Penguins? *Yawn*

Am I the only Pittsburgher who doesn’t give a flying fart about the Pens?

Come to think of it, I’m not sure I care much for any team, or any sport for that matter. With each passing year I find it harder to get excited about watching people get paid too much to play games. I’d rather participate a sport myself (like ultimate) or watch amateur and unpopular, low-paying professional sports (like track and cross-country). The only popular professional sport I care much about any more is football, and even that’s losing my interest. Maybe I need to start watching soccer.

Anyone else feel like I do? Bueller?

Comments 8

  1. Rob wrote:

    So you’re opposed to a free-market economy? Do you think the government should regulate the salaries of the players and the owners get the increase in profits? Or do you think salaries should be held lower, owner profits held lower, and savings passed onto the consumer in a command-style economy?

    The sports figures are getting paid what the market will bear, which is pretty much the definition of “what they’re worth.”

    I have yet to meet a conservative who isn’t opposed to governmental interference in the economy who doesn’t complain about players’ salaries. Cognitive dissonance is such fun.

    As a liberal, my cognitive dissonance is that if the government does try to do something about the ticket prices, then scalpers will arise and ticket prices will still be what the market bears.

    Go Pens!

    Posted 26 Apr 2008 at 1:39 am
  2. Funky Dung wrote:

    Um…I didn’t suggest any regulation. I just said they’re overpaid. Some executives are overpaid. Sure, the market will bear their salaries. That doesn’t mean they’re worth what they’re paid. It just means fools and their money are soon parted. All my post was saying is that I can no longer get myself excited about watching athletes get paid those salaries. I’m playing my part in the market forces by not contributing to the inflation of players’, owners’, networks’, and advertisers’ salaries.

    By the way, “worth” has multiple meanings. In one sense, it’s what the market will bear. In another, it’s a metaphysical concept connected to the significance of a product or labor in relation to hierarchies of ideals.

    Posted 26 Apr 2008 at 1:06 pm
  3. Funky Dung wrote:

    Put more succinctly, I don’t think regulation should lower players’ salaries. I just think we’re morons with screwed up priorities for driving the market value of professional sports so high.

    Posted 26 Apr 2008 at 1:08 pm
  4. Funky Dung wrote:

    On a side note, professional sports aren’t entirely private market commodities because local governments subsidize stadiums and protect teams in ways that they don’t protect other businesses.

    Posted 26 Apr 2008 at 1:10 pm
  5. gbm3 wrote:

    On a side note, professional sports aren’t entirely private market commodities because local governments subsidize stadiums and protect teams in ways that they don’t protect other businesses.

    So they’re all Walmart stadiums? Shouldn’t sports owners be getting players from other countries for lower salaries? With no benefits?

    gbm3

    Posted 27 Apr 2008 at 8:49 pm
  6. Funky Dung wrote:

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at, gbm3. I don’t think sports teams should be subsidized by governments, at least not when there are more important goods to spend taxes on. If player and owner salaries are really as high as they are because the market will bear it, then let sports teams compete in a free market. Let’s stop putting like Pittsburgh deep in debt to pay for stadiums that owners are certainly capable of financing themselves. And if they can’t, so what? Are sports teams really that important that governments must save them from going out of business?

    Posted 27 Apr 2008 at 10:25 pm
  7. Josh Hall wrote:

    I think you’re one of the few. Peguins are actually the only local sport I care about at all. I have ALWAYS hated football. Pirates suck. I would be a fan of an NBA team though, I just don’t think that our city could support it.

    Posted 28 Apr 2008 at 1:05 pm
  8. gbm3 wrote:

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at, gbm3. -FD

    I was actually agreeing with you.

    About the Walmart comparison: Walmart has local gov’t’s subsidize their building costs and roads (and more). In the long run (actually short term too), the people getting cheap shirts are also getting an extra boost to their taxes on the back-end since city council is paying Walmart for more jobs (or “jobs”?). Who makes out in the end? Walmart shareholders (Walmart is up by the way).

    gbm3

    Posted 29 Apr 2008 at 9:17 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *