What do athletes contribute to Society?

[Wicked Pilot]

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.

No one is denying that the fans willingly pay the salaries, and from what I can tell no one is faulting the athletes from getting paid as much as the market will allow. If I got payed $10 million a year to play Counter-Strike and I though I could get 20 then hell yes I'd push for it. But even I would admit that my playing Counter-Strike is not benefitting society in any substantial way.

[Big Phil]

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.

According to the free market, you'd be right. Fortunately things aren't quite that Darwinian...

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.

I'm not sure you can realistically separate society and the free market, but assuming it's possible, then you have made a good argument for why athletes are not valuable (which I'm not contesting). The problem is that people perceive athletes as being valuable, regardless of their actual benefit to society. so from an economic point of view athletes are valuable. From a "good of society" point of view, they're not worth nearly as much as they make, for all of the reasons that have been put forth already.

The only reason I responded to your post was to make sure you're clear on the difference between economic value and benefits to society.

[Big Phil]

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.

No one is denying that the fans willingly pay the salaries, and from what I can tell no one is faulting the athletes from getting paid as much as the market will allow. If I got payed $10 million a year to play Counter-Strike and I though I could get 20 then hell yes I'd push for it. But even I would admit that my playing Counter-Strike is not benefitting society in any substantial way.

Agreed. It would be nice to be paid that much to do so little though, wouldn't it?

[Surlethe]

According to the free market, you'd be right. Fortunately things aren't quite that Darwinian...

Thank God for that.

I'm not sure you can realistically separate society and the free market, but assuming it's possible, then you have made a good argument for why athletes are not valuable (which I'm not contesting). The problem is that people perceive athletes as being valuable, regardless of their actual benefit to society. so from an economic point of view athletes are valuable. From a "good of society" point of view, they're not worth nearly as much as they make, for all of the reasons that have been put forth already.

Economically, there are always alternatives to a particular entertainer, even going so far as spending the money on entertaining oneself; athletes are valuable, but not necessary -- certainly not necessary like Newtons three laws, e.g.

The only reason I responded to your post was to make sure you're clear on the difference between economic value and benefits to society.

Well, that difference was the whole point of my post, right?

[Lord Zentei]

The free market argument has to take into consideration that, as I pointed out earlier, there are quotas on how many athletes can compete in a given team, as defined by the sport in question. With such quotas, prices have a tendency of becoming artificially high.

[Surlethe]

The free market argument has to take into consideration that, as I pointed out earlier, there are quotas on how many athletes can compete in a given team, as defined by the sport in question. With such quotas, prices have a tendency of becoming artificially high.

So we can't assume that the resource allocation is efficient, because it's not a perfectly competetive market.

[Lord Zentei]

The free market argument has to take into consideration that, as I pointed out earlier, there are quotas on how many athletes can compete in a given team, as defined by the sport in question. With such quotas, prices have a tendency of becoming artificially high.

So we can't assume that the resource allocation is efficient, because it's not a perfectly competetive market.

Zing!

At least that is my perception.

[Darth Wong]

The free market argument has to take into consideration that, as I pointed out earlier, there are quotas on how many athletes can compete in a given team, as defined by the sport in question. With such quotas, prices have a tendency of becoming artificially high.

So we can't assume that the resource allocation is efficient, because it's not a perfectly competetive market.

Zing!

At least that is my perception.

Even if it weren't for this fact, SanchezTheMoron is confusing "what society does" with "what's best for society". Society often does things which are harmful; this is why I brought up the comparison to cocaine dealers. The laws of supply and demand are not best-case scenarios; they are simple statements of how prices will tend to shift to reflect the value society is placing on things. There is no reason to assume that what society does is what's best for society.

To take another example, let's say a particular household spends 10% of its net income on gambling. This means that this family values gambling to be worth 10% of all its economic activity, but that doesn't mean gambling actually has such great value to that family. The gambling probably has a net negative value to that family, and may eventually destroy it.

[Lord Zentei]

Even if it weren't for this fact, SanchezTheMoron is confusing "what society does" with "what's best for society". Society often does things which are harmful; this is why I brought up the comparison to cocaine dealers. The laws of supply and demand are not best-case scenarios; they are simple statements of how prices will tend to shift to reflect the value society is placing on things. There is no reason to assume that what society does is what's best for society.

To take another example, let's say a particular household spends 10% of its net income on gambling. This means that this family values gambling to be worth 10% of all its economic activity, but that doesn't mean gambling actually has such great value to that family. The gambling probably has a net negative value to that family, and may eventually destroy it.

Quite: the optimization of supply and demand acheived by a free market is only "good for society" if consumers are making informed decisions.

And even then, only if your market has an absence of artificial constraints and your society has rule of law, liability laws, etc. (as well as having the market actually handle something that is a private good, as opposed to a public one, though that is obviously satisfied in the specific case of entertainment).

[Darth Wong]

Another good example is the stock market. A common moneymaking scheme in the stock market is to look for overhyped stocks which are ... wait for it ... overvalued.

Someone using SanchezTheMoron's logic could promptly leap in and say that this scheme will never work because stocks cannot be overvalued. After all, the laws of supply and demand ensure that every stock will be at its correct value, right?

Wrong. Stocks can and will be overvalued or undervalued on a regular basis, and that's how smart people play the stock market. There is such a thing as intrinsic value, above and beyond whatever the laws of supply and demand say at any given time.

Of course, major social institutions have much less volatile value than the stock market, which fluctuates hourly. So it is quite possible for a social institution to be overvalued for decades at a time. Or in the case of religion, millenia. Although religion did suffer a market correction around the time of the Enlightenment, and has not regained its former value on any of the major world markets

[Lord Zentei]

Another good example is the stock market. A common moneymaking scheme in the stock market is to look for overhyped stocks which are ... wait for it ... overvalued.

Someone using SanchezTheMoron's logic could promptly leap in and say that this scheme will never work because stocks cannot be overvalued. After all, the laws of supply and demand ensure that every stock will be at its correct value, right?

Wrong. Stocks can and will be overvalued or undervalued on a regular basis, and that's how smart people play the stock market. There is such a thing as intrinsic value, above and beyond whatever the laws of supply and demand say at any given time.

Much of this error comes from incomplete information, not just bad judgement. In fact classical economics makes the simplifying assumption that all parties in the market possess perfect information, which of course, does not exist in reality. This is the reason why transparency and freedom of information (including freedom of advertising, freedom of criticism by consumer groups, naysayers, etc) is so damned important. It may not be possible to perfectly implement a free market, but one can make a good approximation of one in many cases. Often, such an implementation is the least bad tool available.

Of course, major social institutions have much less volatile value than the stock market, which fluctuates hourly. So it is quite possible for a social institution to be overvalued for decades at a time. Or in the case of religion, millenia. Although religion did suffer a market correction around the time of the Enlightenment, and has not regained its former value on any of the major world markets

LOL.

[Lord Zentei]

Society often does things which are harmful; this is why I brought up the comparison to cocaine dealers.

To be fair, though, that example may be a mite extreme, since in the case of cocaine, the consumer is medically incapable of making an descision that is beneficial to himself. A better example might be trailer trash parents that buy a home cinema entertainment system instead of new clothes for their kids.

There comes a point, though, that one has to agree that entertainment in general (grudgingly including sports ) improves the standard of living, and in this case, it does provide societal benefit. Bread and circuses, all that.

[Surlethe]

The issue is that humans are irrational: there is a disconnect between reality and perception, which causes, in turn, over- or undervaluation of important entities. Take, for example, al-Qaeda on September 11: because they were highly irrational, the suicide bombers placed more value on their reward in heaven than their own lives.

Incidentally, this exaggeration in the value system is precisely why religious fundamentalism is so dangerous: if someone truly believes heaven -- an eternity of ecstasy -- is the reward for a particular action, then he will certainly not hesitate to do it, because there is an infinite reward for the behavior. The fact the fundamentalist reward system is a perfect bifurcation between infinite ecstasy and infinite suffering explains why they see the world in such black and white.

[CarsonPalmer]

I agree that Barry Bonds is not worth multi-million dollar salary to society at large, and that perhaps a geneticist is. However, Bonds is worth his multi-million dollar salary to the owner of the San Francisco Giants, and that's who's paying him.

[Darth Wong]

I agree that Barry Bonds is not worth multi-million dollar salary to society at large, and that perhaps a geneticist is. However, Bonds is worth his multi-million dollar salary to the owner of the San Francisco Giants, and that's who's paying him.

And gambling is completely worth the dissolution of a marriage to a compulsive gambler, and that's who's paying for it. Thanks for completely ignoring the point I made earlier, jackass.

[CarsonPalmer]

No, no. I'm just trying to point out that the owner is making for more off Bonds than what he is paying Bonds. If the owner if making hundreds of millions of dollars of a player, isn't it reasonable for a player to ask for a cut of it? This is sort of a tangent of the original point, but the owners are making such obscene profits that the players have a right to ask for such obscene salaries from the owners.

[Ubiquitous]

I doubt Bond's is worth his $20 million+ contract anymore, somehow. On this seasons form the guy would struggle going yard against ME! Not to mention the nagative publicity that Bond's association with the Giants has created. But I digress.

[Darth Wong]

No, no. I'm just trying to point out that the owner is making for more off Bonds than what he is paying Bonds. If the owner if making hundreds of millions of dollars of a player, isn't it reasonable for a player to ask for a cut of it? This is sort of a tangent of the original point, but the owners are making such obscene profits that the players have a right to ask for such obscene salaries from the owners.

It's completely irrelevant to the original point. If I pay my goddamned tax dollars to pay for expensive facilities to support a fucking sports team and its spoiled owners and players, I honestly don't give a flying fuck which one of them is making more money out of this scam.

[Ubiquitous]

I have never understood the North American habit of funding stadiums with tax payers money. When did this odd habit start? Over here, almost all stadiums are funded by the clubs themselves - regardless of what sport it is. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is the City of Manchester stadium, which was originally built for the Commonwealth Games and then leased to Man City for 99 years in return for a slice of the profits for the local council. Also, City had to pay 20 million pounds to convert it from athletics into a football stadium.

I can see how people would resent having to pay for a stadium for a team they didn't even support. Surely a team only warrents a new stadium if they are successful enough to afford to be able to pay for one themselves?

[Big Phil]

I have never understood the North American habit of funding stadiums with tax payers money. When did this odd habit start? Over here, almost all stadiums are funded by the clubs themselves - regardless of what sport it is. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is the City of Manchester stadium, which was originally built for the Commonwealth Games and then leased to Man City for 99 years in return for a slice of the profits for the local council. Also, City had to pay 20 million pounds to convert it from athletics into a football stadium.

I can see how people would resent having to pay for a stadium for a team they didn't even support. Surely a team only warrents a new stadium if they are successful enough to afford to be able to pay for one themselves?

Welcome to welfare for the wealthiest among us...

[CarsonPalmer]

Taxpayer funded stadiums are a horrendous idea, I agree. The owners are making enough money to fund their own stadiums, and no city has ever profited from a taxpayer funded stadium. The only way I could see any justification for it is if the team gave the city a cut of the profits. But that would never happen.

[Darth Wong]

I have never understood the North American habit of funding stadiums with tax payers money. When did this odd habit start?

When the popular falsehood of the vast economic benefits of a sports team became "common knowledge", and sports teams started blackmailing municipalities to pay for new facilities or they'd threaten to leave town. If more people understood that this idea of vast economic benefits rests upon a lie, the extortion wouldn't work.

A large conventional business produces far more regional economic benefit than a sports team, where a disproportionate amount of its income goes to a relatively tiny number of mercenary high-profile employees who may not even spend it in the area.

[CarsonPalmer]

Stadium construction can provide jobs in unique situations, but not true professional stadiums. During the Depression, many high school stadiums were built across New Jersey to provide jobs, but like I said, that's a rather unique situation.

[Darth Servo]

Stadium construction can provide jobs in unique situations, but not true professional stadiums. During the Depression, many high school stadiums were built across New Jersey to provide jobs, but like I said, that's a rather unique situation.

There are many other things more important to society than stadiums that need to be built that would provide those same, if not more jobs.

[His Divine Shadow]

I remember hating sports for taking the time slots of good TV shows from when I was a little kid(I used to watch shows like Vetenskapens Värld or World of Science on SVT and En Cellsam historia, a cartoon kids show about the body in which blood cells and antibodies and such where characters, show it to your kids parents). I still hate televised sports in all their shape and form.