Should Professional Athletes Be Paid Millions of Dollars?
The issue of paying athletes millions of dollars has been contested for a long time. Some people support it whereas others oppose it. Those opposing it claim that people in other professions do not make millions within short periods like athletes do. Therefore, athletes should not earn such money because they are not exceptional. Instead, they should earn money that is proportional to other professions. On the other hand, the proponents claim that talents in athletics do not last for long (Clemons 51). Accordingly, when athletes fail to make good money at their opportune time, they risk dying poor if they do not excel in other careers. As a result, they should earn good money when they have opportunities to do so. This essay claims that in contrast to other professionals, athletes should earn millions of dollars because their profession contributes significantly to their employers’ incomes and their demand is high.
Athletes should earn a lot of money because their direct contributions to their employers’ income are often impressive. This does not mean that other people do not make impressive contributions to their employers’ incomes, but it means that athletes’ contributions are felt greatly and instantly by their employers. As a result, athletes should earn a lot of money when they participate in sports because of the money they generate from sports’ fans and advertisements (Boyes and Melvin 334). In contrast, contributions for other people to their employers’ incomes are not direct, but they are indirect and they take long before they are felt by their employers or their recipients. Therefore, people in those professions may not be able to attract high salaries and allowances as athletes and CEOs that have direct impact on the overall performance for their companies do. For example, even if it would be reasonable to argue for high salaries for teachers, it would not be easy to sustain such an argument because their contributions to the society are not direct. Instead, they are indirect and long-term, meaning that before societies realize these contributions, they take long.
From an economic viewpoint, Boyes and Melvin argue that “if you own a firm and employee generates a huge income for you, you would be willing to pay that employee a high salary” (334). In line with this claim, the authors assert that “so athletes . . . are paid a lot because they make their employers a lot of money” (Boyes and Melvin 334). According to the two authors, the members of the public have limited time for watching television shows and sports. Accordingly, when they sit down to watch these programs, they want the best in the shortest time possible. In line with argument, those in sports earn a lot of money because their teams as well as employers make a lot of money from television advertisements aired during the sporting period.
Apart from the fact that athletes make a lot of money for their employers and teams, a few athletes can impress sports’ fans. Economically, this means that the demand for superstar athletes is higher than their supply. It also means that sport is a competitive form of employment; thus, athletes are worth what they earn (Clemons 53). Based on this fact, it would be reasonable to pay athletes huge salaries and allowances to sustain them in the sport industry. Failure to do this will not attract fans that pay a lot of money for their tickets and advertisers that promote their products during the sporting period. As a result, it would only be reasonable to allow athletes to make the millions they make so that sporting can be fun.
Boyes, William, and Melvin Michael. Microeconomics. Boston: Cengage learning, 2015. Print.
Clemons, Veronica. Are sports superstars worth the millions they are paid? Jet 90.12 (1996), 51-54. Print.