Of Course They're Worth It
The year 2004 promises to be exciting for sports fans and sports figures alike! Let's look at the state of Texas for instance: sports fans in Houston have the opportunity to enjoy professional sports' greatest show, the Super Bowl, in February, and then the Major League Baseball All-Star Game in July. Sports fans in San Antonio will welcome back their NBA Champion Spurs, and fans in Dallas will most likely be filling the seats of Texas Stadium to cheer on America's Team once again. For the athletes who call Texas home, 2004 might not be as exciting as it is lucrative. Up the middle, the Texas Rangers organization will pay nearly $30 million for sub-par defense and a combined .250 batting average, and $21 million alone is wrapped up in one man, Alex Rodriguez. Despite being the fourth best team in the Western Division year after year, Mark Cuban's Dallas Mavericks have the highest payroll in the league with four players making over $10 million in 2004.
I guess you don't have to be from Texas to make bank as a professional athlete, though. Those guys on the hard-wood are doing okay I suppose. Orlando Magic shooting guard Tracy McGrady will "earn" about $13.5 million in 2004. Jason Kidd of the New Jersey Nets will make close to $17.5 million while Pacer center Jermaine O'Neal will rake in about $18 million in 2004. Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous?
If that isn't enough, just take a look at baseball. Guys like Shawn Green, Pedro Martinez, and Carlos Delgado will all make close to $20 million each in 2004. Is this fair? Do these guys really deserve that kind of money? Does it make sense that a teacher, someone who shapes the lives of so many other people, makes around $40 thousand a year while these guys make that in about three and a half innings of play or a few trips up and down the court?
From a purely ethical standpoint, I think it's safe to say that professional athletes are not worth the millions of dollars they get paid each season, no matter how many points they score a game, how many boards they pull a night, or how many home runs they hit a season. However, from a purely economic standpoint, it's hard to argue that professional athletes who generate billions of dollars a year in revenue for their respective cities aren't deserving of that kind of money. Is it fair? I can't say "no."
I guess it's time to point the finger; I mean who's fault is this? You can't blame a guy who's smart enough to realize that he's bringing in billions of dollars a year in revenue for asking for some of that money in return for his services. People tend to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the owners, but it's really not their fault either. If the guy is filling up seats and helping you win, then there's no reason not to keep him around by paying him a ridiculous amount of money each season. If it's not the fault of the owners or the players, then who? Who's left? It's just you and me, the fans. "How's this our fault?" You ask. Come on, open your eyes. We're the ones who drop hundreds of dollars on Sundays just to get a few seats, a couple dogs, a fountain drink or two, and an opportunity to go nuts when Ray Lewis (close to $9 million in '04) lays out an opposing wide receiver on a crossing pattern over the middle. We're the ones who file in to Major League ballparks from May to November each year to watch guys like Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa go yard. We're the ones who pay $60 to tune in to the Mike Tyson vs. Lenox Lewis fight on Pay-Per-View just because we want to say we witnessed it when Tyson bites someone else's ear off. I mean the guy is a lunatic, but we're the ones who continue to pay his salary. Isn't that a real kick in the pants?
It's just good, old-fashioned capitalism hard at work. Let's think about it. You and I, the customers, if you will, want to see the world's best athletes. If there are only 70,000 seats in the home stadium of a team that is based in a city of four, five, or six million people, the demand for those seats is astronomical. If tickets were $1, the game would unquestionably sell out. If tickets were $2, the game would still sell out. You see where I'm going? So if you're the owner why charge customers $1 when you could charge $2? Why charge $59 for viewers to watch the fight on television when you could charge $60? We're the ones who keep coming back.
It doesn't seem right that these guys are making this much money to play a kids' game, but we're the ones funding their inflated salaries: by paying to get through the gates, tuning in to the game on television, or reading about it the next morning in the paper. As long as we continue to pay these absurd prices for tickets, we will continue to see athletes both signing and rejecting contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars. So don't be surprised, please don't question it, and definitely don't let me catch you complaining when your superstar comes to play for my team because the price was right. We all know that nobody who plays a kids' game for a living is worth that kind of money, but on the other hand, we both know that we're going to continue to pay him to make big plays when the game is on the line...and we'll enjoy it!! Is it fair? I can't say "no," because I'm the one paying him, but I don't sleep easy knowing that.
|
