any time we think that they don't, we should stop buying tickets.
however, i will add this to my statement : a good chunk of the money that sports teams bring in comes from taxpayers and cable providers. i'd like to at least have the option to give up all sports channels from my cable package for a significant discount. i have watched ESPN for about an hour during the thirteen years i've been an involuntary customer. i'd like to trade it for HBO.
any time we think that they don't, we should stop buying tickets.
however, i will add this to my statement : a good chunk of the money that sports teams bring in comes from taxpayers and cable providers. i'd like to at least have the option to give up all sports channels from my cable package for a significant discount. i have watched ESPN for about an hour during the thirteen years i've been an involuntary customer. i'd like to trade it for HBO.
It's never going to happen. Comcast owns NBC and is one of Obama's largest campaign contributors. You will never be allowed to pay only for the channels you watch. The industry is too powerful.
I'd say that's not entirely true.
Internet tv services are going to be cable's undoing in the future.
DO you believe that the top earning Football and Baseball (and even that silly other Football) players deserve the multi-million dollar salaries they get?
I'd say that's not entirely true.
Internet tv services are going to be cable's undoing in the future.
DO you believe that the top earning Football and Baseball (and even that silly other Football) players deserve the multi-million dollar salaries they get?
I hope you are right.
In the case of football players (REAL football - LOL), their bodies take a real beating, their careers are rather short, they can end up with serious head injuries, and it is actually quite a dangerous sport, so in a way I would say yes. Of course, the AMOUNT of money they get IS a bit ridiculous, but if the players don't get the money then the owners will. All the money comes from the fans, so I have to go with yes.
I agree with the general sentiment of this post, but wanted to point out that if getting hurt were a consistently applied benchmark for employment compensation, coal miners and front line members of the military would be making some serious bank, and that obviously isn't the case.
In the case of football players (REAL football - LOL), their bodies take a real beating, their careers are rather short, they can end up with serious head injuries, and it is actually quite a dangerous sport, so in a way I would say yes. Of course, the AMOUNT of money they get IS a bit ridiculous, but if the players don't get the money then the owners will. All the money comes from the fans, so I have to go with yes.
If the market bears it, then yes they deserve it, as a result of the paying public being willing to participate in, and support the process.
If it were dependent on people like myself, they would never be able to make big bucks, but apparently there are many people who are eager to go to the coliseum.
Pro football contracts are also not guaranteed and can be negated if the player is injured. MLB is completely guaranteed. If you sign a hundred million dollar deal and blow you shoulder out the next day you still get paid.
If the market bears it, then yes they deserve it, as a result of the paying public being willing to participate in, and support the process.
If it were dependent on people like myself, they would never be able to make big bucks, but apparently there are many people who are eager to go to the coliseum.
Unfortunately, you're right. All of those people should be making good money too, but they don't have fans that will pay top dollar to see them do their jobs.
The problem with professional sports is that the tax payer ends up supporting them in one way or another, whether or not they like sports.