The Instigator
KnowItAll
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Staerkel
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Professional Athletes Are Overpaid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Staerkel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,049 times Debate No: 15960
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

KnowItAll

Con

Ask the average person or politician for that matter, and the consensus seems to be the professional athletes are overpaid. It is my contention that athletes are not overpaid and are more than deserving to earn the living that they do.

My opponent will take the position that professional athletes are indeed overpaid. Professional players will be those players in the NHL, NBA and MLB.
Staerkel

Pro

I thank the Con for posting this debate.

I will adhere to my opponents definition for professional athletes.

Before i begin i would like to offer a pre-case observation on the term "Overpaid" in the context of the resolution.

OB: There is many ways one can go in terms of summarizing this term but i will define overpaid as "Making a certain amount of money which exceeds how much you need for basic living cost" i.e Food, shelter, and clothing, and minimal entertainment. Since my opponent states that we will be addressing athletes in the NHL, NBA, and MLB. Arguments about Lacross, tennis, and NFL or any other sports league are non topical and should be disregarded.

The lowest paid athletes in the mentioned leagues make around $750,000 annually. However the average teacher salary in America is around $50,000 annually. Both of these professions take immense work whether it be mental or physical. But the average athlete gets paid more than 10 times the average teachers salary.

$750,000 a year is enough for 7 families to live off of. Including food, shelter, clothing and even a good health insurance policy for each family. However $50,000 can barely support a married couple alone.

Since the burden of proof is simply affirming or refuting whether athletes are overpaid, i meet my burden of proof by reading my pre-case observation alone.

I now give it to the con.
Debate Round No. 1
KnowItAll

Con

I thank you pro for accepting the challenge.

According to http://www.census.gov..., which uses 2008 census figures, there are 7.2 million teachers in the United States. Although salaries vary by state, the average salary for a teacher is approximately $46,000.

According to CBS Sports, which uses figures gathered by the Associated Press, the average salary for a MLB players is $3,305,393. MLB is a $6,100,000,000 per year industry (http://blogs.forbes.com...) The 2011 league minimum is $414,500 with the highest paid players making in excess of $15,000,000 per year.

By simply looking at the disparity one can make the assumption that MLB players are indeed overpaid. Although many players are from outside of the U.S.A., I will use U.S. census figures to make my point. There are over 310 million people in the U.S. (http://www.usnews.com...) However, consider that a MLB regular roster consists of 25 players per team for a total of 750 players. Even when the rosters are expanded towards the end of the year we're looking at a total of 1200 players in the entire league.

That is 1200 people out of 310+ million as compared to teachers that represent a figure of 7.2 million out of 310+ million. MLB is a private industry where it takes lots of money in order to attract the top talent within a limited pool of talent in which owners have to choose from.

If there were only 1200 people in the entire country who were capable to teaching what would teachers earn? The questions as to whether professional athletes are overpaid has more to do with economics than it does with basic living cost.
Staerkel

Pro

I thank the con for posting his response.

I will begin by attacking his case then providing some more key arguments.

My opponent's main point in his response is that since there is a much smaller amount of athletes, we are justified in paying them that much, compared to the millions of teachers we have. However, does this justify why they get payed so much? I understand why we shouldn't double every teachers salary.

But why is it justified to pay athletes who's jobs are based solely on entertainment and not more important pursuits such as teaching our next generations? Why must millions of dollars be subjected to vanity spending while none of it goes to more important matters? Such as finding a new energy resources or funding health care. If we just payed all of these athletes around 150,000 annually instead of 5 to 10 times that. They would still have a surplus to spend regardless.

As you can see my opponent never attempted to refute my definition of "Overpaid" so we can already see how my case stands more firmly. Also since the only thing we are arguing is that athletes are or are not overpaid as the resolution implies. My opponent has clearly not met his burden of clash.

One more thing i would like to recap on is how much athletes make.

When i offered the claim that they make around 750,000 dollars. I'm referring to people who are alternates, or sit on the bench or dugout most of the game. They make 7 times more than a doctor by sitting down. Now from a generalization of the term overpaid, anyone would easily say that is way too much for what they actually contribute.

In the end is it really healthy for our economy by just pumping money for people who do no more than show up to practice?

I now give it to the con.
Debate Round No. 2
KnowItAll

Con

I thank pro for posting his response.

I must disagree on what pro feels is my main point. I did make a point that there is a much smaller amount of athletes in MLB compared to teachers. However, the main point that I made is that MLB is generates billion dollars a year in revenue and the compensation that players earn is in direct correlation to that fact. MLB players earn as much as they do as there are a limited amount of people that are able to perform at a level that qualifies them as professional baseball players and the owners are more than willing to pay as the owners are profiting substantially.

It is justified that pay athletes at the level they are compensated at as the owners have the money to pay them for their services. The owners have the money to spend on the services of the players as it is the fans that make it all possible. It is true that baseball and sports in general is for entertainment purposes but this is no different than the movie star who earns $20,000,000 per movie or amusement parks the generates $976,000,000 in revenue. (http://investors.sixflags.com...=). Even if these players were paid $150,000 annually it would simply mean that the owners of the team and the league would make more money. Regardless of what the players are earning, the teams themselves would earn additional millions upon the millions of dollars per year that are currently being earned. The players earning what they do equates to large sums of tax dollars which can indeed can be used to find new energy sources of fund health care. However, the burden is not on baseball players but the government of the United States. The players are employees of private businesses not government officials.

I never attacked nor refuted pro's definition of "overpaid" which he defined as "Making a certain amount of money which exceeds how much you need for basic living cost" i.e Food, shelter, and clothing, and minimal entertainment" as he never stated what the certain amount of money is. However, he did state that $750,000 per year is more than enough for 7 families to live off of. With that being said, it appears that my opponent's definition of overpaid averages to anyone who has a family that earns over $107,000 per year. According to the census bureau, 21.8% of families make over $100,000 per year. Does this mean that all of those families are overpaid or only those who worked in the entertainment industry?

Alternates and bench players are integral parts of a team and do more than just sit on a bench. These players practice just as hard as the starters and stars and are often called on during key situations of a game. Additionally many of these players start when starting players are given a day off. These players are taxed just like any other worker and are contributing to the economy. It appears that my opponent has more issue with the owners of the teams than the players.

My opponent made a comparison to teachers so I will do the same by showing how economics would affect the teaching profession if structured like MLB. There are 30 cities in which children may be educated. Each city consist of 25 teachers and there are anywhere between 35,000 to 55,000 open seats for each child in each city at a facility which is privately owned. Additionally, all teaching will be conducted over the course of 81 dates in the city. Each facility is privately owned and each seat sells at an average of $25. As education is important each facility in each city completely sells out for all dates. Using an average of 40,000 tickets sold over 81 dates total revenue generated is $81,000,000, for the education season. Of course, teachers like Mr. Johnson are more skilled and consistently outperforms his colleagues so he is the highest paid at $10,000,000 per year. After all, there are only 750 teachers in the U.S.A. and he is the best at what he does. He is the face of education and his online seminars and education CD's generates additional millions per year for the facility owner.

In closing I would like to summarize my position that athlete are not overpaid. First, there are a limited amount of people who have the skill set necessary. Second, billions of dollars in revenue are generated by the sport. Third, the players earn millions as it is the fans that are paying for their salaries. Last, if you look at the economic behind the salaries and the law of supply and demand you will see that not only are players not overpaid but are earning what they are entitled to earn.
Staerkel

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting his response.

My opponent mainly comes from a market standpoint, Since they bring in a large amount of money, they are justified in being payed the amount the amount they receive.

Let's analyze this theory.

Let's say that from the money the school receives, 10% is used on maintenance and essential supplies, while 90% is used to pay the workers. If this was the case teachers would be making a reasonable amount of money. But the school itself would not be up to par. Education would decline, etc.

Now let's swap this into a situation that is really happening. Now let's say the teachers are athletes, and the school is the economy of the country. Athletes are paid way over what they could spend while our economy continues to plunge. It is not logical in an economic instance to pay people who only provide a vanity service way more than what they can even spend.

My opponent again brings in the teacher argument. However he again misconstrues what i was implying. I wasn't advocating for teachers to get paid more, i was just stating that the service that an athlete contribute is no more than entertainment, while other jobs that actually have a huge impact on our society don't receive such a generous compensation.

I would now like to address his argument on "Billions of dollars in revenue are generated by the sport.." Before i address this however i would like to point out that since this is a new argument in the final round, it should be disregarded completely. However i will still refute it.

I would also like to point out that this is a vague statement. He doesn't address what sport, or X amount of billions. No statistical or evidential bearings.

He also agrees that he didn't attack my definition but stated that, "$750,000 per year is more than enough for 7 families to live off of. With that being said, it appears that my opponent's definition of overpaid averages to anyone who has a family that earns over $107,000 per year. According to the census bureau, 21.8% of families make over $100,000 per year. Does this mean that all of those families are overpaid or only those who worked in the entertainment industry?"

Since my opponent already conceded my definition, this new argument should have no bearings on how the round is judged. And to be technical, what if i say yes? What if i agree that people who make over 107,000 annually are overpaid? He still hasn't refuted my definition, therefore meeting his burden has already become improbable.

It is for these reasons i must affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by shrek65 3 years ago
shrek65
and why just NHF NBA and NLB why not NfL in this debate
Posted by phantom 3 years ago
phantom
I agree with twsurber.
Posted by twsurber 3 years ago
twsurber
Too much wiggle room for semantical definitions. What are professional athletes? What standard are we comparing it to, ie. the NFL, NBA, or MLB league average, league minimum, or the annual average wage of a Haitian? How much is too much? How does one quantify "overpaid".
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 3 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Professional athletes are overpaid, but as members of the private sector, what can one do about it? Right-O, nothing!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
KnowItAllStaerkelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct pro for the new arguments con made in last speech. Args pro because con had already dropped pro's definition by the time he got to it. Accepting his overpaid definition lost him the round
Vote Placed by zach12 3 years ago
zach12
KnowItAllStaerkelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro repeatedly called sports a "vanity profession" that is useless and non-productive. But without these professional leagues, much of our economy and national spirit would collapse. People love their sports teams and there would be rioting if they tried to get rid of this "vanity" profession. Really, athletes are preventing a rebellion by continuing to do what they do.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
KnowItAllStaerkelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "If there were only 1200 people in the entire country who were capable to teaching what would teachers earn? " - how many people in the entire country can recite the bible backwards while juggling, does that mean they should get paid a lot of money. Con could not carry the BoP with the arguments given.