by Brian Pears

Created on: September 21, 2009   Last Updated: September 23, 2009

Before one can consider this question, one must notice that the question itself is vague. Without knowing whether athletes are paid too much relative to some person or some group, a person pondering this is forced to fill in the blanks themselves.

Oh, and how people love to fill in blanks! Into the emptiness, those who answer "yes" will throw all sorts of professions deemed to be far nobler than athlete: teacher, doctor, fire fighter, stay-at-home mom...the list can go on and on, with nearly no end to the number of professions that are "worth more" than athlete. Nearly all "yes" answers involve comparing athletes to other workers.

That's where those arguing yes give themselves away. In volunteering those other professions, they are equating monetary compensation with value to society. Take that argument to its logical conclusion and one fears that the affirmatives are endorsing a system in which people performing jobs deemed most important to society would be paid the most, with those merely entertaining us paid the least.

That logic can be deconstructed in a number of ways.

The first is probably the most obvious: those saying yes are comparing apples to oranges. Said differently, what does an athlete's compensation have to do with a policeman's? Do civil servants make the wages they do because athletes deny them money? In other words, is the aggregate compensation scheme in this country a zero-sum game, where football players are in effect hoarding money that rightfully belongs to someone else?

Those questions are of course rhetorical. Society does not arrive at a civil servant's compensation in the same way that a professional sports team decides how to pay its employees. The idea that capitalist societies as a rule do not pay their civil servants enough money relative to their value is likely is certainly worth debating. But it has absolutely nothing to do with how athletes are paid.

But those that believe athletes are paid too much are not deterred by the fact that they compare apples to oranges. To them, teachers are a priori more valuable. That "fact" is sufficient enough to declare that athletes are overpaid simply because they make more than teachers while merely playing a game.

Their belief begs a question: who decides what jobs are most valuable to society? Ask a teacher and they'll say teachers, of course. Most people probably would. But a high-school dropout might rank them a bit lower on the scale. Same with the police, especially if the

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>