TrophyHusband 0 #1 April 8, 2007 i believe that if the money is there, the players deserve to get it, it is a business after all. the problem i have is that tax money pays for a portion of the stadiums. i realize that a pro team does a lot for the city, but so do other businesses. if i wanted to open a restaurant or a store, would the any city offer to foot some of the bill for the building? maybe this happens and i don't know about it. if the owner's of the teams pay for the stadiums themselves or with private money, then players deserve whatever they can negotiate for, but as it stands now, i don't think they should get enormous salaries while the rest of us pay for the buildings they use to earn all of that money. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 April 8, 2007 Quotei believe that if the money is there, the players deserve to get it, it is a business after all. the problem i have is that tax money pays for a portion of the stadiums. i realize that a pro team does a lot for the city, but so do other businesses. if i wanted to open a restaurant or a store, would the any city offer to foot some of the bill for the building? maybe this happens and i don't know about it. if the owner's of the teams pay for the stadiums themselves or with private money, then players deserve whatever they can negotiate for, but as it stands now, i don't think they should get enormous salaries while the rest of us pay for the buildings they use to earn all of that money. To an extent, you're correct. However, if the Tampa Bay Buccaneers pulled out of the Bay Area and the stadium closed, you'd see virtually every business on Dale Mabry in the area close its doors. It really depends on the city. Los Angeles is doing fine without an NFL team. Tampa would suffer, being a much smaller city. Boston would fare okay, but Nashville would feel the hit a lot more. The players' salaries are a different issue from the venues they play in. The tax-payers end up ahead of the game with providing infrastructure incentives to a "business" (aka team owner). If tax dollars went directly to paying a player's salary, then that would be a whole different issue. As to salaries themselves, it's like you said, the money is there and the market bears it.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #3 April 8, 2007 Sport players (even over here) do get paid an obscene amount, but their career span is short, so some of it may be justified. It's the sport fan that pays a big chuck of these monies, though gate fees, merchandising etc.. not from the general public purse, so I think it's these fans that are getting a raw deal. Also, these sport personalities have a responsibility of acting publicly in a manner becoming. Kids should be able to look up to them as role models, so if they transgress they should be punished hard. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #4 April 8, 2007 there's no doubt that a professional team brings benefits to the city and generates additional tax revenue. i believe that some cities even pay for their stadiums with hotel taxes and its the visitors to the city and not even residents that pay the bill. my objection is that the money is certainly there for the team owners to pay for it themselves. my mind could be changed if it could be shown that there is a net positive for the city. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #5 April 8, 2007 It must be taken into consideration that sports players are entertainers who have, mostly, very short careers. Sports players in particular are subject to career ending injuries that not only end their incomes but also place very burdensome financial obligations on their future. So, let them earn as much as they can, just as other entertainers do.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #6 April 8, 2007 that's not the point. just because someone enters a career field that has such limitations does not entitle them to earn. the fact that the money is there is what entitles them to earn. they should be the ones footing the bill to the stage they use to entertain us unless it can be shown that it is a net positive for the city to have them there. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #7 April 9, 2007 > if i wanted to open a restaurant or a store, would the any city offer to >foot some of the bill for the building? Many cities offer tax breaks to entice companies, and if you're large enough (say, Wal-Mart) often you'll get special deals on land/taxes/infrastructure. >i don't think they should get enormous salaries while the rest of us pay for >the buildings they use to earn all of that money. Well, we're the ones who set their salaries. When we, as consumers, make the Superbowl a billion-dollar enterprise, the most critical parts of that sort of entertainment (the players) get a lot of money. It's basic economics for the teams. If you can spend a few million to increase your chances of getting access to billions, it's often a good investment. If, OTOH, the Superbowl stopped being such a TV draw, salaries would decline rapidly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 April 9, 2007 Why are you angry with the PLAYERS (of all people)? It's the fucked up OWNERS that cut the deals with the cities. The workers don't own the means of production . . .quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #9 April 9, 2007 i'm not angry, i was just thinking about this and decided to pose the question here. you are right, it is the owners, but they are businessmen. it makes good business sense to get someone else to pay for their building. the cities should tell them to pay for it themselves, but i realize that is a fantasy. every city in the country would have to agree to this tactic and that just won't happen. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 April 9, 2007 Quotethe problem i have is that tax money pays for a portion of the stadiums. I have a problem with that, too, but I'm libertarian. The city/county/state looks at it as priming the pump - the sales tax revenue that they will get from it will end up exceeding the tax outlay. Quoteif i wanted to open a restaurant or a store, would the any city offer to foot some of the bill for the building? Depending on the store, hell yes. Cities and counties offer lots of lucrative incentives for big stores like Costco, Ikea, etc., because of the huge sales tax dollars they generate. THey will exempt the businesses from taxes and often offer assistance with building, zoning, etc., to make it worth WalMart's while to come on in to City X instead of next door at City Y. Quotei don't know about it Indeed. If you are a small businessperson, they'll get more money from you by taxing you individually. Quotei don't think they should get enormous salaries while the rest of us pay for the buildings they use to earn all of that money. The players' salaries are probably taxed, too. I'll bet Alex Rodriguez pays more in taxes than any random 1,000 people in NYC put together. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
