[Cause]

on a lighter note, the USA women's team say they deserve equal pay to the men's team. They point out they make less for winning than the men's team makes for coming in the top 16. The women's tournament has record breakign ratings this year. Still I tried googling the numbers real wuick and failed but I imagine the world wide ratings for men soccers must be an order of magnitude greater. Certainly no fuss was made up the womens world cup in my country but the mens world cup...

So on the one hand I but the argument its the same work, so why not equal pay but I also think the contect is two different worlds

[Aptorian]

Cause, on 07 July 2019 - 11:17 PM, said:

on a lighter note, the USA women's team say they deserve equal pay to the men's team. They point out they make less for winning than the men's team makes for coming in the top 16. The women's tournament has record breakign ratings this year. Still I tried googling the numbers real wuick and failed but I imagine the world wide ratings for men soccers must be an order of magnitude greater. Certainly no fuss was made up the womens world cup in my country but the mens world cup...

So on the one hand I but the argument its the same work, so why not equal pay but I also think the contect is two different worlds

I know sports is a big business but at the end of the day, national teams are civil servants. They're paid for and work for the government. They should get equal pay.

[Tsundoku]

Aptorian, on 08 July 2019 - 07:47 AM, said:

Cause, on 07 July 2019 - 11:17 PM, said:

on a lighter note, the USA women's team say they deserve equal pay to the men's team. They point out they make less for winning than the men's team makes for coming in the top 16. The women's tournament has record breakign ratings this year. Still I tried googling the numbers real wuick and failed but I imagine the world wide ratings for men soccers must be an order of magnitude greater. Certainly no fuss was made up the womens world cup in my country but the mens world cup...

So on the one hand I but the argument its the same work, so why not equal pay but I also think the contect is two different worlds

I know sports is a big business but at the end of the day, national teams are civil servants. They're paid for and work for the government. They should get equal pay.

Attached File(s)

•  not sure.jpg (70.66K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[Gorefest]

Aptorian, on 08 July 2019 - 07:47 AM, said:

I know sports is a big business but at the end of the day, national teams are civil servants. They're paid for and work for the government. They should get equal pay.

Wut?

[Aptorian]

Are your national teams not employed by the state? How do they get paid?

[Cause]

Aptorian, on 08 July 2019 - 09:11 AM, said:

Are your national teams not employed by the state? How do they get paid?

Except where does that money come from. I don't think its regular tax money. If it was, I would be pissed to know my government paid the men's team a bonus of 16 million dollars for playing %#@ing soccer!

[Maark Abbott]

Aptorian, on 08 July 2019 - 09:11 AM, said:

Are your national teams not employed by the state? How do they get paid?

I think it's through the FA here. Not 100%.

What I am 100% on is that their salaries are fucking disgusting considering they're kicking some stuffed leather around for a bit.

[Gorefest]

Aptorian, on 08 July 2019 - 09:11 AM, said:

Are your national teams not employed by the state? How do they get paid?

No, they are not employed by the state, they are employed by the sports body who oversees the specific event. So for women's football, it would be the national football union (e.g. the Football Association in the UK).

Those sports bodies will be setting the pay and reward levels. Now, women's football might be a big thing in the US, but in the rest of the world where football/soccer is often the number 1 or 2 national sport, men's football is light years ahead of women's football. The types of crowds and funding they draw are in completely different ball parks, it is incomparable. So perhaps the Us women have a point when it comes to their pay for national matches, but in the rest of the world it would at present be unthinkable that women would get the same pay. for comparison, it would be like saying that the US national men's basketball or baseball team would have to earn the same as the women's teams. The fact is that in most countries, women's football hardly sparks any interest (although hopefully tournaments like this will change that over time), so there is hardly any money in it. And as a result hardly any reward.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 08 July 2019 - 12:17 PM

[Silencer]

Gorefest, on 08 July 2019 - 12:12 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 08 July 2019 - 09:11 AM, said:

Are your national teams not employed by the state? How do they get paid?

No, they are not employed by the state, they are employed by the sports body who oversees the specific event. So for women's football, it would be the national football union (e.g. the Football Association in the UK).

Those sports bodies will be setting the pay and reward levels. Now, women's football might be a big thing in the US, but in the rest of the world where football/soccer is often the number 1 or 2 national sport, men's football is light years ahead of women's football. The types of crowds and funding they draw are in completely different ball parks, it is incomparable. So perhaps the Us women have a point when it comes to their pay for national matches, but in the rest of the world it would at present be unthinkable that women would get the same pay. for comparison, it would be like saying that the US national men's basketball or baseball team would have to earn the same as the women's teams. The fact is that in most countries, women's football hardly sparks any interest (although hopefully tournaments like this will change that over time), so there is hardly any money in it. And as a result hardly any reward.

In all honesty, while I get the argument that the bigger attraction earns bigger rewards in the entertainment business (after all the crowd they draw is how they earn the income to pay wages), and I would be happy to argue that women's teams should pull more investment and then higher pay in order to help raise the profile of the sport (to redress the imbalance caused by lack of historical investment which is arguably the only reason the men's teams are currently higher profile) in response, I do think there is a simpler way to address the problem: just pay the men's teams less. Sports remuneration is absurd and there's no reason for it to be. Is there a lot of hard work and training required? Sure. Does it have entertainment value to society? Sure. Do either of those things deserve higher pay than your average doctor? Fuck no.
So drop the men's income back to something reasonable and pay the women's teams similarly, problem solved.
Sport pay is one of the worst success stories of free market capitalism, tbh. Further made worse by the massive gap between the peak and the norm.
Hollywood generally being another.

[Gorefest]

Oh, I fully sympathise there. It us absolutely ridiculous what some players are earning and what some clubs are willing to pay. National leagues though usually only pay a fraction of what players earn at club level. Still, insane money. But that is adiscussion all of itself and, as you say, fully down to free market thinking.

[Grief]

Silencer, on 08 July 2019 - 12:57 PM, said:

Sports remuneration is absurd and there's no reason for it to be. Is there a lot of hard work and training required? Sure. Does it have entertainment value to society? Sure. Do either of those things deserve higher pay than your average doctor? Fuck no.
So drop the men's income back to something reasonable and pay the women's teams similarly, problem solved.
Sport pay is one of the worst success stories of free market capitalism, tbh. Further made worse by the massive gap between the peak and the norm.
Hollywood generally being another.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

OK, on one level it's ridiculous how much certain people get paid to kick around a ball. But that's the value that people assign to that entertainment. That pile of money is going to be there one way or another. The question is simply how you divide it between the players, the customers, and the businesses.

Indeed, I might even argue that sports remuneration is actually closer to a 'socialist' assignment of value than most jobs. The players - on account of their significant bargaining power - are able to claim more of the value that society places on their labour than most other professions. It isn't a perfect system, certainly. There are a ton of workers involved in the football business who contribute to the entertainment value it creates and who I'd suggest are underpaid for it (groundskeepers, trainers, you name it). I would love if those other workers were able to claim a larger part of the pie. Nonetheless, I prefer to see the working players receiving massive wages than seeing that money instead go to the owners of the clubs, the TV companies, and the advertising agencies: which is where the surplus value would end up if you simply mandated lower wages for the players.

I think we should be looking to move towards better wage conditions by first raising up other workers' bargaining power, rather than by pulling down the bargaining power of the few professions that have it. It might be a bit silly how much value society assigns to kicking a ball around, but paying players less wouldn't change that. Cutting the players' bargaining power is just going to benefit the companies and their owners (that is, the capitalists) at the players expense.

I imagine many of us would be happy for authors to have more bargaining power vis-a-vis publishers, no?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Grief, on 08 July 2019 - 04:39 PM, said:

Silencer, on 08 July 2019 - 12:57 PM, said:

Sports remuneration is absurd and there's no reason for it to be. Is there a lot of hard work and training required? Sure. Does it have entertainment value to society? Sure. Do either of those things deserve higher pay than your average doctor? Fuck no.
So drop the men's income back to something reasonable and pay the women's teams similarly, problem solved.
Sport pay is one of the worst success stories of free market capitalism, tbh. Further made worse by the massive gap between the peak and the norm.
Hollywood generally being another.

Nonetheless, I prefer to see the working players receiving massive wages than seeing that money instead go to the owners of the clubs, the TV companies, and the advertising agencies: which is where the surplus value would end up if you simply mandated lower wages for the players.

Not if it goes to taxes (or charities). Or if there are caps on ticket prices (can use a lottery system with no re-sale), price gouging at stadiums, etc. What about ad-supported television? Paid, biased advertisements waste money to make their target audience more irrational. Ads should, at the least, be heavily regulated. OTOH, advertisements and paying for major sporting events---like gambling on games of chance at casinos---could be regarded as redistributing wealth away from irrational people; but it would be better if that wealth, beyond what's reasonably required to motivate better performance (and other forms of optimization---perhaps a bonus based on actual improvements), went to laudable causes.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 08 July 2019 - 05:05 PM

[Macros]

Kick agents out of the game.
Problem solved

[Grief]

Azath Vitr (D, on 08 July 2019 - 05:02 PM, said:

Grief, on 08 July 2019 - 04:39 PM, said:

Silencer, on 08 July 2019 - 12:57 PM, said:

Sports remuneration is absurd and there's no reason for it to be. Is there a lot of hard work and training required? Sure. Does it have entertainment value to society? Sure. Do either of those things deserve higher pay than your average doctor? Fuck no.
So drop the men's income back to something reasonable and pay the women's teams similarly, problem solved.
Sport pay is one of the worst success stories of free market capitalism, tbh. Further made worse by the massive gap between the peak and the norm.
Hollywood generally being another.

Nonetheless, I prefer to see the working players receiving massive wages than seeing that money instead go to the owners of the clubs, the TV companies, and the advertising agencies: which is where the surplus value would end up if you simply mandated lower wages for the players.

Not if it goes to taxes (or charities). Or if there are caps on ticket prices (can use a lottery system with no re-sale), price gouging at stadiums, etc. What about ad-supported television? Paid, biased advertisements waste money to make their target audience more irrational. Ads should, at the least, be heavily regulated. OTOH, advertisements and paying for major sporting events---like gambling on games of chance at casinos---could be regarded as redistributing wealth away from irrational people; but it would be better if that wealth, beyond what's reasonably required to motivate better performance (and other forms of optimization---perhaps a bonus based on actual improvements), went to laudable causes.

Players are already taxed on their wages. It's entirely reasonable to think rich people should pay more tax, and I agree that the tax rate should be higher. But that doesn't change the question of how we initially divide the value.

Caps on ticket prices would be an attempt to divert surplus to the consumers. I agree this could be another good area to consider pushing surplus. But are the players wages the place to take it from? And ultimately, this leads to the challenge of stopping people just buying/selling them at market value on the secondary market (leading to scalping and such). It isn't that easy to stop people trading at market price, though there are some options.

They could regulate connected industries (gambling, advertising) more heavily too. But that's kind of an issue that goes far beyond football.

[Grief]

Macros, on 08 July 2019 - 05:03 PM, said:

Kick agents out of the game.
Problem solved

Which problem are we trying to solve here though? Unbelievably wealthy industries having to pay a few of their workers very high wages? I can't say I'm losing sleep over Roman Abramovich's wage bill.

(The agent business model definitely has it's own problems, but I don't think pushing up player costs at the expense of megacorps is one of them as such).

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Grief, on 08 July 2019 - 05:10 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 08 July 2019 - 05:02 PM, said:

Grief, on 08 July 2019 - 04:39 PM, said:

Silencer, on 08 July 2019 - 12:57 PM, said:

Sports remuneration is absurd and there's no reason for it to be. Is there a lot of hard work and training required? Sure. Does it have entertainment value to society? Sure. Do either of those things deserve higher pay than your average doctor? Fuck no.
So drop the men's income back to something reasonable and pay the women's teams similarly, problem solved.
Sport pay is one of the worst success stories of free market capitalism, tbh. Further made worse by the massive gap between the peak and the norm.
Hollywood generally being another.

Nonetheless, I prefer to see the working players receiving massive wages than seeing that money instead go to the owners of the clubs, the TV companies, and the advertising agencies: which is where the surplus value would end up if you simply mandated lower wages for the players.

Not if it goes to taxes (or charities). Or if there are caps on ticket prices (can use a lottery system with no re-sale), price gouging at stadiums, etc. What about ad-supported television? Paid, biased advertisements waste money to make their target audience more irrational. Ads should, at the least, be heavily regulated. OTOH, advertisements and paying for major sporting events---like gambling on games of chance at casinos---could be regarded as redistributing wealth away from irrational people; but it would be better if that wealth, beyond what's reasonably required to motivate better performance (and other forms of optimization---perhaps a bonus based on actual improvements), went to laudable causes.

Players are already taxed on their wages. It's entirely reasonable to think rich people should pay more tax, and I agree that the tax rate should be higher. But that doesn't change the question of how we initially divide the value.

Tax the whole professional sports enterprise, or at least the most exorbitantly and unnecessarily overpriced aspects of it (with tax incentives for making meaningful improvements). Taxes (or charities) should effectively be returning that value to the people. It then becomes a selective tax on people who spend money on professional sports. (Amateur, participatory sports are a social good, promoting exercise, teamwork, sociability, etc. (though exercise is counterbalanced by injuries, sociability by aggression and hostility, etc.); but highly exclusionary and absurdly expensive pro sports tickets are not a social good. Pro sports encourage people to sit around watching other people play sports instead of exercising; and while they may reinforce community bonds, they do so by encouraging hostility towards other communities.)

Quote

Caps on ticket prices would be an attempt to divert surplus to the consumers. I agree this could be another good area to consider pushing surplus. But are the players wages the place to take it from? And ultimately, this leads to the challenge of stopping people just buying/selling them at market value on the secondary market (leading to scalping and such). It isn't that easy to stop people trading at market price, though there are some options.

Technology has made this much easier. (While it also makes hacking or sophisticated schemes a possibility, they're almost certainly only minor issues that wouldn't affect most of the volume.) In a lottery system, a simple option would be to require the name on the ticket to match the name on government-issued ID or a passport (could that get conservatives on board? realistically though, none of this will happen in the United States in the near future).

Quote

They could regulate connected industries (gambling, advertising) more heavily too. But that's kind of an issue that goes far beyond football.

The US has set up a system where people are willing to exchange "free" advertising-supported content in exchange for allowing those ads to influence them to pay more for products that in blind taste tests are no better than generic brands. It's like a de facto tax on the easily manipulated, but with the tax proceeds generally only being cycled back to tv viewers and large corporations. (Perhaps marketing campaigns provide people with a sort of emotional fulfillment they might otherwise be lacking---substituting for what was once provided by culture, religion, social bonds beyond sports, etc.)

The main advantages of capitalism---quickly and reliably matching supply to demand, providing motivation, etc.---will plausibly be superseded by ubiquitous real-time personal data collection, AI, the internet of things, and the administrative surveillance state. It's perhaps too bad that this will probably first be achieved in China, given their severe restrictions on intellectual freedom (among other things...).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 08 July 2019 - 05:56 PM

[worry]

Grief is right (until we abolish capitalism).

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 08 July 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

Grief is right (until we abolish capitalism).

Is that how we regulated gambling? And cigarettes?

The main problem is democracy, and a stupid society with horrible priorities.

AI overlords of the (hopefully not too distant) future, please conquer America (well, at least the United States)!

[worry]

Slot machines and cigarettes aren't labor.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 08 July 2019 - 06:04 PM, said:

Slot machines and cigarettes aren't labor.

You mean the labor of athletes? There's overwhelming evidence that exorbitant amounts of money aren't necessary to motivate many professional athletes (or at least a large enough sub-set of them) to put in as much labor as they can.