Do actors/athletes/musicians/celebrities deserve what they are payed?

[Totenkopf]

"Deserve" is never the right word for what they make. My only point is that I don't begrudge them for taking what is offered to them for the talents they bring.

 

Basically QFE. Also why I made distinction between deserve and entitled. I would disagree with Prime that it's society that has decided WHAT to pay these players, except in the loosest possible terms. We plop our $$ down, but have always done so, for entertainment. It really isn't till the concept of "free agancy" that you begin to see the entertainers taking a much larger cut of the money earned off their sweat. Between that and the advent of tv and mass market coverage, the salaries/compensation of entertainers has exploded to new and arguably ridiculous levels which were originally probably restricted to the backers/producers of entertainment (sports, music, film...).

[mimartin]

Deserve? No, but I’m not going to argue against athletes getting every penny they can get out of ownership. However, that does not make it right for ownership, to forces cities and municipalities through extortion to subsidize players’ salaries with public money.

 

I’m all for free market economics, but financially strapped cities should not be borrowing millions just to support billionaires. I understand the great prestige and great shame a pro franchise can bring to a city. I live near Houston remember the Houston Oiliers and Houston Texans? Houston was help hostage to spend millions on improving the Astrodome (which were needed) with threats that Bud Adams would move his property to Jacksonville. After the City of Houston made the improvement demanded by Mr. Adams the Oiliers then started demanding a new stadium less than two years later. It had nothing to do with the field or the stadium; it was all about luxury boxes and money.

 

Why should tax money be used to support the salaries of billionaires and millionaires? If it is a private enterprise why do tax payers finance and pay for the faculties they use to entertain us? I’m not guaranteed a certain income in my business if people fail to purchase my product, why do city give sport franchisees such guarantees?

 

I don’t have a problem with anyone making all that they can in a free market, the problem with pro sports in the US is it really isn’t a free market till they pay a fair market value (like any other business) for their faculties.

 

I love sports. I would be greatly disappointed if Houston did not have a pro baseball and basketball team. One day I hope we have a pro football team again. I also love the new baseball, basketball and football stadiums we have; I just have a problem with everyone making money off the deal except the people of Houston and people that could care less about Houston's sports having to foot the bill.

[Nancy Allen``]

No, absolutely not. Actors deserve to be rewarded for their efforts sure but not to the extent that the money could be used in solving so many problems. Besides, they call the stuff we see today acting? Glamor maybe, plastic surgery definetly, but a lot of the things that have had good acting are long gone. Murdock in A Team, who was crazy (post traumatic stress I think) but still could be serious when needed (look at A Nice Place to Visit), let's see actors today pull that off. Athletes are a little harder, as especially the top level athletes they train like Olympians (who get not nearly as much money by the way) in their chosen field, they earn, the key work here is earn, a lot of what they make. This even more true of those who are true professionals, those who don't act like spoilt brats when someone is making millions more than they are, or those who make time for their fans. Fifteen years ago I would say they do earn the money. But fifty million? A year? Is it possible to spend that much money? Why shouldn't soldiers or public servents (medical, firefighters, police officers) or scientists working on ways to beat life threatening disease or even those working to eliminate poverty, hatred, bigotry, why shouldn't they earn anywhere near that amount?

[SilentScope001]

Why shouldn't soldiers or public servents (medical, firefighters, police officers) or scientists working on ways to beat life threatening disease or even those working to eliminate poverty, hatred, bigotry, why shouldn't they earn anywhere near that amount?

 

Because how much money do we give them?

 

If we reward police officers with tons of money, then who will we taken it from? Those who are paid far too much money? Would cops be able to form their own personal fan club who will defend them in case of any accusation of "police brutality"? What about teachers? If they are rich, will they be able to purchase their own small harem of women just like those rap artists? (Make sure all the people in the Harem are at the legal age, and have them conduct their acitivty outside of class, and all would be fine, no?) Or medical professionals, being millionares, also get the repuation of being egoistic brats with strange terminology?

 

And I haven't even gotten to the tabloids that will cover all those scandlous professions.

 

We have a limited amount of resources, and if we pour resources into one career, the other careers will complain about being underpaid (nobody complains about being overpaid).

 

And fine arts suffer. Sure, I don't see CHIC FLICK VI as a good movie, but many people do. And I do like Citizen Kane, but that may not be made if the movie indursty wasn't popular at all, or if there wasn't any money associated with it. We lost some great stuff, but we also gained some stuff.

[Samuel Dravis]

The last musician I supported I just payed $12 dollars for a CD directly from them. I think that was a fair price, because I really love that band and I listen to their music all the time. Their 50 minute CD was worth the half hour it took me to make the money to pay for it, and I decided it was worth my time. Multiply my support by however many people like them, and suddenly there are big numbers. All those fans are perfectly free not to buy their stuff, of course, but they do anyway. I don't see how this band should be expected to artificially limit their income when they have no reason to do so; indeed, you can see them as doing their fans a favor in that they provide good entertainment for what I found was a fair price. 50 mins of jammin' music that I can listen to *forever* compared to half an hour? Heck yes, I'll pay that.

 

And yes, they do deserve compensation for their services - I'm not paying them for how long they spent thinking up their tune, I'm paying for the value of listening to the finished product. With sports, do you pay them for all the years they spent practicing, or do you pay to see them when they're good? Yeah. Thought so.

 

There's a difference between someone whose work can be enjoyed by nearly everyone simultaneously and someone who work is more limited. The cop can only be in one place at a time; the people decide a fair price to pay them for their services. Note that the musician/athlete/celebrity/software developer/artist/columnist/inventor etc., does not share that hindrance to their money making power.

 

Having a more marketable skill/whatever DOES NOT make the money ill-gained. It doesn't even make it the slightest bit shady.

 

Good things to keep in mind for career paths, however.

[Achilles]

Many celebrities from various fields make large sums of money. Do they deserve it?

 

Discuss.

Well depending on how one interprets the wording of the question...

 

These groups are playing with money that we provide them. If anyone "deserves" to eat their fill from the money trough, it's the individuals putting forth the work. In other words, if it's between a performer (using Chainz's meaning) and the guy behind the guy, I'd rather see it go to the performer.

 

With that said, I think it's a sad commentary on our society that the general public is willing (dare I say eager) to play that game. So long as we continue to buy sport jerseys, season tickets, pay-per-view, concert tickets, cds, movie tickets, dvd's, etc we'll be adding fuel to the fire. We vote with our dollars, so if any of us aren't happy with what we see, we should probably look to ourselves for a solution.

 

*steps off soapbox*

[Corinthian]

They make that much money because we're willing to pay for it. That's how the economy works, people don't get paid what they deserve, or construction workers would get paid more than office workers, they get paid for how commonplace their talents are. Not many people can do what Peyton Manning does, and not many people look like Brad Pitt. Is it fair? Not really. But that's the way it works.

[Prime]

Why should tax money be used to support the salaries of billionaires and millionaires?

While a lot of what you are saying is true, remember that pro sports teams and stadiums also generate a lot of money for satellite businesses in the community.

[Totenkopf]

Well, let them and the sports fans subsidize the stadiums and other perks. I see no reason why these super rich guys NEED to be subsidized when there are bigger priorities for tax revenues. Fact is, if no one gave them sweetheart deals, they'd still build their stadiums, but charge more for the fans and others to use them. Same goes for athletes and execs in general. Many of these guys would still play their sports at a fraction of the price (but naturally don't have to) or star in movies, etc.. when the alternative is a much lower grind of a job.

[Nancy Allen``]

Actors, athletes, mucisians and celebrities don't deserve what they are paid. No, that money should be given to their minders.

[mimartin]

While a lot of what you are saying is true, remember that pro sports teams and stadiums also generate a lot of money for satellite businesses in the community.

 

My business brings patrons to the Quiznos next door, but they are not helping me with my rent.

 

That said you are correct I did not think it all the way through. The stadiums also created jobs from parking to new restaurants and bars in the area. I will not say it revitalized downtown Houston, because there was no downtown night life before the baseball stadium and basketball arena. Still billionaire should be responsible for their toys at least to a larger extent than they are now.

 

One of my main gripes is cities use hotel taxes to pay for sports facilities. To me that hurts tourism which intern has a downward effect on the city economy and the very restaurants and bars that benefit from the stadiums.

 

Also, why should tourist have pay for the stadiums that most will never use and they did not have a voice in the government that created it?

[Corinthian]

This is like asking "Should Nuclear Physicists be paid the same amount as Police." Now, yes, a Policeman's job is more dangerous, but at the same time, being a policeman requires no special talent. The pool of potential police officers and the pool of potential Nuclear Physicists are very different sizes, and the same goes for actors and athletes...to some degree.

[Empress Padme]

they get way over paid . Teachers, cops , firefighters, librarians, they deserve the big bucks. However there are some musicians like Green Day , Bon Jovi, Sting, U2 that do try to use their money to make a better world. So maybe it comes down to how well a person who gets way overpaid does with the money.Since nothings gonna change soon to fix teachers salaries

[Prime]

Teachers, cops , firefighters, librarians, they deserve the big bucks.

Why? There are many people who are able to fill those rolls (I understand their importance to society).

[Nancy Allen``]

they get way over paid . Teachers, cops , firefighters, librarians, they deserve the big bucks.

 

Empresses, Queens, Senators. You may think they earn a lot, but in reality if you were to become a professional athlete odds are you'd make more than they would.

 

Why? There are many people who are able to fill those rolls (I understand their importance to society).

 

Actually it takes a great amount of discipline for a police officer to be able to make a judgement call in a life or death situation, to make the right one, as well as a great amount of knowledge on everything from the law (and realising the law does apply to them as well for those who ignore the road rules) to how best to respond when the law is broken. Example, threats are made, threats are against the law and rather that undertake the task of following through the matter these things are often swept under, the officer in question not wanting to bother. Take things a step further, the Special Weapons and Tactics unit or your equivilent. You look at their training alone and tell me they don't deserve a pay rise. Besides which for people such as firefighters and police officers especially, they put their lives on the line. Which would you rather do, risk your life to save others or sign a contract guarenteeing big dollars for little effort and less maturity?

[Rabish Bini]

No.

If anyone deserves that much money it's the people in the army, police force, fire department, health department and things like that. They save lives and bring criminals to justice.

Do I see David Beckham saving my life? No.

Do I see Brad Pitt bringing justice to criminals? No.

So either start saving peoples live or else it's time fore a paycut!

[Prime]

Actually it takes a great amount of discipline for a police officer to be able to make a judgement call in a life or death situation, to make the right one, as well as a great amount of knowledge on everything from the law (and realising the law does apply to them as well for those who ignore the road rules) to how best to respond when the law is broken...Take things a step further, the Special Weapons and Tactics unit or your equivilent.

I'm not arguing that they are untrained or aren't good at their jobs. But anyone, assuming they meet the minimum requirements, can be trained in the same way and be effective. The pool of potential candidates is not small, so the demand is lower, thus they are payed less. Someone who can be a high level professional athlete is much more rare than someone who can become a police officer.

 

You look at their training alone and tell me they don't deserve a pay rise.

I'm not really sure what they are paid, but I assume that it is market value?

 

Besides which for people such as firefighters and police officers especially, they put their lives on the line.

True. And I am not diminishing that importance. But there are lots of people, if appropriately trained, that can perform the same task.

 

Which would you rather do, risk your life to save others or sign a contract guarenteeing big dollars for little effort and less maturity?

Is this a trick question?

 

But I wouldn't say minimal effort, or necessarily less maturity. It takes a many years of effort and sacrifice to make it to that level, and effort to stay at that level, since everyone else is trying to take your job. As for maturity, that varies, as with any walk of life. Not all athletes are immature, just as not all firefighters, soldiers, and police officers are mature.

 

No.

If anyone deserves that much money it's the people in the army, police force, fire department, health department and things like that. They save lives and bring criminals to justice.

Again, I am in no way trying to say that they aren't more valuable to society or that they aren't good at what they do. But I presume that they do get hazard pay and they are aware of what the job description is. And, ultimately, they are more replaceable (not trying to sound unsympathetic, because I'm not).

 

Do I see David Beckham saving my life? No.

Do I see Brad Pitt bringing justice to criminals? No.

But could any police officer play soccer on Beckham's level? No. Could Beckham have become a police officer, fireman, or soldier? Yes.

[Totenkopf]

Funny thing is, w/o the rise of free agency, we'd be discussing whether the owners deserved all that money rather than the players/actors/etc.. I'd still contend, though, that they are NOT worth the money. Simple reason being that many of them would gladly play/act/sing at a mere fraction of the price they actually get. Everything else is like winning the lottery. Beckham may be worth more than 100k/yr, but NOT $50 mil (except to a franchise owner with a skewed perspective on reality )

[John Galt]

Who cares whether they "deserve" it or not. As long as people are willing to spend their money to see movies and sporting events, and buy sports and movie memorabilia the athletes, stars, celebs, etc. WILL be paid that much.

 

AS long as they earned it, and people are willing to pay for it, they ought to be paid that much. If you think their earnings are unjust, just don't pay to see them, and encourage other people to do likewise. In my book, abjectly lowering the amount of money they make because it is "an obscene amount" is immensely unjust.

[Nancy Allen``]

Things may get to a point where what actors or athletes get paid are so outrageous that the sport or Hollywood simply wouldn't be able to support it. We see this happen all the time, sports teams who run into financial difficulty because of someone who is overpaid (I'm talking about someone who is paid tens of millions of dollars and underperforms compared to someone who excels for a fraction of the cost) for example.

[Totenkopf]

Who cares whether they "deserve" it or not. As long as people are willing to spend their money to see movies and sporting events, and buy sports and movie memorabilia the athletes, stars, celebs, etc. WILL be paid that much.

 

AS long as they earned it, and people are willing to pay for it, they ought to be paid that much. If you think their earnings are unjust, just don't pay to see them, and encourage other people to do likewise. In my book, abjectly lowering the amount of money they make because it is "an obscene amount" is immensely unjust.

 

Yeah, I pretty much pointed that out previously myself. I agree that they are entitled to whatever they can squeeze out of their employers, just that they are not inherently WORTH that much in any objective sense.

[Rabish Bini]

Again, I am in no way trying to say that they aren't more valuable to society or that they aren't good at what they do. But I presume that they do get hazard pay and they are aware of what the job description is. And, ultimately, they are more replaceable (not trying to sound unsympathetic, because I'm not).

 

But could any police officer play soccer on Beckham's level? No. Could Beckham have become a police officer, fireman, or soldier? Yes.

 

Let me say it this way:

Who would you rather pay more for some one who saved your life, which will last the rest of your life, or someone who plays a sport on TV and it only leaves you happy for a little while after the match.

It's obvious who I chose.

[SilentScope001]

Who would you rather pay more for some one who saved your life, which will last the rest of your life, or someone who plays a sport on TV and it only leaves you happy for a little while after the match.

 

Technically, I pay less already.

 

To get the sports, I have to either watch ads for free or pay $100 for a ticket.

 

If I have to go to the doctor, I end up paying lots of Insurance periumums afterwards, and lots of money to that Doctor to begin with.

 

It's not me who is paying more for sports, it is the community, it is the franschies, and it is ad reveune people. If you really want to raise money for doctors, why not let them set aside a certain amount of place for Ads?

[John Galt]

... they are not inherently WORTH that much in any objective sense.

 

Good point.

[Prime]

Let me say it this way:

Who would you rather pay more for some one who saved your life, which will last the rest of your life, or someone who plays a sport on TV and it only leaves you happy for a little while after the match.

It's obvious who I chose.

Honestly? I would want to pay the athlete more. I can get someone who is qualified and skilled to save my life for what I am paying now. Why would I want to pay more than that? I mean, what does giving them a lot more actually achieve?