This post may contain spoilers, private information, or inappropriate content.
Login to view this post
Login to view this post
Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
mrfahrenheit
· 5 years ago
· FIRST
The prosthetic industry is booming
10
insertcreativename
· 5 years ago
Middle person is taller now
1
guest_
· 5 years ago
Well... no. That’s communism in practice. To be equality you’d have to have the tallest guy standing on 4 boxes so they can get an extra great view, and the two shortest people with no boxes unable to see. Then you’d take 3 boxes from the tallest guy so he still has one, and divide the other 3 up so the other two people can see. Then the tallest guy would throw a fit because “it’s not his fault the other two didn’t get there early enough to get any boxes.” You’d then remind him that his dad wouldn’t let them into the park at all so him and his kid could have more boxes. Then the tall guy would call you a snowflake and pout.
4
karlboll
· 5 years ago
What if we just remove the artificial barrier that's preventing people from enjoying the game?
▼
mrfahrenheit
· 5 years ago
Mr Gorbachev, tear down this fence
2
famousone
· 5 years ago
The players aren't going to do what they do for free.
Show All
guest_
· 5 years ago
Well..... sort of... College athletes don’t get paid in America. In the pros... Like- NFL cheerleaders make $1500 per season. The pay is often justified despite the travel needs, practices, injuries, etc as all being for the privilege of being there on the team. I wonder if players have the same dedication and team spirit as well as pure athletic drive of cheer leaders? So maybe they would do it for free? Kids play baseball and soccer etc for free all the time. Now- you might not get as high a caliber of athlete- but then again you might. The olympics host some of the greatest athletes in the world- they don’t get paid to train or for qualifying events up to the “championship” playoffs of their sport- and they don’t get paid in the big game unless they win. $32k per gold metal.
·
Edited 5 years ago
guest_
· 5 years ago
And I would guess that between “love of the game,” endorsements and bragging rights, and of course- the fact that if your number one marketable skill is playing a game- yeah. They probably would play for free- or darn near free. If the options were play for peanuts or go get a job- I think you’d still be able to fill any league. Hell- all you really have to do to attract college players to pro leagues is pay more than they’d make in their major. Maybe not even that since being a pro athlete has non financial perks and celebrity status. So for like $75-125k a year you’d probably still get great players. If everyone else was forced to pay the same.
·
Edited 5 years ago
famousone
· 5 years ago
They dedicate everything to the sport. Endless hours of training, promotion, and practicing. On top of being under a microscope, compromising their longterm health, and they aren't guaranteed any perks for it, except for maybe the college players. They're private entities, not government or military. Comparatively the college players get screwed, but there's no way any league will measure up to the pros we have today if any government tries to arbitrarily regulate yet another thing that doesn't need regulating. The sport will either be butchered and/or put in the same sorry state as contractors or medicine.
guest_
· 5 years ago
They don’t really need the government to regulate it. The sport can regulate itself with things like salary caps and rules changes. Olympian’s also give all they have to the sport. They don’t make multi millions to compete. They will compete for years leading to the olympics without getting a dime. So... I don’t think so.
▼
kevman
· 5 years ago
How did the metaphorical illustration turn into an actual sports economics conversation
guest_
· 5 years ago
Lol. Pretty quickly actually. In general- but especially on this site metaphors are a mixed bag. While they can help people relate to concepts in ways that they can understand from their own lives- I’ve noticed strong tendency for people to just pick at logic within the metaphor instead of addressing the concept being discussed. This can be fine perhaps when the metaphor is inapt- but when this occurs I try to just validate the metaphor so we can move on.
1
