make more. If you have to continue schooling for your entire life, you should make more. Any time you have to do more than others, you should make more.

Sports figures have a limited work span. So what, they make 50 times as much in those few short years as others will in their lifetimes. And they never saved anyones life. They train hard? So what. I've read sports biographies and know professional athletes. They put about 1/2 to 1/4 the time into their work as first violin of a major symphony, or a surgeon, etc. There is only one reason why these people are paid so much; because we put up with it. That's it. We stop paying, they stop demanding. If they don't then they don't get to play anymore and people willing to play for less get their spots.

Like I said, it isn't so much a line of need vs greed, but worth vs income.

I don't expect anyone to hop on board here, I know I'm different than most people, but that's ok. 😎 I'm comfortable with my own beliefs.
 
That argument is very well stated, however the underlying warrant is faulty (to me, and this is purely an opinion thing).

He talks about rarity being equated to value. He ASSUMES that this is the way it should be. I ASSUME that this is the core fault in our economic structure. Worth should determine value, not rarity. In other words, a doctor is more important than an athlete, therefore he should make more. I understand WHY he doesn't, but I disagree with it being done.

Flourescent orange bird poop might end up being the rarest object on earth, but that shouldn't make it worth more than a firefighter who dies to save others. WORTH = VALUE to me, not rarity=cost.

Again, just a fundamental difference of opinion.
 


<< They get these salaries because they CAN, that's the ONLY difference between them and you. >>



That maybe what you think but I know that if I had a chance to make alot now or more later I would take the more later.



<< most players have about 8 to 10 years to make their money before they lose their game due to injury or age, and you never know when a career-ending injury can strike. It could be in their 3rd year, it could be later. >>



This is true but on the same token I guess we should be paying alot more to the police and fire departments cause you never know when they might be shot or killed in a fire. Those people to me deserve to make a Hell of alot more than they make but you don't see them saying give me 1 million or I 'll walk off the job. They don't try to get all they can while hurting the town/city where they work/live.



<< I'm not trying to be an ass, when do you all believe athletes are becoming greedy, if at all? >>



When you start asking for more then you can get without hurting the TEAM. To me if the sport has a cap on salaries and you know that what your asking for will put the team you are on in trouble but you refuse to back off that is just greed. In this case I really only talking Basketball and Football as they have a hard cap. I am not asking for these players to work for free I just wish that they would care about the fans but in this world of paying for autographs and 50 dollar seats in the rafters of the buliding 5 dollar hotdogs and 8 dollar beers if they know the team is making alot of money they want alot of money.

Like it was said before it won't stop till we stop supporting it.
 
It's called capitalism. Supply and demand. They offer something that there's a big demand for(professional sports), while they themselves are in short supply. That equals a bigtime salary. I'm all for them getting every penny that it's possible for them to get. This is America. Go make every last cent that you can.
 


<< That argument is very well stated, however the underlying warrant is faulty (to me, and this is purely an opinion thing).

He talks about rarity being equated to value. He ASSUMES that this is the way it should be. I ASSUME that this is the core fault in our economic structure. Worth should determine value, not rarity. In other words, a doctor is more important than an athlete, therefore he should make more. I understand WHY he doesn't, but I disagree with it being done.

Flourescent orange bird poop might end up being the rarest object on earth, but that shouldn't make it worth more than a firefighter who dies to save others. WORTH = VALUE to me, not rarity=cost.

Again, just a fundamental difference of opinion. >>


Thank you, Karl Marx.

Communist ideas were built on this idea, and we saw how well that's worked out over the past 80 years.
 


<<
Ok, tough answer, because it's fairly subjective. I'm not talking socialism/communism, where everyone is equal. Where I have a problem is worth vs income. I've had a lot of different jobs, paying from minimum wage to almost 30k a year. I've studied many careers, salaries etc, and I see that for some reason we appear to award careers in inverse proportion. People who need to study very hard, learn many things, risk much, continually grow and adapt etc seem to be paid little. While people who do little, risk little, change little etc seem to make millions.

Teachers make squat, police make squat, security doesn't EVEN make squat...actors make millions, singers make millions, sports figures make millions business people, stock traders, etc. ??? What's up with that? What someone needs to live isn't entirely the issue...what they deserve to be making is. If your job is life threatening, you should make more. If your job saves peoples lives, you should make more. If you have to continue schooling for your entire life, you should make more. Any time you have to do more than others, you should make more.

Sports figures have a limited work span. So what, they make 50 times as much in those few short years as others will in their lifetimes. And they never saved anyones life. They train hard? So what. I've read sports biographies and know professional athletes. They put about 1/2 to 1/4 the time into their work as first violin of a major symphony, or a surgeon, etc. There is only one reason why these people are paid so much; because we put up with it. That's it. We stop paying, they stop demanding. If they don't then they don't get to play anymore and people willing to play for less get their spots.

Like I said, it isn't so much a line of need vs greed, but worth vs income.

I don't expect anyone to hop on board here, I know I'm different than most people, but that's ok. 😎 I'm comfortable with my own beliefs. >>



Ummmmm...doctors who study hard for years, earn more than a burger flipper at burger king. Lawyers who study hard for years, earn more than the guy mopping the floors of their office who never studied a day in his life. The list goes on and on. And where do u get off comparing a first violinist to a surgeon?? what does a first violinist do for me?! ENTERTAINS! same as a sports player.
 


<< Ok, tough answer, because it's fairly subjective. I'm not talking socialism/communism, where everyone is equal. Where I have a problem is worth vs income. >>

What you're advocating is most certainly one of the fundamental tenets of collectivism - a "social scale" of labor similar if not identical to what Ross Perot advocated a few years ago. Hell, this is more than just a principle of collectivist ideologies such as communism or socialism, it DEFINES them.

The fundamental premise being that the collective labor 'belongs' to the state and thus the state may decide how much it is worth according to some 'social' scale - it doesn't. My labor belongs to me, not you, and certainly not to 'society' nor the 'state'. If people want to have more leverage in determining their own wage vs. having to accept the 'going rate', get a demand skill, its as simple as that.

The fundamental problem is that too many people subscribe to some false and couterproductive notion about the value of labor. The value of ANYTHING is NOT A PENNY MORE than the highest amount someone will give you for it. I don't give a damn if the bank says your home is worth $500,000, or 10 banks say its worth that much, if NOBODY will give you $500,000 for it, what is it worth?

The value of ANYTHING, no matter what it is, is exactly what you can get for it, no more or less. This applies to baseball cards, gold, stocks, labor, art, ANYTHING. I might have a baseball card that has a 'published' value of $50, but if it is the only baseball card missing from someone's collection, and the completion of this collection makes the sum more valuable than its parts, I might get $300 for it, then again I might not. I have an intrinsic value that the baseball card is worth to me, and if that is substantially different (more) than what the card is worth to anyone else, guess what happens? I keep my card, or I lower my asking price, one of the two. Labor is no different.

The SOONER people understand this is how the world works, the sooner they can relinquish foolish, unrealistic, or sentimental notions about the value of their labor which distort their percpetions and obscure reality, and the sooner they can find a better paying field.

I'm not going to spend a minute more arguing against the most bankrupt and discredited ideology ever devised, one that no serious player in the world stage continues to practice or embrace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top