TBH I don’t really care. I don’t think “elite athletes” should be getting any government funded pay. Playing sport is a privilege, not a right, and just because you’re good at it doesn’t mean you should be rich.
If your sport can’t afford to pay you lots of money there’s a reason for that - the sport doesn’t generate a lot of money. It’s the same argument with women’s sports - they want equal pay but they don’t bring in equal revenue, so where exactly is that equal pay supposed to come from? You can’t play a female soccer player $30 million a year when the entire league only brings in $10 million revenue in total.
There is a difference between being rich and being above the poverty line.
Your argument is either disingenuous or in bad faith.
Their point is very clear and you have not presented a good counter-argument.
Excuse me? I stated a fact. The person I was replying to started by implying that elite sports people want to be rich. The article is about elite sports people being below the poverty line. These are two separate things.
If someone is an elite sports person they sacrifice a huge amount to get where they are. They are paraded around by TV networks, media, their government, their team/association. I’m pretty sure all those people benefiting from the personal sacrifices and hard work of the athletes aren’t living below the poverty line.
I don’t agree with people here not caring about this. Why should anyone earn below the poverty line?
If producing value is what gives you the right to live, then why do managers and manager’s managers get so highly paid? Does that also mean that artists shouldn’t get to live either unless they’re doing graphic art for a company?
Why don’t I get paid for professionally posting on Lemmy? Why don’t I get paid for professionally sitting on my couch?
Just because you’re doing something doesn’t mean you should be paid for it.
Athletes aren’t paid very little because of being oppressed. They are paid very little because of their work being of very little (if any) worth.
That can be extended to anything that isn’t practical or useful, what I’m saying isn’t that you should be paid for sitting on your couch specifically, what I’m saying is that you should have enough money to cover your needs even if your job is creating very abstract art, being a professional swimmer, or an artificial one like managing a manager.
Who is responsible for providing for people who choose not to contribute?
I’m not working away all day when I could be persuing a hobby and still getting paid just so someone else can persue a hobby and get paid
Food $200
Data $150
Rent $800
Triple-jumping $3,600
Utility $150
someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. my family is dying
Yeah, sorry, that’s glib of me, but I don’t think it’s unfair to say that in terms of victims of capitalism, athletes are a fair way down the list.
The comments in here are just sad. Can really tell that the Reddit refugee/Lemmy demographic has never played sports, or were probably bad at them, and thus hold bitterness towards athletes.
It’s like the inverse of the popular kids at school moaning about nerds because they failed their math exam lol.
Champion swimmer Bronte Campbell said the biggest costs she racked up through her career were injury-related, and while injury support was brilliant when it was there, costs soon started to outweigh the support she received.
How is swimming or any other athletic activity a career?
I don’t want my taxes paying for frivolous non-careers. The cleaner and the secretary in my office earn similar amounts, and they’re actually contributing to society. The bloke down the road with his model trains also finds that the costs outweigh the support he receives. I don’t understand how they can seriously complain that they’re not being paid enough to pursue their hobby.
He also encouraged athletes to look for other revenue streams.
Yeah, no shit. I need another job to pay for my hobby too, where’s the problem?
