sportsmen and women are overpaid

[[ 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...