Formal Sentence Outline

Running head: WHY ARE ATHLETES EARNING MORE MONEY THAN ACADEMICIANS

WHY ARE ATHLETES EARNING MORE MONEY THAN ACADEMICIANS

Why are athletes earning more money than academicians?

Amanda Phillips

Columbia Southern University

Why are athletes earning more money than academicians?

As the world, we have gone transformation for many years as a result of reformist campaigning for equal treatment of all persons. There are many legislations and regulation that have been implemented by different employers to ensure their workers receive a good and deserving salary and as such, everybody should be given the same rights when it comes to salary matters as long you earned them ethically. That is because if we were to understand the salary issue from a personal perspective then each one will agree that they deserve an enormous and better salary. It is with no doubt that any human being that has survived in the 21st Century has heard about the great athletes that have made a name for their respective sports as they have come out outstanding.

Ask about the boxing lovers to explain something about the sports and they will begin by mentioning Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao’s names. According to a report by Forbes (2015) about the world’s highest paid athletes, the first two are the two boxers Manny and Floyd who both pocket a whopping &300 million and $160 million respectively in terms of pay just for punching people in the ring. If you move the worlds’ leading sports, Soccer, you have that egocentric Cristiano Ronaldo with his huge salary of 779.6 million dollars and of course the “little” Messi with 73.8 Million Dollars (Forbes, 2015). Still, Forbes gives us Rodger Federer as the highest paid tennis player ($67 million), LeBron James as the highest paid basketball player($64.8 million), Phil Mickelson as the highest paid Golf player ($50.8 million). Ben Roethlisberger is the world’s highest-paid footballer (American football at $48.8M), Lewis Hamilton is the highest paid in racing ($39M), Mahendra Singh Dhoni ( highest paid in cricket at $31 M) and Robinson Cano of Baseball with $ 27.9 M (Forbes, 2015).

The interesting thing about these highest paid atheists is that a majority of them have had it rough outside the fields. For instance, Mayweather has been in trouble with the law before for his violent behavior just Tiger Woods has had it rough for cheating on his wife. What dos these tell us? Well, it is the revelation that intellectualism and sportsmanship can never co-exist to some extent. That is true as evident in an article by James Dolton published online at redbrick.me (2011) that reveals how the renowned footballer and bad boy Joe Barton is planning to clean up his image. However, as the Dolton argues in his article, does sports lack intellectualism? Well, according to Dalton (2011) 6that is not the case since there are athletes such as Frank Lampard, who are good both in sports and academics. Then this brings us to the question that this paper tries to answer which is, why are athletes earning more money than academicians?

The answer to the above-stated question can be found in reading Walden and Simmons’ articles that provided readers with the facts surrounding the reasons why athletes in different continents earn more than people in other professions. There are various reasons why athletes today make millions and other people like nurses or teachers, for instance, do not. In reference to Walden (2008), the main reason is the difficulty in determining the salaries of workers. They are determined on the basis of how much demand there is for workers in a particular job and the level of supply of employees who are capable to perform that particular job. It is about the interaction between those two factors. When it comes to sports, there is a high demand for athletes, but there are very few people who are capable of meeting the physical and mental requirements. Athletes are paid millions because they are good; they make people pay a lot to come and watch them play (Walden, 2008). However, given the fact that these days’ athletes are highly regarded in the society than any other person in another profession, there is increasing contention to this reality. The argument is that we should all be given equal respect depending on how we conduct ourselves, what we have achieved as well as what we have done to contribute to the welfare of our societies. And it is not fair for people to have the high value for a person playing sports than for scientists who are making discoveries that will save lives.

We have to acknowledge that we do not have a governing board or a general economic dictator that can be used as a basis to know how much people in various employment sectors should be paid. We have a simulated “free for all” economy where freedom is given to company owners and employees to negotiate salaries to satisfy their needs and wants even if it is at the expense of others. There are people who believe that people in other professions are not generously paid as athletes because their jobs are not as prestigious or simply do not command a lot of attention as playing sports does. These days; athletes are highly regarded in the society than any other person in another profession; actors excluded. That should not be the reality; we should all be given equal respect depending on how we conduct ourselves, what we have achieved as well as what we have done to contribute to the welfare of our societies. And it is not fair for people to have high value for a person playing sports than for scientists who are making discoveries that will save lives. To bridge the huge gap that exists between the salaries of athletes and people in other professions; certain things need to be done.

Despite the call for fair treatment of all the professionals in terms of salaries, Simmons (2007) argues in favor of Walden’s opinion that that cannot be realized since there is the need to acknowledge that there is no governing board or a general economic dictator that can be used as a basis to know how many people in various employment sectors should be paid. We have a simulated “free for all” economy where freedom is given to company owners and employees to negotiate salaries to satisfy their needs and wants even if it is at the expense of others. There are people who believe that people in other professions are not generously paid as athletes because their jobs are not as prestigious or just do not command a lot of attention as playing sports does. To bridge the enormous gap that exists between the salaries of athletes and people in other professions; certain things need to be done.

The first method to bridge this gap as proposed by Young (2004) is to conduct an unbiased study. The study will promote understanding and respect for the roles different people in various industry play in our society as well as how they benefit it. To Young, this will make employers more appreciative of the hard work people do. It does not matter if you are an athlete, doctor or a chef; everyone deserves to be appreciated accordingly. Young also contends that the gap can be minimized by putting measures in place that will decrease discrimination and public biases toward people in certain professions that affect the way certain jobs are perceived by employers (2014). And in some cases employers do not have any other choice but to follow them if they want to stay in business. It is not fair to allocate a higher salary to certain jobs just because there are deemed attractive or fancy by the public.

References

Dolton, J. (2011). Intellectual athletes: an oxymoron? Retrieved from http://www.redbrick.me/comment/intellectual-athletes-an-oxymoron/

Forbes. (2014). The World's Highest-Paid Athletes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/#tab:overal

Simmons, R. (2007). Overpaid athletes? Comparing American and European football.Working USA: The Journal of Labor and Society.

Walden, M. (2008).Why athletes earn a lot (and teachers don't). Retrieved from http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article9010313.html

Young, P. (2014). Bridging the Gap.Brown Political Review.