The prompt for this week's blog is this: First, explain the criteria by which you define "overpaid," taking into account such factors as how you determine the value of a product or service, comparisons between athletes and other members of the workforce, etc. Then, explain how the compensation of professional athletes does or does not meet that criteria. You may choose to discuss one particular sport, if you wish, or you may compare some sports to others in order to fine-tune your arguement.
First, the category I will be examining will be professional athletes. I know exactly no specifics about how much anyone in the sports industry gets paid, but I know that there are those who are paid upwards of several millions of dollars over a 2-3 year contract.
Now, to put forth a starting definition of "overpaid." One is overpaid if one is being paid more than one can dispose of on food, reasonably comfortable housing, education of one's own family, and the necessities of leading a fulfilling life.
Based on only that definition, I believe that there are athletes who do not fall under this criteria, making the answer to the broader question of whether professional athletes are overpaid "No." I know that there are athletes who donate large amounts of their wealth to charities and other organizations that do good works. However, my basic understanding of the sports industry is that this is not common. While it is common that athletes donate money to good causes, it is true that they keep unnecessarily large amounts of money to themselves, more than they can honestly claim to spend well.
I think that I should clarify some of the terms I have used, such as "fulfilling." I am decidedly Christian, Catholic, to be more precise, and so my view of fulfillment may be quite a bit different than most peoples'. When I say a fulfilling life, I mean one in which one has a loving relationship with God (Which requires no money at all), in which one earns respect not through what he has but who he is, and in which one gives wholly of himself, that others might breathe easier.
Now, to further determine whether or not athlete X is overpaid, let us examine the value of his product, entertainment, versus the value of other products such as food, security, and sanitation. The broad question is, coud we live without the entertainment we derive from watching football? Soccer? Any sport? I would have to say definitely yes. Can we live without food? No. Can we live without at least basic sanitation and health care? I am sure that there are those who can, but let me ask you this. Would you really want to live in a hovel with no running water or plumbing at all, no medicine, and nothing stopping someone from walking into your "house" and taking your stuff or murdering you, yet have a tv that can get you the latest sports games live? I think not. So athlete X's contribution to society pales when it comes to the need for basic necessities, and yet farmers, plumbers, policemen/women are paid, over their entire lives, a fraction of what athlete X is paid in only 3 years.
Now, one might criticize me for choosing such an extreme example, so let me choose another. The Constitution of the United States of America states that the president of said united states be paid 200,000$ a year. Given, that amount has been adjusted for inflation but somehow I doubt that inflation has turned that 200,000$ into upwards of 5 million dollars. And, as I understand it, five million dollars over 3 years can actually be a low estimate of how much many football players are paid.
In conclusion, as a general statement, yes, I believe professional athletes are overpaid, but as yet I have no simple solution to put forth, as the issue is extremely complex and trying a simple fix would lead to even worse problems. However, I respect and admire those athletes who give back to those wh oare around them, and who are needy.
I would contest your preface that athletic competitions are solely for entertainment. Have you forgotten watching "Invictus" with me, already!? Sports have been used to unite the people, whether nationally or simply at a public high school (See: TC Williams and Marshall University, or the movies: Remember the Titans, We Are Marshall, Hoosiers, etc.) I mean, even classically, I feel like athletics served a higher purpose than just entertainment (Obviously distinguishing between the olympics and gladiators). The choice of where the Olympics are held today often has more to do with the state of the country and what is best for them, vs. the athletes. Athletic competitions have resolved conflicts and brought a sense of unity and pride to "fallen" countries. In this particular sense, though, your other argument about the duties of an athlete is even more imperative. An athlete represents his team and, often, his state/region/country. His behavior should be in accordance with that.
ReplyDeleteJust my two cents! <3
Premise**, not preface. Whoops. :(
ReplyDeleteNice
ReplyDeleteI will give you that the movies Invictus, We Are Marshall and Remember the Titans are excellent and inspiring movies. I particularly loved Invictus, which may or may not have had anything to do with Morgan Freeman playing Mandela. However, in uniting a nation, it took the skill of a political leader to inspire the team, and through the team, the country. The players and the game were a means by which the two sides of the country could come together on something. This is good and noble. However, as my argument took the form of a comparison of athletes to other professions, I shall continue in that mode.
Yes, athletes and athelticism can be inspiring. However, they are far from the only or even best thing to which we, as people, can aspire to. If a country can be united by a rugby team, why can it not be even more united and more inspired by a common effort to reduce CO2 emissions, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and heal the sick? Uniting over sports helps people to get along. Uniting over a recognition of human need and the determination to fill that need not only helps people get along, it makes people better people, and it gives others the opportunity to be free. Free from all that Thomas Hobbes would say make "...the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Now, that is even assuming the best intentions of the team. From what I know of many athletes, particularly the most well known ones, they are not the best of people. Sex scandals, drug scandals, dog fight scandals. Admittedly, these are not the majority of teams out there, and the stories you hear say more about the rest of us (That these are the only stories people pay any real attention to), but these are generally the highest paid athletes. At least when a relief team or organization is flawed, much good can come out of it. Whoever is in charge may be pocketing some of the money, but the majority of it still gets people the basic necessities of life.
Now that my comment roughly the same length as my post, I guess I should stop talking now. But in conclusion, I stand by my opinion that even despite the manny flaws, and assuming the very best in these athletes, they are paid far too much when you measure the good they do against the good that doctors, engineers and food producers do.
I completely and utterly agree with your conclusion that they are grossly overpaid. Albert Hainsworth, anyone? Yikes! My point was that, like any profession, athletes have an Aristotelian duality between extremes. You have athletes who are terrible people, addicted to drugs, hookers, and, as you said, dog fights. Even more unconscionable is the huge plethora of scandals where the athletes are not prosecuted or pay off their victims. That, of course, is contrasted with the super-in-your-face inspirational athletes who donate loads of money to charity, yet ignore the flaws of the system.
ReplyDeleteNow your point about the unity over need vs. unity over success/pride/sports is a good one. Still, it is a sad fact of the human psyche that we forget about the terrible atrocities far too quickly. One perfect example of this is the AZ Shootings that occurred a short while ago. There was a huge media uproar, drama, etc. Not only have the majority of people I talk to forgotten about this event, but it spurred on more political hatred than bonding. Even more world-relevant events like Haiti, the Australian or Pakistani flooding, etc. People look at pictures, read stories, get sad, but ultimately get over it. The unity they get from such events is short-lived. Just like sports events.
I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here as I have serious issues with the modern take on sports, but still! I think it is very important to realize the benefit, and, dare I say, necessity of entertainment. I can't argue, as we both know, with you on the point of your religious beliefs, but I wholeheartedly disagree when it comes to your view of entertainment. Sure, we can live without it. Technically, we could live without amenities, but they contribute to our QUALITY of life, which is something to think about. Entertainment, whether ancient Greek drama, the Native American precursor to lacrosse, or the presentations of bards, has always been a factor in human life. To shun entertainment because it isn't necessary for singular existence would be foolish. There are a variety of things that aren't explicitly necessary for life, but enrich it and give it fullness...say, education, perhaps. I do agree with you that there needs to be priorities, but just because entertainment is below food/air on the priority scale doesn't make it void of value for human life.
Last comment: I also never made the point that sports are the BEST thing that a people can aspire to. And, similar to my argument, just because they aren't the BEST thing doesn't mean they lack innate value. :) But I do agree: cut their salaries! (you should also look at the self-established salaries of congresspeople if you are so intent on leveling the income distribution ;) )
I agree that entertainment is important to a high quality life, I challenge you to show me a place where I have said otherwise. I would like to once again emphasize that I have endeavored to *compare* athletes to other professions. I fail to see why you seem to think that I shun entertainment. My entertainment comes from a different sport than sports. For example: arguing on blogs. You may have picked up on that ;) .
ReplyDeleteIn the end it seems that we agree. Athletes are in general overpaid, and grossly so. I am sorry for any confusion about my intent of the original post. I was limited to one hour of writing, and after one hour I am not allowed to modify/extend the original post. As a result, my thoughts are generally going to be somewhat scattered :P . Thank you for your comments, they have been fun :D
I've enjoyed the back-and-forth discussion that has ensued from your original post, Joshua! I appreciate the careful approach you've taken in considering how we examine this issue, acknowledging that even our definition of "need" becomes a subjective thing, affected by everything from religious and political affiliations, to geographical location, to income. Such is the dilemma when attempting to argue this, or any, subject aimed at taking the issue of waste to task. After all, does it state anywhere in the "American Dream" that you shouldn't obtain more than you need? Such a proclamation tends to border on other, less publicly acceptable philosophies...
ReplyDeleteI apologize for limiting you to just an hour, but I do think it's a good exercise to challenge yourself with such restrictions, since many writing situations we'll encounter often call upon us to think quickly and accurately. I know it can be frustrating, but perhaps it will become easier over time.