View Single Post
09-17-2013, 01:57 PM
Richter Scale
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by smoneil View Post
I have never bought this argument regarding pro athletes, for two main reasons:

First--look around the league, particularly the periphery. Many of the broadcasters, scouts, team personnel, coaches, etc etc etc are former players. That's not even counting things like speaking engagements or non-NHL non hockey positions. It's not like you have 15 years and then suddenly can't make money anymore.

Second--they (athletes) are making ridiculous money. I'm not saying that they don't deserve it, because the league makes money off of them, but don't play the "he has to make as much as he can in 15 years or he'll go hungry in his 40s!" card. Even if Stepan took Sather's line of 3 mil on a two year bridge, Stepan would be making more money in those two years than most Americans make in their lifetimes.

Are there arguments that Stepan can make? Sure, but this ain't one of them.
I wasn't saying that this was an argument Stepan could or should make. The point of the hypothetical was to provide a whaky hypo opposite of the one in the post I quoted - and another way of looking at the situation.

And if you read the part of my post that you excluded from your quote, you would know that in the context of the real world, I see the differences between the two parties in this "dispute" to be fairly ridiculous and both sides are being petty to a degree. Nor was my post making an argument that players are underpaid. It was completely separate from the issues of fairness you're bringing up; many of which, as I implied, I fundamentally agree with.

Distilling the point I was making down to its bare bones, it was simply: Would anyone in their right mind pass up the opportunity to make half a million to a million more dollars over two years at relatively little harm to themselves or others?

Richter Scale is offline