7 ms·

The Olympics are truly not about money for the athletes. And indeed, they cannot be. Only a select few have any leverage at all to bargain for more money (thin

The Olympics are truly not about money for the athletes. And indeed, they cannot be. Only a select few have any leverage at all to bargain for more money (think Husain Bolt and others at his level). But these select few are already profiting big-time from the Olympics via endorsements, etc. So the last thing they want is to put the games at risk. The rest of the athletes are there because they love the competition. And there's nothing wrong with that! It's truly a win-win that hundreds of athletes are living out their dreams by competing for a gold medal in canoeing or archery or what-have-you, and that somebody will even be watching them do it. Stepping back a bit, there's no reason that anybody should be getting a salary simply because they are one of the very best at their chosen sport. Sports stars command large salaries to the extent that they have dedicated fans. If you compete in a fringe sport, you're not going to have many dedicated fans. (This is why every top-tier athlete makes more from product endorsements than from their team salary.) ((This is also why NBA players earn by far the highest salaries among U.S. athletes - basketball allows for much more player/fan connection than any other major sport.))

twoodfin 10y ago
((This is also why NBA players earn by far the highest salaries among U.S. athletes - basketball allows for much more player/fan connection than any other major sport.)) I agree with much of your post, but it seems to me that NBA players make the highest salaries because the structure of the game and the level of competition put them in such high demand relative to supply. NBA rosters are small, and only 5 players are on the court for each team at any time. There's also a huge drop-off in competitive performance[1] as you move down the bench from the elite players. Unlike the NFL, which has a substantial reserve of "replacement level" talent from college ball, there aren't that many folks who could play basketball at an NBA level and not be totally exposed. That's similar to baseball players, who are also among the most highly paid, even though there are more positions and rosters are bigger: There just aren't that many athletes out there who can bat above .200 against Major League-class pitching. [1] http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016_leaders.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016_leaders...
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  Basketball is pretty unique, in that essentially relies on abnormally tall people. When you put that as a requirement in front of the many others you need to be successful in the NBA, it becomes clear why the field is so thin. You see a few other places with similar fields though, like the absolute bleeding edge of traditional ballet, or some gymnastic events.
  - wldcordeiro 10y ago
    The classic case I always hear is jockeys too. It's not that odd, every sport is getting very specialized in athlete selection, in fact there's a great TED by David Epstein[0] talk about this kind of thing. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_...
    - mitchty 10y ago
      Gymnasts as well have similar size limitations in some cases. I know my one friend growing up was pretty much devastated when she grew to 5'8" (~170cm if my head conversion is close) She said that being too tall made the balance beam harder as you had more chance to hit your head. I think been a while so anyone can correct me.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        The taller you are, the much much harder it gets to rotate the body end over end.
        wldcordeiro 10y ago
        I'm not even that tall and I learned that growing up, learning just how to do a front flip on a trampoline was tough being a "lerpy" kid.
      - xxs 10y ago
John23832 10y ago
I agree that, for a majority of the athletes, it is about the spirit of competition. But if the Olympics are about the spirit of competition for some, it should be the same for all. And when I say "for all", I really mean for the executive who sits back and get a large salary from the municipal/advertisement money pumped into Olympics.
TelmoMenezes 10y ago
> Stepping back a bit, there's no reason that anybody should be getting a salary simply because they are one of the very best at their chosen sport. Indeed. They should be getting a salary because they provide the extremely rare talent (developed through incredible effort and dedication) that makes the multi-billion dollar business that is the Olympics possible to begin with. The reason they do not get it is very similar to what you see in other fields like science and art: because the sociopaths that run our society know very well how to take advantage of the love that talented people have for their respective fields.
- strommen 10y ago
  The extremely rare talent is not what makes the Olympics possible. The marketing machine (which is run by the executives) are what make it possible. The top 100 athletes in every sport could sit out the Olympics, and the TV ratings and corporate sponsorship would take only a slight dip.
  - rubidium 10y ago
    Well, that's happening in golf this year so we'll see how it goes.
    - viraptor 10y ago
      Got any links about that? I haven't heard anything.
      - throwaway_xx9 10y ago
        Many pros are dropping out because of zika. Hard to avoid mosquitos outside on the links.
  - TelmoMenezes 10y ago
    That is all fine and dandy, except that what really makes the Olympics-as-media-circus possible is tax payer money. Given that it is not a free market operation to being with, but rather a money extraction operation based on political pull, we could do without the supply and demand lessons. It would be interesting to ask the tax payers if they think that executives deserve to take home all of their money while the athletes that they actually enjoy watching get none of it.
sdenton4 10y ago
Generally, the notion that people should accept less pay because they live their work is bullshit, and the lines of work that engage in and encourage this kind of reasoning are exploitative. Period. We see this same dynamic in many lines of graduate education as well, a huge oversupply of students competing over a very long period of time for a tiny number of academic and research positions, and occasionally partying through the nose for the opportunity. And like the Olympics, the biggest payouts are for the management class, whose main tasks seem to be further commercializing the whole edifice. This commercialization happens to be synonymous with expanding exploitation of those lowest on the ladder (Mo labor Mo profits) and expanding the ranks of the managing class for their business school bros from the ivies. (Pretty similar dynamics also appear in the non profit sector, fwiw.)
- eanzenberg 10y ago
  No. The IOC retains all the mind-share of the 'Olympic Spirit,' for lack of better terms. A curling competition on NBC will draw 0 viewers (and 0 money) ((estimating)). A curling event in the Olympics draws viewers because and only because it is 'The Olympics.' Take 'The Olympics' out of every esoteric event and you'll quickly see how little viewership it'll get.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    I guess that depends on what sports your country enjoys. Here in Canada curling championships get a pretty wide viewership (but the money isn't great).
- djsumdog 10y ago
  Olympics destroy the economies of the cities they play in. This article shows just the insane amount of salary at the top get. These are people who are literally the top of human form and athleticism. The Olympics entertain the planet and bring in insane amounts of money and have insane trademark enforcement. If I make over $100k for sitting on my ass all day writing software, then certainly these people deserve far more than they're getting. They shouldn't need to depend on additional endorsements/advertising money. Just by making it to the Olympics, they should get a decent amount, and those bastards at the top can afford to get a little less...shaving a few $100k here and there and distribute it.
vintageseltzer 10y ago
> The Olympics are truly not about money for the athletes. And indeed, they cannot be. > The rest of the athletes are there because they love the competition. And there's nothing wrong with that! It's truly a win-win that hundreds of athletes are living out their dreams by competing for a gold medal in canoeing or archery or what-have-you, and that somebody will even be watching them do it. This line of argument is what enables corporations, advertisers and governments to exploit athletes and the tax-payers of host countries to the tune of billions every year. Same as how the NCAA exploits college athletics. > ((This is also why NBA players earn by far the highest salaries among U.S. athletes - basketball allows for much more player/fan connection than any other major sport.)) The highest salaries among U.S. athletes are earned by baseball players, and it's not even close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_sports_contracts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_sports_contrac...
- 8_hours_ago 10y ago
  > The highest salaries among U.S. athletes are earned by baseball players, and it's not even close If you sort by average per year it isn't quite as clear cut as that. Excluding the first 3 outliers (2 Ferrari F1 drivers and Floyd Mayweather) the next 10 highest paid athletes per year are split roughly 50-50 baseball and basketball. There are more baseball players on the list in total than basketball players, but I'd argue it is because there are ~750 total MBA players and only ~450 NBA players.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    I think you probably have to account for the relative sizes of basketball arenas and baseball stadiums (>2x) reducing the overall ticket revenue for NBA. TV rights might be comparable among the major sports, but revenue share breaks down on the number of seats and that can't be compensated by ticket prices (NBA avg: ~1.2x MLB).
- strommen 10y ago
  NBA players aren't on that list because their contracts are limited to 5 years, and to a maximum salary. And the truly elite players sign short contracts, because the max salary goes up over time. Mean NBA salary is ~$6M, compared to ~$4M for MLB - despite league revenue per player being roughly equal.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>This is also why NBA players earn... I think basketball stars earn so much because an individual player has a huge impact on team results (relative to hockey, baseball or football).
lisper 10y ago
> Husain Bolt Usain. No leading H. http://usainbolt.com http://usainbolt.com
- strommen 10y ago
  D'oh! Thanks! Too late to edit my comment though...
grumpopotamus 10y ago
> The Olympics are truly not about money for the athletes. And indeed, they cannot be. I really don't buy this argument. Why should anyone ever deserve less than his or her fair share? This might make sense if there really weren't much revenue being generated, and the executives were not lining their pockets with millions, but in this case it is simple exploitation.
jackmott 10y ago
Predicted before clicking this link that I would see, at the top, a typical libertarian excuse of this situation. Was not disappointed.
SCAQTony 10y ago
TL;DR : Imagine if you had a non-profit soup kitchen but charged the homeless to buy your soup. That is a sports NGO. The salary of the Executive Director of USA Swimming is $1-millon-plus dollars a year from an organization that pulls in about $41-million annually from donations and otherwise. http://www.usaswimming.org/_Rainbow/Documents/37308384-90d5-4ada-a6af-7b4b337fe045/2013%20990%20USA%20Swimming%20Public%20Disclosure%20Copy%20Final.PDF http://www.usaswimming.org/_Rainbow/Documents/37308384-90d5-... The salary for a USA Olympic Swimmer, if they sign on to do fund raising events and make appearances for the organization is about $70,000 — About 55-swimmers are chosen for the Olympic team every four years. They are not paid that salary when they are not on the national team. Though the athletes love the sports they do sport NGOs are making tranches of money of the backs of children and athletic teams who are force to "pay tribute" and competition fees just so they can get a chance to realize a dream that is harder to obtain than becoming an Academy Award winning actor or a CEO of a billion dollar company.
SCAQTony 10y ago
TL;DR : Imagine if you had a non-profit soup kitchen but charged the homeless to buy your soup. That is a sports NGO. The salary of the Executive Director of USA Swimming is $1-millon-plus dollars a year from an organization that pulls in about $41-million annually from donations and otherwise. http://www.usaswimming.org/_Rainbow/Documents/37308384-90d5-4ada-a6af-7b4b337fe045/2013%20990%20USA%20Swimming%20Public%20Disclosure%20Copy%20Final.PDF http://www.usaswimming.org/_Rainbow/Documents/37308384-90d5-... The salary for a USA Olympic Swimmer, if they sign on to do fund raising events and make appearances for the organization is about $70,000 — About 55-swimmers are chosen for the Olympic team every four years. They are not paid that salary when they are not on the national team. Though the athletes love the sports they do sport NGOs are making tranches of money of the backs of children and athletic teams who are force to "pay tribute" and competition fees just so they can get a chance to realize a dream that is harder to obtain than becoming an Academy Award winner actor or a CEO of a billion dollar company.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bsder 10y ago
> The Olympics are truly not about money for the athletes. And indeed, they cannot be. Once you started allowing pro players into the Olympics, that went out the window (although calling any Olympic athlete an "amateur" is kind of a misnomer ...). While people didn't like seeing "amateur" US teams lose to "professional" Soviet teams, allowing pro players into the Olympics robs people of the emotional impact of things like "The Miracle on Ice".

twoodfin 10y ago

((This is also why NBA players earn by far the highest salaries among U.S. athletes - basketball allows for much more player/fan connection than any other major sport.)) I agree with much of your post, but it seems to me that NBA players make the highest salaries because the structure of the game and the level of competition put them in such high demand relative to supply. NBA rosters are small, and only 5 players are on the court for each team at any time. There's also a huge drop-off in competitive performance[1] as you move down the bench from the elite players. Unlike the NFL, which has a substantial reserve of "replacement level" talent from college ball, there aren't that many folks who could play basketball at an NBA level and not be totally exposed. That's similar to baseball players, who are also among the most highly paid, even though there are more positions and rosters are bigger: There just aren't that many athletes out there who can bat above .200 against Major League-class pitching. [1] http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016_leaders.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016_leaders...

Aelinsaar 10y ago
Basketball is pretty unique, in that essentially relies on abnormally tall people. When you put that as a requirement in front of the many others you need to be successful in the NBA, it becomes clear why the field is so thin. You see a few other places with similar fields though, like the absolute bleeding edge of traditional ballet, or some gymnastic events.
- wldcordeiro 10y ago
  The classic case I always hear is jockeys too. It's not that odd, every sport is getting very specialized in athlete selection, in fact there's a great TED by David Epstein[0] talk about this kind of thing. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_...
  - mitchty 10y ago
    Gymnasts as well have similar size limitations in some cases. I know my one friend growing up was pretty much devastated when she grew to 5'8" (~170cm if my head conversion is close) She said that being too tall made the balance beam harder as you had more chance to hit your head. I think been a while so anyone can correct me.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      The taller you are, the much much harder it gets to rotate the body end over end.
      - wldcordeiro 10y ago
        I'm not even that tall and I learned that growing up, learning just how to do a front flip on a trampoline was tough being a "lerpy" kid.
    - xxs 10y ago

John23832 10y ago

I agree that, for a majority of the athletes, it is about the spirit of competition. But if the Olympics are about the spirit of competition for some, it should be the same for all. And when I say "for all", I really mean for the executive who sits back and get a large salary from the municipal/advertisement money pumped into Olympics.

TelmoMenezes 10y ago

> Stepping back a bit, there's no reason that anybody should be getting a salary simply because they are one of the very best at their chosen sport. Indeed. They should be getting a salary because they provide the extremely rare talent (developed through incredible effort and dedication) that makes the multi-billion dollar business that is the Olympics possible to begin with. The reason they do not get it is very similar to what you see in other fields like science and art: because the sociopaths that run our society know very well how to take advantage of the love that talented people have for their respective fields.

strommen 10y ago
The extremely rare talent is not what makes the Olympics possible. The marketing machine (which is run by the executives) are what make it possible. The top 100 athletes in every sport could sit out the Olympics, and the TV ratings and corporate sponsorship would take only a slight dip.
- rubidium 10y ago
  Well, that's happening in golf this year so we'll see how it goes.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    Got any links about that? I haven't heard anything.
    - throwaway_xx9 10y ago
      Many pros are dropping out because of zika. Hard to avoid mosquitos outside on the links.
- TelmoMenezes 10y ago
  That is all fine and dandy, except that what really makes the Olympics-as-media-circus possible is tax payer money. Given that it is not a free market operation to being with, but rather a money extraction operation based on political pull, we could do without the supply and demand lessons. It would be interesting to ask the tax payers if they think that executives deserve to take home all of their money while the athletes that they actually enjoy watching get none of it.

sdenton4 10y ago

Generally, the notion that people should accept less pay because they live their work is bullshit, and the lines of work that engage in and encourage this kind of reasoning are exploitative. Period. We see this same dynamic in many lines of graduate education as well, a huge oversupply of students competing over a very long period of time for a tiny number of academic and research positions, and occasionally partying through the nose for the opportunity. And like the Olympics, the biggest payouts are for the management class, whose main tasks seem to be further commercializing the whole edifice. This commercialization happens to be synonymous with expanding exploitation of those lowest on the ladder (Mo labor Mo profits) and expanding the ranks of the managing class for their business school bros from the ivies. (Pretty similar dynamics also appear in the non profit sector, fwiw.)

eanzenberg 10y ago
No. The IOC retains all the mind-share of the 'Olympic Spirit,' for lack of better terms. A curling competition on NBC will draw 0 viewers (and 0 money) ((estimating)). A curling event in the Olympics draws viewers because and only because it is 'The Olympics.' Take 'The Olympics' out of every esoteric event and you'll quickly see how little viewership it'll get.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  I guess that depends on what sports your country enjoys. Here in Canada curling championships get a pretty wide viewership (but the money isn't great).
djsumdog 10y ago
Olympics destroy the economies of the cities they play in. This article shows just the insane amount of salary at the top get. These are people who are literally the top of human form and athleticism. The Olympics entertain the planet and bring in insane amounts of money and have insane trademark enforcement. If I make over $100k for sitting on my ass all day writing software, then certainly these people deserve far more than they're getting. They shouldn't need to depend on additional endorsements/advertising money. Just by making it to the Olympics, they should get a decent amount, and those bastards at the top can afford to get a little less...shaving a few $100k here and there and distribute it.

vintageseltzer 10y ago

> The Olympics are truly not about money for the athletes. And indeed, they cannot be. > The rest of the athletes are there because they love the competition. And there's nothing wrong with that! It's truly a win-win that hundreds of athletes are living out their dreams by competing for a gold medal in canoeing or archery or what-have-you, and that somebody will even be watching them do it. This line of argument is what enables corporations, advertisers and governments to exploit athletes and the tax-payers of host countries to the tune of billions every year. Same as how the NCAA exploits college athletics. > ((This is also why NBA players earn by far the highest salaries among U.S. athletes - basketball allows for much more player/fan connection than any other major sport.)) The highest salaries among U.S. athletes are earned by baseball players, and it's not even close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_sports_contracts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_sports_contrac...

8_hours_ago 10y ago
> The highest salaries among U.S. athletes are earned by baseball players, and it's not even close If you sort by average per year it isn't quite as clear cut as that. Excluding the first 3 outliers (2 Ferrari F1 drivers and Floyd Mayweather) the next 10 highest paid athletes per year are split roughly 50-50 baseball and basketball. There are more baseball players on the list in total than basketball players, but I'd argue it is because there are ~750 total MBA players and only ~450 NBA players.
- rhizome 10y ago
  I think you probably have to account for the relative sizes of basketball arenas and baseball stadiums (>2x) reducing the overall ticket revenue for NBA. TV rights might be comparable among the major sports, but revenue share breaks down on the number of seats and that can't be compensated by ticket prices (NBA avg: ~1.2x MLB).
strommen 10y ago
NBA players aren't on that list because their contracts are limited to 5 years, and to a maximum salary. And the truly elite players sign short contracts, because the max salary goes up over time. Mean NBA salary is ~$6M, compared to ~$4M for MLB - despite league revenue per player being roughly equal.

forgetsusername 10y ago

>This is also why NBA players earn... I think basketball stars earn so much because an individual player has a huge impact on team results (relative to hockey, baseball or football).

lisper 10y ago

> Husain Bolt Usain. No leading H. http://usainbolt.com http://usainbolt.com

strommen 10y ago
D'oh! Thanks! Too late to edit my comment though...

grumpopotamus 10y ago

> The Olympics are truly not about money for the athletes. And indeed, they cannot be. I really don't buy this argument. Why should anyone ever deserve less than his or her fair share? This might make sense if there really weren't much revenue being generated, and the executives were not lining their pockets with millions, but in this case it is simple exploitation.

jackmott 10y ago

Predicted before clicking this link that I would see, at the top, a typical libertarian excuse of this situation. Was not disappointed.

SCAQTony 10y ago

TL;DR : Imagine if you had a non-profit soup kitchen but charged the homeless to buy your soup. That is a sports NGO. The salary of the Executive Director of USA Swimming is $1-millon-plus dollars a year from an organization that pulls in about $41-million annually from donations and otherwise. http://www.usaswimming.org/_Rainbow/Documents/37308384-90d5-4ada-a6af-7b4b337fe045/2013%20990%20USA%20Swimming%20Public%20Disclosure%20Copy%20Final.PDF http://www.usaswimming.org/_Rainbow/Documents/37308384-90d5-... The salary for a USA Olympic Swimmer, if they sign on to do fund raising events and make appearances for the organization is about $70,000 — About 55-swimmers are chosen for the Olympic team every four years. They are not paid that salary when they are not on the national team. Though the athletes love the sports they do sport NGOs are making tranches of money of the backs of children and athletic teams who are force to "pay tribute" and competition fees just so they can get a chance to realize a dream that is harder to obtain than becoming an Academy Award winning actor or a CEO of a billion dollar company.

SCAQTony 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bsder 10y ago

> The Olympics are truly not about money for the athletes. And indeed, they cannot be. Once you started allowing pro players into the Olympics, that went out the window (although calling any Olympic athlete an "amateur" is kind of a misnomer ...). While people didn't like seeing "amateur" US teams lose to "professional" Soviet teams, allowing pro players into the Olympics robs people of the emotional impact of things like "The Miracle on Ice".