Arena The often corrosive nature of $$$ in sports

Sports can be a fun, exciting, and unifying force in culture, but there's no denying the corrosive nature of money that is rife in much of the sporting world, in many different ways.



http://sports.yahoo.com/news/how-the-dodgers---8-3b-tv-deal-turned-into-an-unmitigated-disaster-203627465-mlb.html]Dodgers[/url] partnership with Time Warner is a prime example



Ever since the network's inception in 2014, Time Warner has been in a dispute with every major carrier concerning distributions pricing, and even with their insistence on lower price as of that article, there's seems to be no movement from other carriers to make a deal. A television impasse impacting about 70% of the L.A. market, who remain with simple access to the team on television. An impasse born out of an insane money deal, one that's being going on now for 2 1/2 years... an infuriating impasse that's especially galling, even Vin Scully's impending retirement after this season.





In theory, I could switch providers from AT&T U-Verse to Time Warner, but I'm quite satisfied with it (as me & my brother have our phone service & home internet bundled with it), so why switch, and thus given in? It shouldn't come to that.

 

What do you want to know?

 

The negatives of money in sports. I hope for the thread title to be re-edited to fully reflect that.

 

Please rename the thread "Tunick is butthurt over this now"

 

You could look to how Texas has destructed after making a deal with the Big 12 tv deal. Money was the reason Texas wanted the deal and they lost several teams because of it.


Sent from my iHorse

 

the negative of money in sports is ever since the collusion case when free agency became big that's all i hear, even during games $$$

 

I don't really get why this is a problem.

 

The often corrosive nature of $$$ in life, politics, human nature, sports, science, everything ever.

 

I have no issue with money in sports most of the time. Athletes only make what owners are willing to pay them. Owners only charge what consumers and TV executives are willing to pay them. Hot dogs only cost what consumers are willing to pay for them.

Is it a little ridiculous that someone can make more in one year for having for a jump shot than someone makes for an entire teaching an entire class of fifth graders? Probably. Does that demonstrate a problem with society in whole? Probably.

To me, the ridiculous nature of money in sports is not found in the lack of being able to watch my favorite team on the cable package I subscribe to. It's not found in paying five dollars for a cheap hot dog (in a stadium that doesn't carry Bertman's). It's not paying 20 bucks to park.

It's found in College Sports. Where the almighty dollar trumps everything. Where making a hundred millions dollars isn't enough, when you can make 110 million. Where precious little of the money actually trickles down to the athletes, and where decades-old rivalries are cast aside for the sake of "a little more" money.

I could understand chasing the money if it was needed to save programs. If switching to the SEC or the B1G provided a college the chance to save the water polo team, or to properly fund the women's cross country team. But it's not. It's used to get better training rooms for football, to pay the football coach more, and to fatten the wallets of a select few.

 

Ryan Howard is a great example of the problem with fully guaranteed contracts. The player can sign it and put himself on cruise control, and since modern athletes also have no respect for authority, no one is going to hold them accountable. They simply sit back and collect the cash. That's a really great life. In any other job, if your job performance dips, it's grounds for termination. And look, I get it, these guys are in the 1% of their field and it's incredibly hard to make it to the pro level, and they play in front of thousands of people in the stadium and millions on TV. But at some point the line has to be drawn, and the chain of command respected. These guys are incredibly pampered and they pull down massive salaries. The team owners (some of the most successful businessmen in the world) should be stepping up, drawing some lines, and holding they guys accountable. I remember what they used to say about Baron Davis, for example. People would say ''when he's engaged he's great!'' For that amount of money, how does one ''choose'' whether he is engaged or not? That's when the owner needs to step in and say, ''I'm paying you 14 million per year. You WILL show up, you WILL put in the work, and you WILL do the best you can. This is what I require of you as my employee.'' I don't know, I just feel that it is something that is really missing and it adds to the problem that we are discussing.
The other thing I don't like is when people defend the salaries and say, ''well they need to get all they can while they can because it has to last them the rest of their lives.'' For one thing, many of the top guys already make enough in one year of their contracts that it should last them the rest of their lives. Don't blow it all, and it will be enough for you to live very comfortably for as long as you live. Learn when to say no, and learn how to budget. Learn what you really need to be spending money on, and what not to. Secondly, if you know your career has a short shelf life, it might be a good idea to develop other life skills so that you'll be able to continue to live happily and be productive after your playing career is over. These guys need to get more educated, and the leagues should be doing more to help them in transitioning once their career is over.