|
They should be given enough to live on or lower, because they are just doing it for people's
entertainment. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is the understatement of the year. Nobody should make that kind of money. I heard a start don't
quote me but something like 64% of Ex-NFL player end up broke. Which is somewhat Ironic, but last
time I went to a Sonics game I paid 125.00 a seat and wasn't even close to floor level, and they
expect tax payers to fund there venues. What a joke although I don't want to lose the sonics being
from Sea-town. Players should be paid monthly on there accomplishments of that particular month. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
So true. They don't need that much money. Just enough to live on. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The players unions of both leagues realized a long time ago what the market -and the team
owners-would support. Players salaries, much less anyone elses, has nothing to do with fairness.
Im an aircraft mechanic and I have a job that is related to public safety. If I could command a $10
million salary per year, I certainly would get it, just as a teacher, police officer, fireman or
trash collector would. However, the market wont support that because there are to many others with
the necessary skills that will do the same jobs for lower pay.
Not true with the professional athlete. Their skills and abilities are far more rare, therefore
worth more. Simple economics. Hansbuddy, you supported what you consider to be an insane system by
paying $125 for a basketball ticket. If you felt this way Curious does, wouldn't that money have
been better spent if you had gone down to your local schoolhouse and donated it to the library for
books or started a teachers general salary fund?
Gogo and Celva, how much is "enough to live on'? $10,000? $50,000? $100,000? Who decides? I'll tell
you who decides. The MARKET decides, and its got nothing to do with fairness or "enough". |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
21 Apr 2008 02:01
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
