In an otherwise workmanlike account of Thursday's exciting Chicago Cubs game, Dave van Dyck of the Chicago Tribune begins:
But it's all relative, and I'm not taking van Dyck to task; the minimum salary in major league baseball is $390,000, so getting two productive players for $600,000 (they make the rest of their salary out of payments from their previous teams) is truly a bargain in the context of today's professional sports.
My point is, how remarkable that a reporter would toss this number in and count on every reader to understand the context. Salaries are so high, and so commonly accepted as high, that it's commonplace for a reporter to cite this as evidence of poverty - and we all read it and understand.
I don't need comments telling me what I already know, why the limited supply and insatiable demand for sports creates huge income streams and the players are just getting their due. There's a good chance I've read more than you have about the economics of professional sports.
I'm just making an observation as to how casual we've become about these matters; an athlete or entertainer makes millions, the Forbes Celebrity 100 draws quite a bit of interest, and it's ho-hum, just the way the world works.
I could go on and write something about the dubious power of Ashley Tisdale (#94) or the Jonas Brothers (#89), contrast it to the very real unseen struggles of the great majority of Americans, point out that three chimps could open for Miley Cyrus and make $12 million, but my readers are smart enough to fill in those blanks for themselves.
On their first day without Alfonso Soriano, their $136 million left fielder, the Cubs won a game with two players they will pay about $600,000—combined—this season.The implication is, of course, that $600K is just a trifle, that one could hardly expect players working for such a paltry sum to perform at a major league level.
But it's all relative, and I'm not taking van Dyck to task; the minimum salary in major league baseball is $390,000, so getting two productive players for $600,000 (they make the rest of their salary out of payments from their previous teams) is truly a bargain in the context of today's professional sports.
My point is, how remarkable that a reporter would toss this number in and count on every reader to understand the context. Salaries are so high, and so commonly accepted as high, that it's commonplace for a reporter to cite this as evidence of poverty - and we all read it and understand.
I don't need comments telling me what I already know, why the limited supply and insatiable demand for sports creates huge income streams and the players are just getting their due. There's a good chance I've read more than you have about the economics of professional sports.
I'm just making an observation as to how casual we've become about these matters; an athlete or entertainer makes millions, the Forbes Celebrity 100 draws quite a bit of interest, and it's ho-hum, just the way the world works.
I could go on and write something about the dubious power of Ashley Tisdale (#94) or the Jonas Brothers (#89), contrast it to the very real unseen struggles of the great majority of Americans, point out that three chimps could open for Miley Cyrus and make $12 million, but my readers are smart enough to fill in those blanks for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment