- 20 Mar 2018 19:27
#14898254
It's determined by how much revenue he can bring in for his promoters, his management team, and the venues, and nothing else. The only 'measure' of how successful an athlete is (in the context of how much he or she 'should' be paid) is how many people are willing to pay how much money to see him or her perform. That's ultimately determined by supply and demand - top level athletes are in short supply, and there is a high demand for them. The few top level athletes who exist and are in peak condition are therefore well paid for what they do. Arguing whether their salaries are 'fair' or 'unfair' is irrelevant in the context of the capitalist system, which is how people's salaries are decided.
My argument holds to the extent an athlete's paycheck is determined by his relative superiority over competitors. I understand that some athletes might be particularly charismatic or have a particularly attractive way to play.
It's determined by how much revenue he can bring in for his promoters, his management team, and the venues, and nothing else. The only 'measure' of how successful an athlete is (in the context of how much he or she 'should' be paid) is how many people are willing to pay how much money to see him or her perform. That's ultimately determined by supply and demand - top level athletes are in short supply, and there is a high demand for them. The few top level athletes who exist and are in peak condition are therefore well paid for what they do. Arguing whether their salaries are 'fair' or 'unfair' is irrelevant in the context of the capitalist system, which is how people's salaries are decided.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)