Do you think that sports stars should get such large amounts of money? like Tiger Woods,Ronaldo and Raikkenon?

[gezalinko10]

I think not, and would like to know arguments for and against this topic
so if you want to say your opinion feel free, thanks.

[wdx2bb]

That's capitalism. If people want to pay to see a certain person perform, they should have that right. Bruce Springsteen can draw large amounts of people to a concert, and he makes millions. Why shouldn't Tiger Woods have the same opportunity?

[aidan c]

Theoretically the largest wages should be paid to those in society whose work we desire above others. A doctor should be paid a lot because they look after our health. A lawyer should be paid a lot because his work could either save us bundles of money or prevent us from years in prison. The entertainment industry (Sports, TV, Movies, Music) get paid more than any other WORKERS on the planet (I.E those who do not control the means of production this does not include big business owners) Now the question must be, how much do we value entertainment? I would rather live a life free of disease with no entertainment so in my perspective, sport stars should not be paid so much and the same goes for the rest of the entertainment industry.

[mbl]

Each person is paid what they are worth as each person is paid what the market will bear. It's as simple as that. Employers want to pay each employee as little as possible. An employee wants to earn as much as possible. In between the two there is agreement. Sports brings in huge revenues through ticket sales, TV, etc. Because sports bring in big bucks, athletes and entertainers bring in big bucks. Simple. There are thousands of doctors who can perform surgery and thousands of people who can teach. But there is only one best golfer in the world and only one best football player in the world. The only thing you can do if you don't like it is to not buy tickets and not watch on TV. But as long as millions find pleasure and entertainment in sports, the athletes will continue to make a lot of money.

[Jason G]

An entertainer is an entertainer whether they are a singer, dancer, actor, or athlete. Will Smith makes upwards of 20 million per film. He's an entertainer. His movies are entertaining. Tiger Woods made 110 million last year mostly in endorsements. Nobody watches golf unless you're a die hard golf fan if he's not playing. That's a fact. He's as entertaining at what he does as Will Smith. I.E. he deserves the money he makes. People pay to see them do what they do. Why shouldn't they make the money they're making?

[green_lantern66]

No, and I'm pretty sure that they all could live just as comfortable lives with $200 million in the bank instead of $500 million.

People in the sports industry think that they are the ones driving the show... and that isn't the case. You could be the greatest golfer, baseball player, whatever, but if no one is watching, you won't get paid as much. They need us as much as we need them, and if we stop

In golf, the pros are basically private contractors. For example if, because of the recession, the Masters was to drop the overall purse from $1.5 million to $1 million (using hypothetical numbers) they would have to take it or leave it. They can't negotiate a higher purse. Their only recourse would be to play in a European PGA event. That's actually what some of the American golfers- like Anthony Kim, Boo Weekley and Tiger Woods are doing- they go to Europe, Australia or China because not only do the get appearance fees, the payout to #2 is greater than in America right now (#2 is what US golfers shoot for- it justifies the appearance, pays big, and they don't have to return to defend the title if they find something better). Personally, it shows just how committed a golfer is to their fans when they're off chasing bigger paydays.

Baseball, football and other sports with unions are different. The union negotiates what a player will make. The TV and advertisers money numbers are always a factor, as is whoever is making the most money at the time at their position. Football and basketball has a salary cap, and that does curtail some spending to an extent, but not to creative cap savants. Baseball has the luxury tax- unless you're the Yankees, you're mindful of it, because no owner wants that hit to their income for being over $200 million in payroll.

Sports where players earn a contract would be handled differently than golf or boxing. Contracts have to be honored- but when they expire, anything could happen. Football's bargaining agreement is over after 2010- if things aren't better by then, expect a LOT of changes. Will the other sports follow suit? Will they be for the better? I know if payrolls were to be decreased and owners quit building billion dollar stadiums I'd be more inclined to go watch them in person. It definitely would be more affordable.

[Jeng]

the money is excessive.
some of the money should be redistributed to others involved in the tournaments to make if fairer, or make it cheaper for the public to watch the game

[Bryan]

The difference between golfers and tennis players is that they have to perform in order to earn money (Sponsorships and other forms of income not included). While football players like Ronaldo can get injured and sit out the season and still make money, if a professional golfer gets injured, he won't make money without playing.

- I understand that this argument is controversial because they do make a lot of money in sponsorships, appearance fees, etc. But I decided to take that out of the equation.

[Alcatraz]

How much do you think they "should" get paid? What system would you use to determine how much sports stars get paid?

The system that we currently have works a little bit like this.

The events that these guys are in get watched by hundreds of millions of people around the world. Advertisers and sponsors take advantage of this by bidding for time on TV to show the event to these hundreds of millions of people. The sports people who win - by being the best in the world {not just their local neighbourhood, or their state, but the entire world} - get a reasonable percentage of this money in the form of prizemoney.

So, which part of that process would you change? Ban the advertisers from taking advantage of the opportunity to publicise their products perhaps? Ban the TV stations from showing the events? Force the players to play for nothing and let the TV stations or sports organising bodies keep all the advertising revenue?

Some of these actions have been tried. Back in the 1960's, tennis players who were professional were not allowed to play at Wimbledon, the US Open, etc. Who won out of that? The spectators - no, they just were robbed of seeing the best in the world. The players - no, they were robbed of the opportunity to compete against all comers and prove their worth. Advertisers - no, they were indifferent. Sporting bodies - no, because although they got all the revenue, they were running sub-standard events because the best players weren't available.

OK, so what system would you put in place?

And once you do that, why stop at sports. Why not have someone like yourself deciding the amount that everyone in the world gets paid? Oh, that's been tried, too. It's called communist Russia. It sucks and that system collapsed.

No, the best way is to allow the market to pay a market price, but have appropriate taxation laws to ensure that those who are paid the most contribute their fair share back to society.

I also have a more positive argument. I've got no problems - none at all - with people who put in the effort to hone their talents to the standard that the sort of names you've mentioned have done being very well rewarded financially for it. They aren't just decent players of their sport, they are the best in the world. The top performers of the millions of people who participate. We admire their skills, we pay money to watch them. Why shouldn't they get some of that.

Finally, anticipating a common objection about perceived social contribution that makes some people argue that teachers and nurses deserve to get better paid, keep in mind that the sum total of ALL teachers and ALL nurses in the world ARE paid in aggregate a lot, lot more than sports stars are in total. A couple of hundred sports people getting $10 million a year is nothing compared with hundreds of thousands of teachers, nurses, etc getting $50,000 a year or whatever it is {I haven't done this analysis with exact data, but you get the picture}. So, society as a whole DOES value teachers and nurses more highly than sports stars - that's why we employ so many of them.

I could say more, but I think I've made my point.