Most overrated athlete.

If there's something on your mind that just doesn't seem to fall into any of the other categories, well, it quite likely belongs inside Joe Finneman's marketplace. Think of it as a general store for general discussions!
User avatar
Clodius Albinus
Smile for the camera
Posts: 1184
Joined: April 2005
Location: Blackacre

Post by Clodius Albinus »

blipadouzi wrote:I don't think the skills and abilities of athletes are overrated...but I don't believe anyone anywhere deserves to be paid more than $12,000 for just one game of hockey or basketball or something of the sort. (That's based on a $1,000,000 a year salary).
On what can one base such a principle, though? Most of us seem to think that professional athletes are paid "too much" for playing a game, but it's hard to quantify that, or explain why it must be so. In terms of value-added, a quality player is adding much more than $1 million to a team -- through increased viewership, merchandise purchases, etc. -- so who best "deserves" the money?

It seems to me that players are generally "worth" whatever they can freely obtain through contract. There will always be mistakes -- players who were signed to great contracts, but underperform, or who are overvalued by the coaches and owners -- but paying players based on some sort of per-player cap doesn't seem at all right, either.
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
Blipadouzi
Catspaw Rocks!
Posts: 833
Joined: December 2005
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Blipadouzi »

Clodius Albinus wrote:
blipadouzi wrote:I don't think the skills and abilities of athletes are overrated...but I don't believe anyone anywhere deserves to be paid more than $12,000 for just one game of hockey or basketball or something of the sort. (That's based on a $1,000,000 a year salary).
On what can one base such a principle, though? Most of us seem to think that professional athletes are paid "too much" for playing a game, but it's hard to quantify that, or explain why it must be so. In terms of value-added, a quality player is adding much more than $1 million to a team -- through increased viewership, merchandise purchases, etc. -- so who best "deserves" the money?

It seems to me that players are generally "worth" whatever they can freely obtain through contract. There will always be mistakes -- players who were signed to great contracts, but underperform, or who are overvalued by the coaches and owners -- but paying players based on some sort of per-player cap doesn't seem at all right, either.
Do the athletes deserve those salaries because the box office & food stands bring in so much money for the team due to their participation...yes, from that point of view I would say so.

But the next question is, should the box office be charging so much and do the food stands have the right to over charge for their goods? Reduce the player salaries to a reasonable wage, and then you reduce the box office tickets as a result, which will in turn generate more revenue in the long run as fan attendance will increase.

I know I would love to go to hockey games even once or twice a year, but the ticket prices are outrageous. That is, IMO, the main reason we lost our baseball team. Not for lack of interest in the sport, but for lack of willingness to pay the ticket prices.
User avatar
The Top Crusader
Hammer Bro
Hammer Bro
Posts: 22646
Joined: April 2005
Location: A drawbridge over a lava pit with an axe conveniently off to the side

Post by The Top Crusader »

Tyrell wrote:
Frolicking Fetus wrote:Oh, and I add John Cena to the list. :noway:
John Cena pwns. :noway:
Hulk Hogan was selling out arenas while John Cena was bumming gas to get to high school! :x
User avatar
darcie
darcietastical
darcietastical
Posts: 7106
Joined: April 2006
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Post by darcie »

Frolicking Fetus wrote:Beckham or however the soccer dudes name is spelled... $250 million a year? For a sport most Americans don't care about? :-s
You forget the large number of Central and South American immigrants in the Los Angeles area that love soccer. Here actually, we often have to watch Galaxy games on Spanish-speaking TV channels because they aren't carried on English-language channels.
Frolicking Fetus wrote:And also... PEYTON MANNING!!!!! \:D/ He is a good quarterback, but he is also the highest paid, by far... I don't think it evens out... :noway:
Has your wife slapped you upside the head for saying that yet? :-s


I (genetically) like the SF Giants, but I hate Barry Bonds. :roll: And Kobe was good until he started the whole thing about wanting to be traded. Now I'm over him.
"I know nothing about internet dating sites other than the ToO." - Baragon
User avatar
Tyrell
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3670
Joined: November 2005
Contact:

Post by Tyrell »

Frolicking Fetus wrote:
Tyrell wrote:
Frolicking Fetus wrote:Oh, and I add John Cena to the list. :noway:
John Cena pwns. :noway:
Hulk Hogan was selling out arenas while John Cena was bumming gas to get to high school! :x
He might have been in 80's but this is 2007, he's too old to be marching around in tights anymore! :x
~S~
Image
User avatar
Clodius Albinus
Smile for the camera
Posts: 1184
Joined: April 2005
Location: Blackacre

Post by Clodius Albinus »

blipadouzi wrote:Do the athletes deserve those salaries because the box office & food stands bring in so much money for the team due to their participation...yes, from that point of view I would say so.

But the next question is, should the box office be charging so much and do the food stands have the right to over charge for their goods? Reduce the player salaries to a reasonable wage, and then you reduce the box office tickets as a result, which will in turn generate more revenue in the long run as fan attendance will increase.

I know I would love to go to hockey games even once or twice a year, but the ticket prices are outrageous. That is, IMO, the main reason we lost our baseball team. Not for lack of interest in the sport, but for lack of willingness to pay the ticket prices.
That's great, as long as you expect everyone involved to be a philanthropist. It's not at all clear to me, however, why charitable giving should be directed toward those who wish to attend sporting events.

Okay, basic economics: generally speaking, the rational businessman/entrepreneur is going to be a profit-maximizer. This doesn't mean that he wants the greatest amount of money possible in absolute terms, as other things (such as leisure or adhering to an ethical code) may be more important to him, but for whatever work he does, it will typically be his goal to make as much money as is possible. This is only common sense, and even the most generous of people will but rarely declare that while they could make $30 / hour, they would really prefer to only make $18 for the same work. (Even an extremely charitable person, moreover, who wants to give a lot of money away, will first seek to earn money in order to be generous with it.)

We know from experience that stadium vendors can get away with selling hotdogs for $5. You suggest that this is to recoup the costs of high-paid athletes. Nonsense. Are those purchasing the hotdogs consciously deciding that while they would otherwise refuse to pay $5 for a hotdog while watching the game, they'll do so for the satisfaction of knowing that it's subsidizing the salaries of their favorite players? Highly doubtful, to say the least.

Why are they paying $5, then? Economics makes this really simple: because they value eating a hotdog more than they value keeping that $5 in their wallets. Stadium vendors can charge that amount because they have a captive audience -- thousands of people who aren't going to leave the stadium and want to snack while watching their team. Even if player salaries fell by 50% tomorrow (presuming all the same players remained), hotdogs would still cost $5, for one reason -- because people will buy them at $5.

Just because an owner gets a windfall in terms of paying less to players, why should he lower prices? He's currently charging whatever rate makes him the most money (subject to his own entrepreneurial judgment, of course, which may admit some error). Think of it this way: say you're selling your car to pay off an appliance. You have $2,000 in payments, and advertise the car for $4,500. If the store suddenly announced a retroactive rebate on the appliance worth $500, would you lower the price of your car to reflect your lessened expenses? Or would you still sell it for whatever you could get for it? The consumer is concerned with your car, not your stove -- and the guy in the stadium is concerned about the game and his hotdog, not player salaries (other than as a conversation piece).

I understand that you'd like to be able to go to sporting events, but those involved have no obligation to make entertainment cheap enough that everyone can justify going. Your post would indicate that you think the current system a bad business model. If that's so, it's rather peculiar that everyone, in every sport, is so eagerly replicating it, don't you think?
"I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
User avatar
EK
The Original EK
The Original EK
Posts: 18945
Joined: April 2005
Location: Not Canada.

Post by EK »

WatchaCall wrote:Barry Bonds.
Barry Bonds isn't overrated- he's just really good. I mean really good.
User avatar
Jennifer Doyle
An original
Posts: 6292
Joined: May 2005
Location: Doyle Manor, Odyssey
Contact:

Post by Jennifer Doyle »

Ya, I agree with the people who said "ALL OF THEM". But how about A-Rod? I really enjoyed watching the Indians completely dismantle the Yankees yesterday. If the Mariners can't win, at least the Yankees can lost.
Sweetest day EVER!
Image
“God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.” Chester W. Nimitz
User avatar
Crazy 4 Pugs
My posts are revolutionary
Posts: 391
Joined: July 2006

Post by Crazy 4 Pugs »

One more vote for ALL OF THEM! :explode:
Um, I guess this is where I'm supposed to say something funny or interesting.
Post Reply