The debate "Professional athletes deserve the astronomical salaries they receive." was started by
July 29, 2015, 10:58 am.
37 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 86 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
PsychDave posted 7 arguments, theQueenofdebate posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
sloanstar1000 posted 2 arguments, Ryan posted 1 argument, Lane posted 1 argument, scotthansonMC posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
PsychDave, theQueenofdebate, ajeng, jbailee, PandaKidd, nwenn24, izzy_99, Yuki_Amayane, sighnomore99, anirudh7, MarlemR, ReedMurphy and 25 visitors agree.
historybuff, sloanstar1000, desght, dgw23, Skeetc15, wayneSPEC, dylan21502, Bodaciouslady16, wmd, I_Voyager, Tristanzee, Musstta, jacksonparty, dotdotdot, ezza16, ResIpsaLoquitor, Ryan, Zeno, lolly1706, Lane, Hellrazor, bigB, alokk, kungnangxx, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, athinus, WaspToxin, omactivate, shb_1995, scotthansonMC, Sosocratese, godisjustsomethingwemade, YoanaPetrova, windu2420, mdthuesen, Sli, Gandalf, AngryBlogger, AlenaMaisel, mandala, LucyTheDebatorQueen and 45 visitors disagree.
As to your criticism of the language used, definitions of deserve vary in their wording but they are all similar. Dictionary.com defines it as:
To merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation
As I am saying that the athletes have a claim to part of the revenue they attract for their team, I would say the language used is apt.
If an athlete draws fans and thereby makes millions of dollars for their team, do they deserve a portion of the revenue they created?
I don't know how the subject got on to market inflation and subsidies. Completely irrelevant to what a person deserves. Does a person who can throw a ball well DESERVE a salary that is exponentially higher than someone that actually contributes to society.
Otherwise, you're just using the word "deserve" in a useless way.
Sports teams are subsidized by giving them tax breaks or by cost sharing of construction by the cities they build in, but what city would agree to that if there was no benefit?
Stadiums create jobs both at the venue itself and in the surrounding area due to tourism and hospitality demands that such attractions require. It also provides the revenue associated with that increased tourist traffic and through more taxes from raised property values in the area.
It is hard to say for sure if the stadium subsidies are worthwhile since they have not been the norm for long, but even before they were common athletes were paid handsomely for their abilities. If it is being artificially inflated by subsidies, how were they already high before subsidizing became the norm rather than rising when it became so?
I'll argue that professional athletes don't deserve the astronomical salaries they receive because the market is artificially inflated.
The market ought to determine the value of the individuals working within that market. So a nurse makes a certain salary because his/her work is able to generate a certain amount of profit and thus contributes a certain amount of value to the company/hospital by which he/she is employed. This goes for any profession. The amount of net positive revenue you can provide along with the market size and share determine salary.
In the case of professional teams, this market is subsidized by tax payers and thus the market is inflated to represent an unrealistic and unfounded contribution calculation. Professional teams earn revenue from ticket sales, merch sales, food sales, special events at the stadium etc...
I will focus on the revenue generated by the use of the stadium since it represents the largest revenue generation of a team.
Stadiums are paid for by the tax payers by large or at least by large-in-part. Teams use political pressure to negotiate very expensive terms for the municipality in which they reside. These terms often include upgrades when necessary or desired, location, features, etc... This would be fine if that's all the negotiations actually entailed. However, most teams do not share profits of ticket sales, food sales, etc.. with the tax payers which paid for the stadium. Most teams actually benefit from events held in the stadiums they play in where as the municipality that paid for the stadium does not. So revenue collected from concert ticket sales go to the teams rather than back into the coffers of the municipality which originally flipped the bill for the stadium. The same goes for parking revenue etc.... This inflates the revenue stream of the teams at the expense of the tax payers in a municipality. Salaries are thus artificially propped up and don't represent the true cost-to-profit margins a player can produce. Because the profitability of the teams is artificially inflated by non-team related revenue streams, the players shouldn't share in the profitability of such revenue streams.
But the money they are getting is in no way related to the debt. Tax dollars are not paying them, fans are and they are paying them willingly.
i don't believe that athletes should be paid as much as they are. The U.S is $18.7 trillion dollars in dept ( http://www.usdebtclock.org) and we are wasting away millions for some people to play with a balls?
But the money to pay for those services is collected as taxes, whether we like it or not. The money for athlete's salaries is voluntary since people willingly pay for tickets, jerseys, and other memorabilia. If having them on the team brings in an extra 2 million dollars for the team, why should they not receive a portion of that?
Our society today is too entertainment-oriented. What about the people who save lives every day? What about the teachers that build the next generation? Money is kind of a way to set a value on the usefulness of a persons skill to society. Professional athletes entertain us. Firemen/cops protect us. Teachers educate us. What is more valuable in the end?
Nope! I believe that Police, Fire, and troops deserve to make that money not athletes!
But athletes do not rise to the top by stepping on those below them, as businessmen do. They rise through competition and skill. The money for their salary is freely given by fans and spectators. I would say that their wealth is far more ethical than someone who creates a business empire as they do not need to exploit others work to generate the income.
Depends what you mean by "deserve". In most cases people don't deserve their extravagant lifestyle they've built out of the ruined lives and careers of other people, but I'm looking at this from a moral standpoint
A person who saves lives on a regular basis will never be paid as much as a famous athlete, musician or TV star(who are basically useless to society). though of course the former deserve it more.
Then again, life ain't fair, so oh well.
Athletes are in a way representing the country. They are almost worth as much as celebrities and are pretty much celebrities. Celebrities get paid a lot so why can't athletes?
If someone was a software engineer and wrote a piece of code that made millions for their company, I would accept I'd they made a lot of money from it. If someone was an expert artist and painted masterpieces, I can accept that they would be handsomely paid for their works. Why should athletes, who bring in millions of dollars in sponsors, ticket sales, concession sales and merchandise not be rewarded for their value to their team?