Happy to see a baseball game on TV

[Steelfan]

<font color=blue>I don't worry about how much the players earn when I watch them any more than I worry about what the CEO of John Deere earns when I buy a part. Frankly, I hope he is well compensated and I wish him well just as I do the ballplayers and the team owners</font color=blue>

Hi Gary,

You stated that pretty well. Enjoying certain things in life is one of the best things about living. We can't all like the same things, or think the same way. Wow would that be boring. I don't always think that Professional Sports is perfect, but nothing is in this world. I've watch the Pittsburgh Steelers for about 30 years, and I know a lot has changed, but I still enjoy my team. Will I ever stop watching Football? I think not. Some people like boating, others like skiing, and so on. I like football. So to each their own. And thank goodness it is that way. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Kent

 

[cowboydoc]

Emotional? Not at all. No person is worth the million dollar contracts that these guys make. I don't care how good you are. It's just a game. I don't believe the corporate ceo's deserve what they get either. Just look at what all their high salaries have done to some of the top corp. in the country. Wow sure did alot of good to pay them so many millions.

 

[ejb]

>>We, the people in general, are resposible for this balance.

Agree completely...if it wasn't for the fans supporting the teams (i.e. watching them any buying tickets) they couldn't get paid that much...I really don't fault the players, I'd do the same thing in there shoes...my point was I can't understand how fans get enjoyement of watching millionaires (that work for billionaires) run around a field and play baseball...kind of hard to get excited about rooting for anyone that makes that kind of money.....kind of like rooting for a CEO of a big company as he tries to negotiate some new big sale/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif.

If fans (and taxpayers) ever stopped supporting them...they wouldn't make that kind of money.

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

Richard,

To say someone is or isn't "worth" a certain salary or contract seems a bit over the top to me. How about saying they wouldn't be "worth" that to you? What someone is worth isn't your call or mine unless we're writing the check. It's that simple. While you won't pay Jason Giambi millions of dollars to come play for you, someone else will and did. THAT and that alone makes Giambi "worth" what he's being paid.

As to coroporate executives, they're in about the same situation. Someone (typically a board of directors) determines what they feel is the right compensation package to attract and retain the people they want.

I'm in the same situation on a much, much smaller scale. I determine what I feel I can afford to pay someone to either acquire or retain them and, even if you think I'm paying too much that's not the issue. What is the issue is that I'm the one writing the checks.

I often find logic isn't appreciated on topics like this. It seems we're destined to having to agree to disagree on this point. I'm still amazed that this turned into a controversial post, though. Oh, well... /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[Alan L.]

I was sorry to see the strike averted. I had me a good mad going, and I really thought the fans were going to really show their displeasure this time, and finally show baseball that they are taking the fans for granted.

I don't have a problem with the salaries, because thats the free enterprise system, but if major league baseball thinks it can stop the season in the middle and not have the playoffs, and completely disregard the fan, they are now, hopefully, sadly mistaken.

I can easily do without baseball. I am a huge NFL fan. But I am a bigger high school football fan.

 

[Mike_Dumond]

Hey, we always have NASCAR. Go 24

 

[cowboydoc]

I still say a person is not worth that kind of money. Not just in my opinion but $10, 15, or the $25 million that Rodriquez makes a year, is insane. Texas is in last place or near last place so was he really worth the money? Not to mention their endorsements. In my opinion sure doesn't make him "worth" the money he was paid. Yes as a member of society it is my right to voice my opinion against it.

I firmly believe that when you get up to that kind of money there should be a near 100% tax on it. Just because someone makes that kind of money sure as heck doesn't mean that they are worth it. You mean to tell me that all the Enron, Worldcom, etc. execs. were worth the money that was paid to them? That money should have been paid to the stock holders. I believe it is this kind of greed in this country that has in the past and will in the future be our downfall. There is rarely a thought for the good of humanity but what is good for one's own self. Personally I'm tired of it and no it is not by saying oh that's the way that things are and accepting them that things are changed. It's by not accepting it and standing up for what one believes that made this country great in the beginning and what will make it great in the future.

Free enterprise as a single entity does not work. If we had true free enterprise we would already all be working for rockefellers or some other early corporate giant. As bad as I hat government they are necessary to maintain free enterprise as a whole. Even in sports. If there wasn't the free agency, revenue sharing, etc. you would still see the same teams in the superbowl every year. In baseball I'm sick of the Yankees. But because they have the deepest pockets then they have the best players. If free enterprise were to truly work in professional sports there would be no competition. It would be whoever could buy the best team would win. Sure there are examples of teams that have done it with small salaries but what happens to them? After the players go to the superbowl and make a name for themselves then there they go to the highest bidder. A few years after winning the superbowl there isn't even anyone left on the same team that won it. There's no team loyalty, it's all about what you can do for my pocket book.

 

[Alan L.]

The players aren't worth more than, say, teachers and firemen in terms of their value to society. However, that comparison is irrelevant. Free enterprise means free enterprise. Now, if the owners wish to have a league that has a set salary structure, I believe they should be able to have that since its THEIR league. The players are welcome to go form their own league. But this has not happened. Thus the players are entitled to whatever they can get. If the fans want to stop going to games and buying products the players and Major League Baseball promote, then they have some power over the situation. But the federal government should have NO say in the matter, in terms of deciding whether or not players are overpaid.

 

[Gary_in_Indiana]

Paul,

You're right about one thing. You do have a right to voice your opinion. I only wish you would try to support it with logic and not just emotion.

You say you want people making millions to be taxed at nearly 100% of their income. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," right, Comrade? That's been tried. It failed. Now this country is bailing those nations out.

You said that teams with the highest salaries win as a result. A great emotional argument. Not accurate, but one that tugs at emotions, nonetheless. In point of fact I recall hearing not too long ago that of the top six baseball payrolls, three were in first, two were in last and one near last. Of the bottom six payrolls, two were in first, one was in second and the other three near the bottom.

You complain about free agency and teams like the Yankees signing to players because of it, yet complain about revenue sharing which tends to level the playing field for teams financially. There's no logic to your arguments. Pick a side, for Pete's sake.

You then go on to talk about team loyalty. The reason there used to appear to be team loyalty wasn't loyalty at all but a system more closely aligned with indentured servitude. You and I have a right to go work for whomever we choose. Why should someone else not have that right?

Think about this for a moment. Do you really want someone else determining what is "too much" to earn or have? What if they decide any land ownership over ten acres is too much and the excess should be nationalized? "You have too much land so we'll just take it from you."

Be very careful of the slippery slope on which you are treading here. It just might not be you who's chosen to be the arbitor of who can and can't make as much as someone is willing to pay them or have as much as they're able to acquire.

 

[Egon]

Gary:
Everytime you sit down at the TV to watch your favorite game the cost to me; a nonwatcher, goes up for the advertized products.

One of the Scandinnavian Countries bases it's traffic fines on personal income.

Egon