Well, I think it's all part of the same question. Entertainers in general are very highly paid in this society, and athletes are simply another kind of entertainer. In a way their high salaries are less offensive to me because they do put their bodies on the line in a way that others don't.

As for being cynical, I am very cynical about the idea that they should automatically be considered to have knowledge outside of their field, but I think people are less inclined to feel that way about athletes than about other kinds of entertainers. Everybody knows that Tony Romo isn't a farmer, but even Congressmen couldn't seem to grasp that fact about Meryl Streep. And for years, people stopped Robert Young on the street imagining he could dispense off the cuff medical advice to them.

Detroit's Silverdome stadium sells for one quarter of a cent on the dollar:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Paltry-sale-for-onceproud-apf-2145739320.html?x=0

Athletes not only get overpaid, but the franchise owners rip off the taxpayers in a way Hollywood moguls can only dream about.

Yeah, but to do about it? You can't even boycott sports if you don't watch them in the first place. You could maybe start a grassroots movement to try to vote out city officials who do things like that. (Maybe make the move from Tucson to Phoenix?)

This is a pretty good example because in many cases people support having a city pay for a ballpark on the notion that the increased revenue a team brings to a city more than pays for it. But it's hard to make that case with a team like the Detroit Friggin' Lions (I hear they're considering officially adding the word "Friggin'" to the team name).

One of these days I'd love to see a deal where a city agrees to pay a portion of the cost of a new ballpark that is determined by the team record over the next few years. Win the Superbowl, we'll pick it all up. Go 0-16 (cough, cough, lions, cough), and you pay it all yourself. Average 8-8, and we'll pick up this much. And so on.

Let's start tying this up into a whole. Your two main complaints are:

• 1) Cities subsidizing sports teams by buying stadiums.
• 2) High salaries.
• 3) Worship of sports heroes, indicating poor values.

Also, Petro can't count and said two complaints when there were actually three. Or more, if I missed any.

Reason #1 is pretty much exclusive to sports, but 2 and 3 tend to apply across the board to entertainers in general. Including chess at times. We're fairly partial to chess here, but you could still make the case that a million dollars for playing a dozen games (in some cases) is a bit excessive. But really, Reason #2 is the least offensive one to me. I'm sure the sponsors and owners get their moneys worth when they pay those salaries, otherwise they wouldn't pay them. If they don't get their money's worth, that's their problem. I can't be troubled about everyone who pays too much for a muffler.

The Michael Vick case is a troubling example of Reason #3. Many people HAD good values, but sold them out for the promise of Superbowl glory.

#1 is symptomatic of the entire problem with sports at the pro and college levels--people who use irrational economic arguments to justify their fan status. If there were ever open and honest accounting of the costs and benefits of sports to colleges and communities there would be a taxpayer revolt.

But the accounting is fundamentally dishonest. How can anyone possibly know if there is enough economic activity to pay for the new stadium? Folks throw computations around based on semi-random assumptions that add up to an acceptable total--but with semi-random assignments who knows what is actually going on.

Collegiate is even worse. The total costs of sporting programs is largely unknowable and the benefits, if there are any, are likewise unknowable. The economic and academic "benefits" are largely anecdotal or irrelevant. The fact that some rich guy donated $1million "to the university" for football scholarships or a new stadium is hardly evidence that the university is benefiting from donations--the sports program(s) benefits--not the university at large.

I am offended by entertainers getting the big salaries because it seems to distort priorities. But those salaries do reflect our priorities and in a market economy they are what they are and unless we can come up with good market reasons to cap or lower them we have to let them go.

#1 and #2 are interrelated: #2 would be impossible if sports franchises weren't subsidized in the first place.

#3 is correct, but all three reflect poor values. Why did Detroit build a second stadium while Silverdome was intact? While I admit it is cool to watch stadiums blow up, no stadium should ever be replaced unless it is a hazard to public health, e.g. failing foundations. For crying out loud the Roman Colosseum is still standing! Stadiums should last forever.

Comparing entertainers is not a good analogy. If a sports star has a bad game, his career goes on. But if an actor gets typecast, that's it, his career is over. Also, movie producers gamble with their own money for the most part, not the public's.

Hey, Chess Fan, is Tiger Woods still your "Main Golf Man!"?

[Just kidding; CF has a history of being rather a front-runner with regards to "Main Sports Man" status.]

Funny thing about the Woods "controversy": it reminds us once again that the public really doesn't know anything about what celebrities "are really like," regardless of how much press agent and corporate BS gets spread around.

Yes, 'ol Tiger reminds us that "the flesh IS weak!"


Chess Fan

Judging from the images of the alleged mistresses I've seen on television, if I were Tiger I think I'd be weak...or at least tempted.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are surprised that celebrities have human weaknesses.