Split Decision: Are pro athletes worth that much money?
At my core, I’m a capitalist. I believe hard work, talent and skill should override the fact that we’re all human and in this together.
We’re animals. We fight for scraps. Capitalism is the way of the wild, and it’s probably the least-worst form of economics we’ve come up with yet. Sure, of course, I don’t wish ill will on anyone, but at the same time, I do get ticked off when I know I hustle to make a decent living and there’s plenty of people doing nothing and getting by just fine.
And this is why I think Steph Curry is underpaid at $40 million a year. That’s the contract he just signed with the Golden State Warriors to continue to play basketball for them. It’s a big number, but it’s not big enough.
Why? Because the NBA — like virtually all major sports — isn’t operating on true capitalist principles. They are monopolies with salary caps and floors, and the individual owners operate more like a consortium than franchises duking it out.
I think sports players should get paid whatever the market allows, for better or worse. If an owner wants to pay $500 million for Curry’s services, he should be allowed. If an owner wants to pay 5 cents, he should be allowed.
Pro athletes are the widgets in sports franchises. Replaceable, but also indispensable. How much money do you think Curry has brought to the Warriors’ ownership? More than $40 million a year, I’ll promise you that.
Sure, there’s a “fall of Rome” quality to the fact people who play with balls for a living end up as our metaphorical kings, but really, that’s life in our world.
There is no limit to how much money The Trentonian could pay me (thought I’d be thrilled with a 1 percent raise) and thus there should be no limit to what pro athletes could earn.
Let capitalism do it’s thing. Let pro athletes earn their cash. Though if they would all give back .0001 percent to lower the cost of concession stand beer, I’d be OK with that little bit of socialism.