Wow . . . This guy posts more than I do. I really wish I had my comments box working because I want to comment on this (since I completely disagree). Without further ado; Scott:
If you have the luxury of being able to listen to Internet radio at work like myself, you’re pretty lucky. ESPN Radio blasting 9-5 makes your day go by like snooze-button time. Of course, sports radio means sports debate, and that brrings me to the most often debated sports topic over the last twenty years: player salaries. Being the opportunistic economist that I am, I believe a player is entitled to compensation commensurate with skill level and their prior/projected contribution to a team. Of course, this is how the players think, and how their agents think, and on down the line to the General Manager. This leads to increased ticket prices. Are we asking these athletes to understand the complexities of professional sports economics? Even though many of them do, do they make much of a difference? As if taking a slight salary cut would make it more affordable for people to attend games. It’s the owners that throw everything and the kitchen sink at you to make money. I know this firsthand residing under the jurisdiction of Daniel M. Snyder.
This bring me to the new topic of: “should our society reward only our brightest, and most artistic?” You haven’t heard people complain about the lifestyles of actors, musicians, artists, and CEOs (until recently), yet American athletes go through similar hardships and put in the same effort before they’ve made it. Why not give our best physical specimens the same treatment as our society’s other cream of the crop? Why should minds be valued more than the bodies they control?
