What do athletes contribute to Society?

[Stravo]

Are the people who are saying they are neccesssary for entertainment purposes equating the entertainment value of the NBA to antibiotics, computers, indoor plumbing and an AIDS vaccine??

Also if the current batch of pro atheletes is what this society considers 'heroes' then I weep for us. How far we've fallen from Homeric Heroes to these half witted arrogant asses.

[Zac Naloen]

Are the people who are saying they are neccesssary for entertainment purposes equating the entertainment value of the NBA to antibiotics, computers, indoor plumbing and an AIDS vaccine??

Also if the current batch of pro atheletes is what this society considers 'heroes' then I weep for us. How far we've fallen from Homeric Heroes to these half witted arrogant asses.

I don't see them as hereos to look up to any more than [insert tv personality] who kicked arse last night on [insert name of show]. Which is to say not much, they are just people who've made a career of entertaining others as far as i see it.

But i doubt im with a large amount of the population in that regard.

[Darth Wong]

I'd call one who acted like a normal person and acted morally neutral. The morally exemplary ones are the ones who use their status to set up charities and actively try to improve society.

And aren't most professional sportspeople (for team sports) involved in at least the charities that their club sponsors? Or am I just living in la-la land?

Sort of. When you look at what they actually do for these charities, it sounds a lot less impressive than "he's very active in support of this charity". Typically, their idea of "charity work" involves simply showing up for photo-ops, ceremonies, fund-raising dinners and parties, etc. I'm sorry but while I know TV people consider it to be charity work, I refuse to ever consider a free dinner or party invitation to be "work".

We also hear about it because they typically get a slap on the wrist from the fawning justice system. That is perhaps the single worst role-model attribute of professional athletes: the fact that they routinely get away with shit just because of who they are.

Yeah. That's crap on the part of the justice system. I remember being pissed off when I heard that a footy player had his drink driving suspension suspended for a week because the judge didn't want any Port supporters beating him up if the player couldn't make it to the final, and from what I've heard it's even worse over in the US.

So does society in the US/Canadia really still idolise people who continually act like asses? I mean, Shane Warne's a cricketing legend over here, but with everything he's done, I can't think of anyone who'd seriously even consider him to be a role model for life.

You're misunderstanding. These people are role models even if people don't acknowledge them as such, because people pick up life lessons from them. And in the case of athletes, millions of people get the following message from watching them in action: if you are a VIP, the law does not apply to you.

Small wonder we have so many people who think they can flout the law as soon as they have any money.

[Ubiquitous]

One positive thing that they do is charity and health awareness work. I was watching Sunday Night Baseball last night and MLB were promoting prostrate cancer awareness and an ex-Gold glover whose name escapes me was talking about it for the bottom of the inning with Jon Miller and Joe Morgan. Things such as this raise awareness and ultimately can save lives. The presence of an ex-sportsman for such a role is ultimately going to attract more attention to the problem than a scientist promoting awareness who, although well educated, might be out of touch with the target audience.

MLB seems to be rather good with the whole health awareness theme; remember the recent pink bats for breast cancer awareness? And the Roberto Clement award for players who contribute to charity every year?

[Ubiquitous]

if you are a VIP, the law does not apply to you.

Small wonder we have so many people who think they can flout the law as soon as they have any money.

I think the ex-boxer 'Prince' Nazeem Hamed would have something to say to you about this, but I doubt his prison cell has an internet connection. For all the money in the world, he could not buy his freedom and was made a serious example of because of his high profile nature in a recent car-crash case.

[Talanth]

Slightly off topick, but I think I'd like to keep athelites around not for what they have done for us but what they coud do. If the world does finaly go to rats, or a nerd blows us all up with one of his toys, then the most likely to survive are the physicly strong and mentaly stubourn, IE the athelites. So as far as I'm concerned they're little more than a form of genetic insurence.

That said a good game of socer is very entertaining. And I meen good as in no diveing or picking fights. It can be a beutiful game at times.

[Durandal]

As far as actual contributions to society, athletes contribute just about as much as any other entertainer. But the reality is that professional sports is a gigantic industry, has created a fuck-load of jobs and can help drive the economy of a city by building a stadium.

[Gil Hamilton]

Athletes contribution to society is being a large part of the "Circuses" part of "Bread and Circuses", just like it always has. It gives the masses something basically harmless to obsess over and rally around. There actual benefits, of course, are greatly exaggerated.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Athletes are more likely to be the tough guys. It may not necessarily be about the particular sport, but the athletes are still the ones that are more likely to have the "alpha male" characteristics than the nerds - especially the sports captains, who are generally athletic and possessed of decent charisma.

Haha, I wish. Case in point: Petr Klima getting benched for practically all of Game 1 of the 1990 Cup Finals, only to score the leisurely winner on his first shift in triple Overtime. Some say the man had ice in his veins, although many more said he was a superlazy floater with absolutely no guts and Messier probably hated him. Whatever it takes.

If a guy has a little bit of talent, he can succeed in any sport--no machoism required. I'd wager that only a small portion of athletes in sports are really chest-beating neanderthals. Those are just the ones that come to represent it.

Back to the OP... life goes on without sports. It's a massive industry and there'd be about a bazillion people that would need to find new work, but there's a lot of worse things that could happen to the world than to have sports disappear.

[Darth Wong]

As far as actual contributions to society, athletes contribute just about as much as any other entertainer. But the reality is that professional sports is a gigantic industry, has created a fuck-load of jobs and can help drive the economy of a city by building a stadium.

Yeah sure, sports teams build stadiums by themselves. They never dip into the public coffers or strong-arm governments into giving them what they want by threatening to leave town. This conventional wisdom is accepted largely because people keep saying it, but when Toronto's biggest major-league sport (hockey) was completely shut down for one year, nobody really noticed any difference. City coffers did not run dry. The economy of the province showed little impact. People simply spent their money on other things.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html

Pro sports stadiums don't bolster local economies, scholars say

Sports economist Brad Humphreys, a UI professor of recreation, sport and tourism, and a colleague from the University of Maryland, were commissioned by the Cato Institute to study the economic impact of a deal proposed by the mayor of Washington, D.C.; under terms of the agreement, the Major Baseball League would move the Montreal Expos to the nation’s capital in exchange for a new, city-built ballpark.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — If you build it, they will come … with wallets bulging, eager to exchange greenbacks for peanuts, popcorn, hot dogs and beer, and T-shirts and ball caps with team logos.

At least that’s the theory embraced – time and time again – by mayors and city council members hoping to lure professional sports teams to their cities by promising to build new arenas for the teams. But one guy who’s not buying it is sports economist Brad Humphreys, a professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

That’s because Humphreys and colleague Dennis Coates, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, haven’t uncovered a single instance in which the presence of a professional sports team has been linked to a boost in the local economy.

“Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy,” Humphreys and Coates wrote in a report issued last month by the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. The institute commissioned the professors to study the economic impact of a deal proposed by Anthony Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C.; under terms of the agreement, the Major Baseball League would move the Montreal Expos to the nation’s capital in exchange for a new, city-built ballpark.

The professors based their report on new data as well as previously published research in which they analyzed economic indicators from 37 major metropolitan areas with major-league baseball, football and basketball teams.

“The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area,” Humphreys and Coates noted in the report.

The researchers found other patterns consistent with the presence of pro sports teams. Among them:

• a statistically significant negative impact on the retail and services sectors of the local economy, including an average net loss of 1,924 jobs;

• an increase in wages in the hotels and other lodgings sector (about $10 per worker year), but a reduction in wages in bars and restaurants (about $162 per worker per year).

Those employed in the amusements and recreation sector appeared, at first glance, to benefit significantly from the presence of a pro team, with an average annual salary increase of $490 per worker, Humphreys said. However, he added, “this sector includes the professional athletes whose annual salaries certainly raise the average salary in this sector by an enormous amount.

As it turns out, those workers most closely connected with the sports environment who were not professional athletes saw little improvement in their earnings as a result of the local professional sports environment.”

Humphreys, who plans to present data from the report at a Nov. 29 hearing in Washington, D.C., said it is fairly common for city officials – blinded by bright visions of dollar signs – to pose as cheerleaders for projects aimed at attracting pro teams.

Arena-funding measures vary from initiative to initiative, with taxpayers typically covering most of the tab – even though critics of such plans maintain that team owners could easily foot the bill themselves. In the Expos case, Humphreys said, the mayor of Washington, D.C., has promoted his plan by stating that the ballpark would be funded entirely by team owners, ballpark users and the district’s largest businesses, and not by residents’ tax dollars.

Humphreys called the proposal a “novel approach,” but discounted it as disingenuous. “To say taxpayers won’t pay for the construction is really a sin of omission,” he said.

“First, the team’s share of financing the stadium is a 30-year lease committing the team to an initial rent of $3.5 million each year, increasing to $5 million by the fifth year, and then increasing by 2 percent minus $10,000 per year thereafter,” Humphreys and Coates note in their report. But, in real terms, with inflation averaging a projected 3 percent over 30 years, taxpayers will in reality be handing the team what the researchers call a “de facto rent subsidy” in just five years.

“Second,” they state, “taxes will be collected on ticket sales, concessions, parking, and merchandise sold within the stadium.

It is likely that the District of Columbia residents who purchase food, beverages, and clothing while attending games would have chosen to eat and purchase clothes in the district – and pay taxes on those purchases – in the absence of the stadium and franchise. In other words, revenues generated inside the stadium may not be new revenues, even if they are dedicated specifically to paying for the new stadium.

Humphreys and Coates also take exception to the idea that corporate “ballpark fees” would shield residents from the costs involved. “Whether it is a surcharge or an increase in the corporate income tax rate, this so-called fee is a tax increase, pure and simple. Corporations do not pay taxes, people do.

Whether it is in the form of lower wages for workers, lower asset values for corporate owners, or higher prices for consumers of the goods and services those companies provide, this tax increase will touch D.C. residents in some way.”

Funding structures aside, Humphreys said government officials lobbying for stadium deals often base perceived economic benefits on flawed impact studies. In the D.C. case, the researchers report that the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development claimed the team and ballpark would create 30 jobs earning an annual total of $94 million – or a whopping $261,111 per job.

“The wonder is that anyone finds such figures credible,” Humphreys said. “Yet decade after decade, cities throughout the country have struggled to attract or keep professional sports teams, and the idea that a team brings with it large economic gains invariably arises. As it turns out, claims of large tangible economic benefits do not withstand scrutiny.”

That’s because such impact studies often are based on skewed data. For instance, when citing multipliers – the ripple effect that each dollar spent on professional supports is projected to have on the community’s wider economy – impact studies often overstate such contributions and fail to differentiate between net and gross spending. And, Humphreys added, such studies typically don’t consider what economists call the “substitution effect.”

“As sport- and stadium-related activities increase, other spending declines because people substitute spending on sports for other spending,” Humphreys said. “If the stadium simply displaces dollar-for-dollar spending that would have occurred otherwise, there are no net benefits generated.”

In the end, Humphreys said, while a professional sports team may not be the golden goose that city leaders in the nation’s capital and elsewhere may hope for, there are some benefits to having a home team.

“A baseball team in D.C. might produce intangible benefits,” Humphreys said. “Rooting for the team might provide satisfaction to many local baseball fans.”

However, he added, “that is hardly a reason for the city government to subsidize the team. D.C. policymakers should not be mesmerized by faulty impact studies that claim that a baseball team and a new stadium can be an engine of economic growth.”

I'll say this: sports people have the same talent for exaggerating their own importance that musicians and writers and artists do.

[Surlethe]

The problem with entertainers is that the free market exaggerates their value to society: they produce a product which costs very little to market to huge crowds, and therefore bring in huge revenue for a vanishingly small cost. At the end, we get these athletes being paid tens of millions of dollars per year; the assumption, then, is that they're worth tens of millions of dollars per year to society.

This appears to be like the opposite of the problem with free-market health care: instead of the value of an individual to society being devalued and that individual being paved over because he is unable to pay, the individual doesn't need to pay much, and he is elevated because everyone pays a little bit to him.

[Big Phil]

The problem with entertainers is that the free market exaggerates their value to society: they produce a product which costs very little to market to huge crowds, and therefore bring in huge revenue for a vanishingly small cost. At the end, we get these athletes being paid tens of millions of dollars per year; the assumption, then, is that they're worth tens of millions of dollars per year to society.

How does the free market "exaggerate their value to society?" Athletes get paid as much as the market is willing to bear. If the market didn't think Barry Bonds was worth the millions he makes, or if the San Francisco Giants couldn't afford it (and nobody else could either), he wouldn't be paid what he's being paid.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with entertainers is that the free market exaggerates their value to society: they produce a product which costs very little to market to huge crowds, and therefore bring in huge revenue for a vanishingly small cost. At the end, we get these athletes being paid tens of millions of dollars per year; the assumption, then, is that they're worth tens of millions of dollars per year to society.

There is also the rather absurd notion that if they didn't draw in the crowds, then all of that money would vanish from the economy rather than simply being spread around to other more diverse entertainment destinations. It's a bit like saying that if one movie studio were to drop out of the industry, then the portion of the movie business that it currently generates would simply vanish into the ether rather than going to its competitors.

[Surlethe]

How does the free market "exaggerate their value to society?"

Because they are being paid far in excess of what they are actually worth to the society: as Darth Wong pointed out, each individual entertainer is not vital to the well-being of the society, since if they disappeared, society would not suddenly be millions of dollars worse off. Why do athletes deserve to be paid at that level? Barry Bonds, for instance, isn't worth more than ten cents to the average American.

Athletes get paid as much as the market is willing to bear. If the market didn't think Barry Bonds was worth the millions he makes, or if the San Francisco Giants couldn't afford it (and nobody else could either), he wouldn't be paid what he's being paid.

The free market doesn't exaggerate their value to itself; it exaggerates their value to the society.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Because they are being paid far in excess of what they are actually worth to the society: as Darth Wong pointed out, each individual entertainer is not vital to the well-being of the society, since if they disappeared, society would not suddenly be millions of dollars worse off. Why do athletes deserve to be paid at that level? Barry Bonds, for instance, isn't worth more than ten cents to the average American.

I read one time that it was a matter of them being at the top of their field. That the people in the top X percentile of their profession always get paid much more. So, just as the distance between what the average Major League Baseball player makes and what a minor leaguer gets paid is great, so would it be for any field, not just sports.

Not so terribly sure that's even on-topic, whether or not it's nonsense, but it's worth mentioning.

[Darth Wong]

Because they are being paid far in excess of what they are actually worth to the society: as Darth Wong pointed out, each individual entertainer is not vital to the well-being of the society, since if they disappeared, society would not suddenly be millions of dollars worse off. Why do athletes deserve to be paid at that level? Barry Bonds, for instance, isn't worth more than ten cents to the average American.

I read one time that it was a matter of them being at the top of their field. That the people in the top X percentile of their profession always get paid much more. So, just as the distance between what the average Major League Baseball player makes and what a minor leaguer gets paid is great, so would it be for any field, not just sports.

Not so terribly sure that's even on-topic, whether or not it's nonsense, but it's worth mentioning.

It's nonsense. The best particle physicist in the world does not sign a $120 million contract.

[Stofsk]

I don't have a problem with athleticism or sport or exercise in general, or celebrating athletic achievement. I do have a problem with 'professional sports' and hundred million dollar contracts. That kind of wealth is frankly obscene.

[Darth Wong]

As was stated earlier, the entertainment industry routinely exaggerates its own importance. Just look at the "tail wagging the dog" phenomenon of US federal lawmakers rushing to neuter the $60 billion/yr computer industry in order to appease the $5 billion/yr motion picture industry. People have no sense of proportion when it comes to entertainers.

[Big Phil]

How does the free market "exaggerate their value to society?"

Because they are being paid far in excess of what they are actually worth to the society: as Darth Wong pointed out, each individual entertainer is not vital to the well-being of the society, since if they disappeared, society would not suddenly be millions of dollars worse off. Why do athletes deserve to be paid at that level? Barry Bonds, for instance, isn't worth more than ten cents to the average American.

Athletes deserve to be paid what they are paid because people (owners, managers, and the public) are willing to pay them the millions that they make. End of story.

If people didn't care about sports, athletes wouldn't make the tremendous sums of money that they do. The free market (i.e., their skills, the number of people with similar skills, the resources available to pay them, the demand for their skills, their marketability, etc.) sets their wages.

Athletes get paid as much as the market is willing to bear. If the market didn't think Barry Bonds was worth the millions he makes, or if the San Francisco Giants couldn't afford it (and nobody else could either), he wouldn't be paid what he's being paid.

The free market doesn't exaggerate their value to itself; it exaggerates their value to the society.

Please explain what exactly you mean by this, because for the life of me I can't figure out what this means. Unless you're not really saying anything, because that's what it reads like...

[Darth Wong]

Are you about done flogging that is/ought fallacy of yours? By your logic, cocaine dealers are highly valuable to society.

[Lord Zentei]

Because they are being paid far in excess of what they are actually worth to the society: as Darth Wong pointed out, each individual entertainer is not vital to the well-being of the society, since if they disappeared, society would not suddenly be millions of dollars worse off. Why do athletes deserve to be paid at that level? Barry Bonds, for instance, isn't worth more than ten cents to the average American.

I read one time that it was a matter of them being at the top of their field. That the people in the top X percentile of their profession always get paid much more. So, just as the distance between what the average Major League Baseball player makes and what a minor leaguer gets paid is great, so would it be for any field, not just sports.

Not so terribly sure that's even on-topic, whether or not it's nonsense, but it's worth mentioning.

It's nonsense. The best particle physicist in the world does not sign a $120 million contract.

He might get a better deal if there were very restrictive legal limitations on how many physicists can work for a particular research institute or how many can be on active duty at any given point in time.

In sports, with such restrictive regulations on how many athletes can compete for a given team at any given point and with such a little difference in talent going a long way in terms of chances of victory, the very best of the best can essentially name their outrageous price.

[Wicked Pilot]

You know there once not too long ago existed a time where TV, radio, and professional sports were unheard of. People had to *gasp* entertain themselves, and *gasp* play sports themselves. The horror! The tragety! That's worse than not having running water or antibiotics.

[Surlethe]

Athletes deserve to be paid what they are paid because people (owners, managers, and the public) are willing to pay them the millions that they make. End of story.

If people didn't care about sports, athletes wouldn't make the tremendous sums of money that they do. The free market (i.e., their skills, the number of people with similar skills, the resources available to pay them, the demand for their skills, their marketability, etc.) sets their wages.

Of course; I'm not contesting this. However, it doesn't establish that just because the free market works like that, they deserve those wages. By that logic, for instance, homeless people deserve to die since they can't afford health care.

Please explain what exactly you mean by this, because for the life of me I can't figure out what this means. Unless you're not really saying anything, because that's what it reads like...

I'm pointing out that you're equating the free market with society, and you haven't justified that identity. Your previous post was filled with reasons why the free market wasn't exaggerating their value with respect to the free market, when you needed to establish that the free market wasn't exaggerating their value to society.

[Wicked Pilot]

It's nonsense. The best particle physicist in the world does not sign a $120 million contract.

Luckily spending four years in college learning physics will almost guarantee you a good well paying physics job upon graduation. The only thing four years of college football guarantees you is shrunken testicles and man boobs.

[Big Phil]

You know there once not too long ago existed a time where TV, radio, and professional sports were unheard of. People had to *gasp* entertain themselves, and *gasp* play sports themselves. The horror! The tragety! That's worse than not having running water or antibiotics.

In modern society, the explosion in athletes salaries coincided with the development of the radio, television, color television, cable television, and the Internet. It's simply economic supply-demand.



P.S. Roman Gladiators were professional athletes, and the best were treated like royalty.