Are athletes really worth it?

[MrsSpringsteen]

I love sports, love to watch great athletes. It is sort of depressing that CC Fatassia can make that kind of money whilst still being so rotund...But his performance belies his weight, so his weight pretty much becomes irrelevant as long as that is true- I guess. You won't see pictures of him in the tabloids with arrows pointing at his cellulite.

Some athletes are great people, some are real -just like in the non sports world. There certainly is no recession in baseball right now. I'd still rather watch baseball and other sports than much of what passes for entertainment these days. The athletes are taking advantage of what the market will bear right now, it seems the sky's the limit. There are still some athletes who play more for the love of the game than money. I'm not a hockey fan but I think hockey players are probably the most down to earth.

Society does have warped values, so people who do far more important things get paid far less. How and when will that ever change?

 

[silverdan]

its absurd how much they make...takes away from the purity of the game...kaman sucks btw, he's lucky to have someone that wants to get a high 5...what a bum he is

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

its absurd how much they make...takes away from the purity of the game...kaman sucks btw, he's lucky to have someone that wants to get a high 5...what a bum he is

your purity argument is absurd.

 

[BVS]

It's part conditioning, it's part statistics, and it's part supply and demand...

We almost all wanted to be a rock star, professional athlete, artist, etc... but only the few actually get the chance to get paid to still play like a child, and we're often taught that it's a childish dream. But what do we spend our free time and money on? Movies, music, sports, entertainment; so the rules of supply and demand say athletes, actors, rock stars, etc will often get paid a lot of money.

 

[dazzlingamy]

I also hate the cultish way a lot of Australians have towards athletes. I just think its pure luck, not talent that makes you a sports star (or any sort of entertainment person)

but i also think, we as humans in especially first world countries, of course we live for money. If we didn't have money we wouldn't be able to live, or do things we like. It would b e great if we were all spurred on by the love of the job, or life, but in reality a lot of people are constantly preoccupied with money and how they can get more. Everything we do costs money, food, petrol, shopping, presents for birthday and christmas, electronics, phones, cameras, travel etc etc.

 

[U2DMfan]

Is the problem that A-Rod gets the 25 mill or that Hicks or Steinbrenner didn't get it or the fact that it's 25 mill in the first place?

Does it bother you that McDreamy McStupidfuck or Ashton Affleck make bank entirely because of their looks and their passable mime skills?

The actual, talented, creative people in film and TV go largely unnoticed by the masses.

While being a pro athlete is a largely objective measurement of accomplishment and skill, being the best of the best of the best.

And then being the cream of the crop of that best.

I think this issue has already been addressed by several people, it's all relative.
I just think the athletes take the stick from people because they know it's just a silly game. While the high "art" of Desperate Housewives, well let's pay those ladies what their fucking worth by God!!! While the screenwriters and principal photographers get beans comparatively. You can't make that kind of quantitative argument in sport.

The dude with the most home runs, the best average, the highest RBI's gets the most cash. How does a Film studio measure their worth of it's artists? The stars like Cruise and Will Smith, well go by box office, that makes sense. What about the talent coming up with the actual creation? An athlete makes the creation all by himself.

They are solo artists (in that their accomplishments stand for themselves). Would you make this argument about Bob Dylan not being worth his pay? I don't think so.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I also hate the cultish way a lot of Australians have towards athletes. I just think its pure luck, not talent that makes you a sports star (or any sort of entertainment person)

but i also think, we as humans in especially first world countries, of course we live for money. If we didn't have money we wouldn't be able to live, or do things we like. It would b e great if we were all spurred on by the love of the job, or life, but in reality a lot of people are constantly preoccupied with money and how they can get more. Everything we do costs money, food, petrol, shopping, presents for birthday and christmas, electronics, phones, cameras, travel etc etc.

It isn't luck, it involves a lot of hard work and training to perform at elite levels; I don't think they should be belittled because of that.

 

[dazzlingamy]

yeah but its luck how they get there in the first place, there are plenty of kids playing cricket who don't get a shoe in, who could be the best but don't get the chance due to not many choices/money etc etc

 

[A_Wanderer]

Luck doesn't exert nearly as much control as innate potential and discipline, sport at school and in junior clubs is a strong selective pressure and as a nation most people love pouring money into sports training, it isn't as though football players are all recruited out of grammar schools. You might embrace a romantic myth of the poor downtrodden pleb kept out of the AFL because he didn't have the right family ties, but at the end of the day if he shines at a local club and gets noticed he has as much of a shot as most others.

You don't luck into professional sport, it takes years of effort and sacrifice; the same attributes that are demanded in other fields. The studies on successful individuals shows a pretty consistent curve of practice input to success output of around ten years (or 10,000 hours) and I wouldn't belittle those players. They work hard, and often for very little reward, boiling that down to luck is silly.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

yeah but its luck how they get there in the first place, there are plenty of kids playing cricket who don't get a shoe in, who could be the best but don't get the chance due to not many choices/money etc etc

there's a little bit of luck in everything but it's not luck that pro atheltes get to where they are... for a select few it may have been luck that they were in the right place at the right time when the right scout was in the stands, but the endless hours of hardwork leading up to that had nothing to do with luck at all, and it's a fairly ridiculous argument to suggest that pro athletes are just the lucky ones compared to the other kids who played but didn't make it.

 

[BVS]

yeah but its luck how they get there in the first place, there are plenty of kids playing cricket who don't get a shoe in, who could be the best but don't get the chance due to not many choices/money etc etc

I would say luck plays a much bigger part in the entertainment industry and "real world" job market then it does in sports.

There are many talented actors out there, but being in the right place at the right time can make or break a career. And then we all know those actors who are famous and not all that talented but were in the right place at the right time. Same with music.

And then in the "real world" a resume will get your foot in the door, but who you know may get you the job.

But sports has a much more objective means of weeding out talent. Sure luck plays a small part, but for the most part it's much more objective than any other field. Star athletes will rise up and get notice even if they are from small towns or losing teams. There are very few professional athletes that got there because of who they know or looking the part.

 

[Liesje]

I can only speak for gymnastics but as far as "luck", it comes into play insofar as your parents can afford the sport and your body is designed for the sport. Beyond that, having to train 8 hours a day 6 days a week to be in the top 200 in this country takes a lot more than luck!

In the Eastern Bloc countries, luck might be a bigger factor. Often kids are tested very young, and the ones that show promise are sent off to sports school as early as 6 years old. So I guess if you are chosen then, you have a leg up on someone who wasn't chosen and is still training. However I guess the luck factor is cancelled out by the fact that the sport there is government funded, so even a gypsy orphan can "afford" the training whereas in the USA if your parents won't get a second mortgage on their house to pay for your training, you are SOL.