The Instigator
PaintTheTownRed94
Pro (for)
Losing
51 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points

sportsmen and women are overpaid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,468 times Debate No: 4028
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (33)

 

PaintTheTownRed94

Pro

sportsmen and women are vastly overpaid. docters and nurses save lives everyday.. sports people just entertian. how can we possibly think a football player for example is more deserving of large amounts of money than the emergancy services, or help groups like the samaritans?
Danielle

Con

I hate to sound trite, but please vote on this debate based on who has put forth the better arguments - not your own personal opinion. That said, for now I will address this round the same way my opponent has: (relatively) short and sweet.

"sportsmen and women are vastly overpaid."

Opinion. Consider supply and demand.

"sports people just entertian"

Not true. They (figuratively) put people in the stands. They sell tickets, thus, they make money. Also, outside of a team's franchise, they also promote endorsements and in turn make a whole lot of other people a bunch of money too.

"how can we possibly think a football player for example is more deserving of large amounts of money than the emergancy services, or help groups like the samaritans?"

I just told you - supply and demand. I mean I'd hate to get into a whole economic discussion here, but I will if I have to. Basically it all comes down to where people are willing to allocate their money.

And finally, some contentions of my own: Many people feel that athletes actually earn every dollar they make. They possess a skill, the same way a seamstress or a painter utilizes their skills to make a profit. Also, consider the amount of preparation a doctor undergoes in order to obtain his PhD. Now think about the physical training one endures to become a professional athlete.

Sportsmen and women have talent, experience, and not to mention make a lot of sacrifices in order to keep their jobs (traveling, being in the public eye, constant physical improvement, etc.). Remember that athletes can get fired just as easily for poor performance as any other occupation.

So, to win on this point alone, Pro would have to prove why an athlete's compensation is undeserved - not just state that it is in comparison with other professionals/institutions. And might I add that not all athletes are millionaires, including the professionals (the resolution doesn't specify amateur or pro, but I won't pull a Logical-Master and manipulate it to "flex my creative muscle" lol). Anyway, your move. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
PaintTheTownRed94

Pro

i am new to this, i had no idea what to write, but now i have got an idea, so here i go:

supply and demand it may be, but there is still a serious issue here. i couldn't care if there were only 24 sports people in the entire world, they are not saving lives!!!

My first point: sportspeople are completely overpaid. They are given millions of pounds when there are children and adults starving in third world countries.
Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day
According to UNICEF 30,000 children die each day due to poverty.
How can this be happening in our world, when there are sportspeople, footballers afor example, who have 4, 5 cars, several million pound houses??! It's ridiculous. They could easily live a lavish lifestyle, but on slightly less money – with the extra going to the poor.

My second point: these sportsmen and women are people's idols!! People dream about one day being as good as their favorite sports star. The only trouble is that these sports players often end up getting drunk, vandalizing, break the law. Does this mean that others think they should be doing this too?I think it encourages a nation to copy these sports players and act irresponsibly.
Andrew Flintoff was one of six players fined by the England management on a Saturday in april after their late-night drinking exploits became public knowledge. Flintoff had allegedly commandeered, and then capsized, a pedalo late at night. The team's five-star hotel forced England to take tougher disciplinary action against him.
This sort of behavior encourages others to act in this irresponsible manner too. Cricket is known as a gentleman's sport, yet Flintoff acted in this way, most ungentlemanly, he gets paid ridiculous amounts of money and he gets endorsed by Woodworm. This man is earning huge amounts, yet acts like a complete idiot!! This isn't fair. People out there work hard for their livings, yet he gets paid loads AND acts in this way. Fair? I think not.

My third point: people claim that athletes get paid more due to the risk involved. But, don't solders also put their lives in terrible risk for their country and yet they get paid what the government feels the tax paying public can afford and will tolerate, this can be as little as �15, 000. Personally, I think this is unfair and completely ridiculous. I feel that the soldiers are leaving their family's for months at a time, risking their lives all for the benefit of the people in their country. As you commented, 'Sportsmen and women have talent, experience, and not to mention make a lot of sacrifices in order to keep their jobs (traveling, being in the public eye, constant physical improvement, etc.).' aren't soliders exposed to a lot of this too?

to sum up a little: Footballers. The typical weekly wage is now an average of �60,000 a week. The highest earner in the Premier League at the moment is, of course, Cristiano Ronaldo, who now earns �145,000 a week after signing a new contract with Manchester United.
Compare that to a Police Officer. A profession in which you risk your life every day, and they get just �20,000 a YEAR. This means that it would take your average Police Officer 7 and a half years to earn what Ronaldo does in seven days.
How is that fair? To make matters worse, some soldiers get paid �15,000 a year. They're fighting in a war zone. Ronaldo runs around after a football. Fair?
Take an idiot like Ashley Cole, who had the audacity to complain about receiving JUST �55,000 A WEEK. He took the decision to leave Arsenal to move to Chelsea who have the money to give him what he wants.
Not long ago we had an appeal that asked every Premier League footballer to give just one days wages to help the NHS nurses who get rubbish money. �20,000 a year I believe. Some footballers had the cheek to say that nurses are overpaid. That's simply disgusting.
Now I'm not saying it's the footballers' fault that nurses get bad wages, but they could easily afford to be of some assistance. What some footballers don't seem to realise, or care, is that every time they demand another �20,000 a week, they are pushing their fans closer to being out of pocket.
Danielle

Con

[[ WHY SPORTSMEN & WOMEN ARE NOT OVER-PAID ]]

Consider This: The MLB, for example, generates about 1.4 billion dollars in ticket sales alone [1]. Once inside the ballpark, fans spend money on food, souvenirs, memorabilia, etc. They're also exposed to the dozens upon dozens of advertisements plastered all over the walls, on the scoreboard, and on blimps overhead -- advertisements that companies pay big money the MLB for.

So why do fans spend billions of dollars to get inside the ballpark? To watch superstar players compete in games, of course. Sports are a form of entertainment, and as we all know, entertainment is possibly the most lucrative industry in the world. People will spend money on things they enjoy, billions of dollars in fact. Now since athletes are the reason that people show up to the park, shouldn't they get a percentage of that money?

No athletes = no money. Athletes = lots of money. Therefore athletes should make a lot of money. And remember what I said about performance - if a player sucks, he or she is certain to not be paid as well as an athlete who consistently performs. Fans enjoy teams and players who are playing well. If a team is unsuccessful, fans won't spend money on tickets or other memorabilia. Thus a great deal of money would be lost and an athlete will not make as much. However when a superstar is doing well and generates a lot of excitement/interest in the franchise, they are sure to rake in the big bucks. Michael Jordan, for example, used to make about $200,000 for every basket he scored. **

TV stations spend upwards of 1 billion dollars per year to televise sports games (and I'm still only talking about the MLB). Why do those fans tune in to watch? The players. And again, people advertise during sporting events because they know fans are watching. The more people that watch = the more money they can charge for commercials. Thus, these athletes are making a bunch of people a lot of money. Therefore they rightfully deserve a portion of the profit.

Whether Pro likes it or not, this is simply about supply and demand. The resolution states that sportsmen and women are overpaid; however, this is simply untrue. Fans are what enable these athletes to earn such a high salary. Because we are so willing to attend games, watch them on TV and/or buy sporting merchandise, we are essentially saying "Hey! We enjoy this game/these players so much that we don't mind spending the money on it. If we did, we wouldn't spend." Simple as that. So essentally it is us, the people, who have determined that we would like to spend more money on entertainment - these athletes - than on the other heroes my opponent has mentioned in his argument such has military personnel or law enforcement.

The bottom line is that this debate is about economics, not morality. Assuming it WERE about morality though, an athlete's earnings would still be justified because Pro cannot tell people how and where they should spend their money. We have the right to spend our money however we choose; to say we don't would be infrginging upon our rights and would be terribly immoral. Thus, I negate the resolution that sportsmen and women are overpaid. If they were truly overpaid, a change in the fan's behavior would indicate that notion and things would change.

[[ REBUTTAL TO PRO'S 3 POINTS ]]

"My first point: sportspeople are completely overpaid. They are given millions of pounds when there are children and adults starving in third world countries."

1) This could be said about a lot of people, not just athletes. Actors, musicians, politicians, investment bankers, agents, lawyers, and thousands of other occupations all employ individuals who earn millions of dollars, all while there are starving children in 3rd world countries. Athletes should not be singled out, and because you have not contested why they should (over other entertainers), this point is null and void.

--

"My second point: these sportsmen and women are people's idols!!"

1) This entire point of yours was irrelevent. You talked about bad behavior on the part of athletes, but what does that have to do with their salary? If you're suggesting that because they make a lot of money they should always be on their best behavior, I'll have to disagree with your logic. What you're saying is that every person who earns a decent living should always act in a moral and proper way, but by that logic, it is okay for someone who DOESN'T earn a lot of money to act improperly. You're drawing a link between wealth and morality where none exists.

2) I agree that many athletes are children's idols. Because they make a lot of money, young people work hard to try and imitate their lavish lifestyle. Money is an incentive, whether it's for aspiring athletes or kids who just want to succeed in general. Consider a show like MTV Cribs in which the cameras take you inside of a celebrity's home to show off their nice things. Children watching at home will want to work hard either academically, or via their respective sports to try and be the best they can be and make a lot of money.

3) Athletes also do a lot of good for the community, which is also good in terms of being a role model. The website Athletes for Charity details dozens of philanthropic organizations either headed, founded or participated in by hundreds of professional athletes.* Talk about setting a good example.

In regard to this point, I have proved that athletes can be excellent role models which cancels out your point that they are not. I have also established that wealth and good behavior do not go hand-in-hand, and assuming they should is based solely on my opponent's opinion - not factual evidence to back it up.

--

"My third point: people claim that athletes get paid more due to the risk involved." During this point, you bring up soldiers and the fact that they are paid less than athletes despite their risky career. Here are my thoughts:

1) Not everybody agrees that soldiers should be paid more than athletes... clearly, since they're not.

2) The government determines the amount of money that a soldier earns. The government determines this based on tax payer wants and needs; the reason soldiers earn so little in comparison to athletes is because that is what citizens are willing to pay them. Whether or not you agree with that is completely irrelevant, because it is people like you and I as a whole who determine their wages.

3) Soldiers accept their job description including the salary. Just like the athletes in your example denied certain positions based on wages, a soldier (and a police officer) could just as easily turn down a job based on the pay. In that case, if there were no soldiers, people would have to look around and seriously consider increasing military wages. Because soldiers accept their job as-is (as we can tell from the current enlistment), there is no reason for people to pay higher taxes to up their salary. If they themselves are happy with their earnings, then why shouldn't we be?

---------------------------------------------

[[ SOURCES ]]

[1] http://findarticles.com...
[2] http://findarticles.com...
[3] http://www.athletesforcharity.com...
Debate Round No. 2
PaintTheTownRed94

Pro

PaintTheTownRed94 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Alright so my opponent forfeited the last round and did not respond to any of the numerous contentions I mentioned/strengthned in R2. Therefore I'd just like to give a quick re-cap of my arguments: The economy is based around supply and demand. Athletes get paid higher wages than soldiers, for example, because athletes demand higher wages and people oblige (via watching games, buying merchandise, attending ball games, etc). Soldiers on the other hand are awarded only what the government can afford to give them or offers them. How is that the fault of the athletes? They are obviously very skilled and earn a lot of money not only through their playing but through marketing, PR, endorsements, etc. They sell tickets and generate billions of dollars worth of profits. If an investment banker generated millions of dollars worth of profits, would people claim that he didn't deserve HIS money? I don't think so. Bottom line is that athletes are simply valued more in today's society because of how they stimulate the economy. It's not about ethics, it's about $$ (not saying it's right - just sayin' how it is).
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Con has hit right on the nail head. If sports fans are stupid enough to dole out 50 100 even 500 dollars for a ticket to watch a grownups play children's games, then that is where the money is going to go, I.E. sports people who will keep the money coming in. Personally I think watching other people play sports is a big waste of life but I have to vote for con because she is right. Of course auto racing is a completely different story. Have you ever seen a Top Fuel funny car run the Quarter mile in 4.5 seconds You haven't seen anything until you see that up close. I'd pay 100 bucks to see it every time it came to my area.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
I agree that sports figures are paid far too much. However, the fault does not lie with the players or even those who pay them. The real problem is that the American public pays good money to watch people play sports. It's a sad and foolish industry, but we have none but ourselves to blame. We idolize actors and sports figures, despite their utter lack of contribution to society and ignore our policemen, firemen, soldiers and others, who are the true heroes. If we are going to "fix" the problem of salaries, it's up to us not to give our money to sports teams.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 8 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Aaah, okay -- I see it now.

Grammatically incorrect? The hell is that?
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Double,

I had the same question, but then I realized that I think by sportsmen and women he was referring to both male and female athletes. Otherwise I would have attacked the Hell out of the notion that women are overpaid, obviously :P
Posted by DoubleXMinus 8 years ago
DoubleXMinus
What do athletes being overpaid have to do with women supposedly being overpaid, anyway?
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Meh. A few hours more :P

I hate the minimum character thing sometimes...
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Good rebuttal. I'll post my response in a few hours.
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: 0-0
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jamic 8 years ago
Jamic
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by jam34 8 years ago
jam34
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by DorothyDorothy 8 years ago
DorothyDorothy
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by HungryAssassin 8 years ago
HungryAssassin
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by GleefulJoker 8 years ago
GleefulJoker
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Fantasticlover 8 years ago
Fantasticlover
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by JeffGordon 8 years ago
JeffGordon
PaintTheTownRed94DanielleTied
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:30