Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes they are

    Athletes are extremely overpaid in the US. There is no reason that an entertainer, be they athlete, singer, or movie star, should make more than the people who are fighting and dying for our country. They also shouldn't make more than the men and women who serve our communities as police, firefighters or paramedics. I do believe that they should make enough money to live on, as being a full time athlete leaves no time for a job, but it's disgraceful that one quarterback in the NFL may make more in a single season that what a rural city pays their entire police department in a year.

  • Yes, do they really need that much money?

    If a pro baseball player gets paid 13 million dollars a year, does he really need that much money? Certainly, much, much more of that 13 million could be used for something else, more valuable and useful than just one baseball player. Also, if that player has been playing for, let's say, 5 years, that adds up to 35 million. That money could be funding schools, wildlife reservations, our troops, but no, it's spent all on professional entertainers! Yes, their job is a big demand, and yes, they are entertainers, but they honest-to-god don't need that much money. They don't need fancy things, or a big house, or expensive clothes, and neither do their family. This money that we are carelessly wasting on these people could be used for much more useful cause.

  • Athletes Are Overpaid

    My father is a logger, and works twice as hard then the average athlete, and he doesn't even get a eighth of what the average athlete does, I feel likes that it is just unfair. I believe that athletes get over payed, there are lots of people in the world who are working really hard, just to get food on the table for their family. While you have famous basketball players going out to a fancy restaurant every night for dinner. You have little kids starving, and trying to help out their parents some little boys have to take on the dad role, because their father died or ran away, and famous athletes just going out to eat, and not even working hard! It's crazy things like this that make the world one of the thoughtless places.

  • They are ridiculously overpaid

    They do nothing for society, entertainment that they provide is nothing but an escape from reality that is not needed and can easily be replaced by another entertainment venue? Can this world survive without basketball or football or baseball? Yes it can. Can this world survive without doctors, teachers, police, firefighters? Not so much.

  • They are ridiculously overpaid

    They do nothing for society, entertainment that they provide is nothing but an escape from reality that is not needed and can easily be replaced by another entertainment venue? Can this world survive without basketball or football or baseball? Yes it can. Can this world survive without doctors, teachers, police, firefighters? Not so much.

  • Other people work hard too

    People in the sports industry are paid way more than other people. That money could go into research facilities or towards the homeless, instead of giving it to people who already have way more than they need. You can get paid well as an athlete, but they shouldn't be paid extravagantly.

  • It takes a lot of talent to become a professional athlete.

    From a young age athletics are put into work to become truly good. It takes a lot of work and dedication. They spend hours and hours training a day , watching what they eat because having a healthy life style is important. I mean would you like having to watch what you eat all the time.

  • I don't believe

    Athletes are over paid because there is only a small portion of people who can actually become professional athletes. Not everyone can be successful in being an athlete it takes hard work and dedication to get where you are. Since they do entertain people they are getting paid by the tickets being sold and by the company its not something they are just taking.

  • Damn Straight there over paid.

    General Managers, Team Owners, Franchise Owners will bend over backwards to get the players they need to get their team to the finals and win. For prime example, Golden State this year picked up Kevin Durant paying him 26.54 Million dollars not including signing bonus. On top of their core 4 roster, getting paid 56.3 milliion total not including there endorsements and other things, so in my opoion they are super over paid.

  • They deserve to get paid.

    Many athletes often eave their families in order to succeed in the sport they are playing. Most players have a fan base and that's where people don't understand how important it is to have sports..It gives children and adults happiness and something to look forward to. Most people do not care how much they get paid or how they paid, people look up to them and want to be them. Athletes are paid because people watch him/her play the sport.

  • No because they are heroes for children.

    A professorial athlete represents much more then just someone who hits a ball with a stick, or runs up and down a field. These athletes are idols, role models for impoverished and upper-class children alike. They provide motivation for children that would otherwise not have it, and with an athlete these children are given the chance to take a step into the world and make a name for themselves.

  • No. I don't think athletes are overpaid. It is a demanding position.

    While they do get paid much larger sums of money than the average person, this is just the way sports economics is currently setup. Ultimately, it is the paying fans supplying the money for these athletes' pay checks; and whether they may realize it or not, they make demands upon franchise owner to pick the players most likely to win. At the end of the day, though, I do hope that all players follow the philosophy of the fictional Roy Hobbs: "I play to win."

  • Supply And Demand

    Athletes are not overpaid. Not even close in my opinion. They put their bodies on the line to entertain people, so I think the pay is justified. Many forget that athletes are entertainers and if there is a demands for their particular sport, then of course they should be compensated a lot.

  • No, most are not.

    It is really only the big stars of the major sports who are overpaid and who get big endorsement deals and huge multi-year contracts. Average players in baseball and football make a good salary for the talent they have and the work they put in. Consider how grueling a 162-game MLB season can be for a player. And in the case of less prestigious sports like volleyball or rowing or lacrosse, most athletes barely make any money if they do at all.

  • Athletes are not overpaid

    Athletes are not over paid because of how hard they are working. If you think about it they have a lot on their plate, to most of athletes its not about the money its about the game. Also their hard work and dedication to the sport is another reason why they are paid just the right amount.

  • Athletes are not overpaid

    Athletes are not over paid because of how hard they are working. If you think about it they have a lot on their plate, to most of athletes its not about the money its about the game. Also their hard work and dedication to the sport is another reason why they are paid just the right amount.

  • Athletes are not overpaid

    Athletes are not over paid because of how hard they are working. If you think about it they have a lot on their plate, to most of athletes its not about the money its about the game. Also their hard work and dedication to the sport is another reason why they are paid just the right amount.

  • They deserve to get paid more.

    I strongly believe that athletes are being over paid. In the public eye we see them in the field. We believe that they are being paid so much just because there are so many people in the stadium there to watch them. When in reality their salary is so low. They should be getting more money for the entertainment they give.

  • Supply and Demand Economics Running Its Course

    How much they are paid is a reflection of supply and demand economics at work. Philosopher Robert Nozick uses the example of a skilled basketball player who charges people 25 cents to watch him play basketball. At the end of the year 1 million people paid to watch him. He has $250,000 minus some taxes, making him far wealthier than everyone else in the community. However, Nozick would argue this is not unjust, because there was no force, fraud, or theft involved. They could have chosen to spend their money differently but didn’t. Entertainers are wealthy because there are a large number of people that pay a small amount for their entertainment. Despite vast unequal distribution of wealth, there is no injustice. The only way to transfer the vast wealth of entertainers to helping the greater good is to implement a socialist or communist redistribution system, or have abnormally high taxes for them. That would require the government restricting the freedom of consenting adults. Nozick believes that is wrong because now there is outside coercion involved, including force and possibly theft. The audience spending their money on the entertainer does not harm anyone else. It would be admirable if the entertainers voluntarily donated their money to help 20,000 starving children that die every day, but they have no absolute moral obligation to do so, unless we assume certain forms of consequentialist/utilitarian views.

    Firefighters, teachers and police are paid by taxes. Taxpayers almost never ask for their taxes to be increased. They only ever want their taxes as low as possible. Until people ask for a tax raise, or ask for their governments to spend taxes more responsibly, supply and demand economics simply doesn’t work in favour of those professions.

    One philosopher who would oppose Nozick’s view is Peter Singer. He makes the famous example of the drowning child in a pond. If you were walking to work, and saw a child drowning in a pond, most people would have the intuition that, assuming you can swim, you ought to save the child, even if it means being late for work, your clothes wet, and getting your cell phone and wallet destroyed. Singer extends this intuition to suggest that there is no moral difference between the drowning child in our immediate vicinity and the starving child an ocean away in a war torn African nation. The ocean is simply an international pond, and distance is not a morally relevant factor. If saving the drowning child is morally required, saving the starving child is even more so because the latter can be saved with far less effort by means of small monetary donation.

    One philosopher that would oppose Singer is Judith Thomson. She would say while it is indecent to not save the child, there is a difference between indecency and injustice. Just because the drowning child has a right to life doesn’t mean he can force you to go save him at your expense.

  • Paid just enough

    I believe that athletes are not paid too much because of how hard they work. I mean, most of them put a lot into it and really care about athleticism as a passion, not just for the money. Plus, some need the money because their families are poor, which isn't their fault of course. So I would pay them a large amount of money depending on how much they really care about being an athlete. If I saw that they were lazy and slacking off, I would most likely pay them less.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.