Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Madness. I cannot understand why such amounts of money can be spent on a few spoiled, usually uneducated brats who have a talent to handle (or should I say footle) a ball. But money rules and sport is big business, whether we like it or not.
Fortunately, I care little for money and even less for football.
So you think it would be reasonable to give money to intellectuals of an elite like you?
They help other people make money, including people not directly related to the teams they play for. There is a reason why club owners decide to pay those huge amounts. I'm sure it is not for a desire to burn money.
Now if you really want to complain about high-paid people, put artists, celebrities, actors and musicians in there too. Many of the musicians you probably adore are spoiled, uneducated brats who have a talent to handle thousands of worshippers. Just like football players. But at least in the second case the results are easier to objectively measure.
I consider myself neither an intellectual (I don't have an academical degree) nor an elite. Yet I always feel triggered to utter myself in such a way when football is involved. And I don't think that it is more reasonable to give astronomical amounts of money to any individual either.
You're obviously right. This is often the case with industry.
I don't complain about high-paid people and I don't grudge them their money. If my neighbour wins a € 27M jackpot from the postal code raffle, a madness even worse than football cult, I'll smile and congratulate him (after having studied the facial expressions of my beloved wife when she has been informed about the winning postal code ) instead of being jealous because I don't participate.
Saddled with a Christian faith, an advancing age (52 and counting) and 39 years of listening to prog, the stage of worshipping and/or adoring musicians (spoiled and uneducated or not) lies far behind me. I can't remember I ever did, although I'm sure I've been subject to fanboyism. But I still like their music...
All too true .
Edited by someone_else - September 07 2012 at 09:00
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: September 07 2012 at 05:13
ExittheLemming wrote:
How many people would pay to see any of you do your job?
Strange as it may seem - people (my customers) do ask and I politely turn them down because there is nothing to see and it's inconvenient to have someone watching over my shoulder while I work - lab work is not a spectator sport. In the past I have "allowed" some to observe and I have charged them for my time, invariably they discover how arse-numbingly boring it is and they start to wander around the lab looking at other things, which distracts me from the task in hand as I have to usher them away from sensitive jobs that are nothing to do with them or spend time describing various bits of equipment that have nothing to do with their projects. There is also the discomfort factor of having to offer corporate entertainment at lunchtime and in the evenings because that is the industry norm - frankly ferrying customers around the countryside on sight-seeing trips after work isn't in my job description (I had one guy who wanted me to take him to see Stonehenge in the evening, another wanted to see where "Midsommer Murders" was filmed...) ... and that's before we have to spend time in a pub or restaurant exchanging small-talk on subjects that i have no interest in (since it is ill-mannered to talk shop all evening).
Although I do baulk at some of the astronomical figures that are being earned in say, the EPL you really need to ask yourselves this question:
How many people would pay to see any of you do your job?
This massive disparity in earnings gives rise to an interesting question: are the salaries of top footie players indicative of the sort of divisive chasms that a genuinely free market would engender unhindered by governmental controls?
I can't help but imagine the future being three quarter empty stadiums (the traditional working class fan can't afford to attend) and the player's wages paid for entirely by TV money and merchandising/image rights. There would be at most 40 professional clubs competing against each other with the remainder consigned to regional amateur/semi pro competitions.
Edited by ExittheLemming - September 07 2012 at 04:41
Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34076
Posted: September 05 2012 at 17:35
i think the best example is David Backham, overall he is not a superb footballer, he not a Messi (a superb balletechnician), not a notorious striker (Ruud van Nisteleroy , Raul), a midfieadstrateger (Zidanne), but a extremely good ablitity to place a long passing, an extreme quality which nobody else matches, which makes him almost worth any price becouse of the one thing he can really, really well, to take freekicks, from anywear from 40 meters and to the goal, and 80% chace for a goalscore. this makes Becks almost worth an incredible amount of money, he is a factor that can tip it to a vicotry on one attempt by his sergicaly presice freekicks unvaluable quality, Becks right foot alone is worth 100 million euro
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: September 05 2012 at 14:23
Dean wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Public figures make a lot of money for one simple reason: they provide a product enjoyed by a lot of people. An athlete playing in the Superbowl provides entertainment for tens of millions of people. Therefore, they get paid tens of millions of dollars. It doesn't matter how hard it is or how much education they have, it's the service they provide. Same goes for musicians and movie stars.
A master craftsman, no matter how skilled he is, can only make one product at a time, so he can only get paid by one person at a time, even if that one payment is a lot. There's nothing obscene or unfair about this, it's simply a matter of people getting paid based on what they produce: entertainment for millions versus entertainment for one.
Antonio Stradivari may dispute that. While the numbers of people a "product" can entertain has a relationship to how much it is valued at, it is the rarity of the skill involved that actually commands the price ticket. If it was merely down to numbers then any knuckle-grazed gibbon could take to the field and be "entertaining", but I doubt they'd get paid anything like as handsomely.
Well yes. It's his skill that allows him to be entertaining. They wouldn't care about watching someone who wasn't any good. The medium is what makes the numbers much higher than they would otherwise be though.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: September 05 2012 at 14:07
thellama73 wrote:
Public figures make a lot of money for one simple reason: they provide a product enjoyed by a lot of people. An athlete playing in the Superbowl provides entertainment for tens of millions of people. Therefore, they get paid tens of millions of dollars. It doesn't matter how hard it is or how much education they have, it's the service they provide. Same goes for musicians and movie stars.
A master craftsman, no matter how skilled he is, can only make one product at a time, so he can only get paid by one person at a time, even if that one payment is a lot. There's nothing obscene or unfair about this, it's simply a matter of people getting paid based on what they produce: entertainment for millions versus entertainment for one.
Antonio Stradivari may dispute that. While the numbers of people a "product" can entertain has a relationship to how much it is valued at, it is the rarity of the skill involved that actually commands the price ticket. If it was merely down to numbers then any knuckle-grazed gibbon could take to the field and be "entertaining", but I doubt they'd get paid anything like as handsomely.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: September 05 2012 at 13:42
Public figures make a lot of money for one simple reason: they provide a product enjoyed by a lot of people. An athlete playing in the Superbowl provides entertainment for tens of millions of people. Therefore, they get paid tens of millions of dollars. It doesn't matter how hard it is or how much education they have, it's the service they provide. Same goes for musicians and movie stars.
A master craftsman, no matter how skilled he is, can only make one product at a time, so he can only get paid by one person at a time, even if that one payment is a lot. There's nothing obscene or unfair about this, it's simply a matter of people getting paid based on what they produce: entertainment for millions versus entertainment for one.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: September 05 2012 at 13:34
someone_else wrote:
Madness. I cannot understand why such amounts of money can be spent on a few spoiled, usually uneducated brats who have a talent to handle (or should I say footle) a ball. But money rules and sport is big business, whether we like it or not.
Fortunately, I care little for money and even less for football.
So you think it would be reasonable to give money to intellectuals of an elite like you?
They help other people make money, including people not directly related to the teams they play for. There is a reason why club owners decide to pay those huge amounts. I'm sure it is not for a desire to burn money.
Now if you really want to complain about high-paid people, put artists, celebrities, actors and musicians in there too. Many of the musicians you probably adore are spoiled, uneducated brats who have a talent to handle thousands of worshippers. Just like football players. But at least in the second case the results are easier to objectively measure.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: September 05 2012 at 11:19
It's not a dictate passed down by some higher power. It's a flexible condition. They make a reasonable amount given the product that is a match of soccer.
The fact that these people in good conscious keep considerable portions of this money strikes me as closer to madness.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Madness. I cannot understand why such amounts of money can be spent on a few spoiled, usually uneducated brats who have a talent to handle (or should I say footle) a ball. But money rules and sport is big business, whether we like it or not.
Fortunately, I care little for money and even less for football.
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66555
Posted: August 31 2012 at 14:08
For a baseball or American football player it is reasonable, but for the European version of football it is pure madness.
Seriously though, I seriously think it is madness all around, but since these amounts seem to be what the market will bear than more power to both sides. I certainly don't feel sorry for the teams or team owners that complain that not enough fans support the team by buying tickets and showing up for games however. I feel bad for the common man fans who can't afford to pay for ticket or bring his family though.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Madness or reasonable
Topic Options
The T wrote:
) instead of being jealous because I don't participate.
.
I fear madness for the rest of my life ....
, Raul), a midfieadstrateger (Zidanne), but a extremely good ablitity to place a long passing, an extreme quality which nobody else matches, which makes him almost worth any price becouse of the one thing he can really, really well, to take freekicks, from anywear from 40 meters and to the goal, and 80% chace for a goalscore. this makes Becks almost worth an incredible amount of money, he is a factor that can tip it to a vicotry on one attempt by his sergicaly presice freekicks unvaluable quality, Becks right foot alone is worth 100 million euro 
exactly-- you can't be able to make a certain amount but not spend it
