Totenkopf Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Another way to look at it might be that you could hire on more people for vital services that actually do something beyond entertain us at exorbitantly inflated values. Frankly, it always seemed stupid to me to pay someone $100+m for a multi- yeared contract in what are essentially team sports. If the rest of the team is mediocre, you've got yourself the equivalent of a hideously expensive white elephant. But, hey, it's the owner's $$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabish Bini Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 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? What does paying athletes that much money actually achieve? I'd rather pay for people to save my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Most of the time those people aren't saving your life. While they're busy doing something else, you might decide to listen to some music or watch some sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabish Bini Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Touche, but they're still saving others lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 You know, a nuclear apoc might come in handy to fix the imbalance. Nobody is going to watch Paris Hilton while their city is aflame and the mobs start forming. Actually, never mind. Athletes would be paid the big bucks to be in militas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.