A "what's wrong with ---?" argument

[Lanky Wanker]

When explaining why, for example, professional footballers, tennis, golf players etc.--i.e. people who don't provide strictly "useful" services or produce anything--should not earn disgusting amounts of money, I've had this thrown at me:


So is it exploitation or wrong for thousands of people to willingly give their money to someone to go to their football game?

This is one of those questions I have trouble answering, not because I don't know what I'm talking about, but because I'm terrible at explaining things in general. How would you respond to this point?

[roy]

People like watching football, and unscrupulous folk take advantage of that by making them pay exorbitant amounts to see it played. That's my probably over-simplified explanation.

[Lanky Wanker]

People like watching football, and unscrupulous folk take advantage of that by making them pay exorbitant amounts to see it played. That's my probably over-simplified explanation.

You just reminded me of my argument against rich musicians, which is basically the same thing. Duhhhh to me. Cheers lol.

[Robespierre Richard]

It's the people who maintain and clean up the stadium as well as to a smaller extent the athletes who get shafted in this case as most of the money from tickets and sponsorships goes to the franchise/team/establishment owners.

[ellipsis]

People don't willingly do this. They are conditioned give pro sports money and attention.

[Sputnik_1]

celebrities tend to exploit their popularity and become disgustingly rich. it won't happen in a communist society as there is no money, no division of labour etc. They get as much as they need, if people like them or less is a different matter. If you're popular and liked for what you do than there is no greater satisfaction.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a straw-man argument for the most part because only a tiny fraction of performers in pro-sports, film, and music actually make the huge salaries and often these professions only have a very short life-span for the individual performer. For the most part tons of famous musical innovators in pop-music died poor while some recording company can still make money from their work long past their death. Acting overall is one of the worst paid careers and even successful actors really don't make meaningful wealth until they reach the point that they become producers or get points on profits from the films they are in. Some pro-sports players make loads of money, but think about American Football where linebackers die or are disabled by their 40s or 50s from all the abuse their body has taken.

Then compare the wealth of the producers, studios, record companies, and sports franchises (often with publicly subsidized arenas and tax-breaks). Under capitalism I'm all in favor of sports and entertainment athletes/performers making as much money as they can. Their salaries don't cause ticket prices to go up or increase all the shitty advertising embedded in games and films - the greed of the entertainment bosses does.

Post-capitalism I think things would be different and without the profit-motive arts and sports would become more part of everyday life and become de-professionalized in a sense. People would play sports for the enjoyment and competition would be a game of skills, not a cut-throat drive to win one of a few thousand potential paying jobs in pro-sports or Hollywood. Contrary to the idea that competition for jobs creates innovation, often artistic innovation comes from people being free to persue something for it's own merits and enjoyment: think of the moves and skills developed in street basketball games where people compete just for pride and showing their skills. Think about the early days of hip-hop or punk or rock or blues where people played in small clubs or neighborhood street parties not knowing that it was even possible to make a career out of what they were doing.