6 ms·

Greatest of All Time: Lifestyles of the rich and famous Roman athletes (2010)

61 points by acheron 10y ago

iambateman 10y ago
In 2000 years, someone will write this exact same essay about American football.
- mobilefriendly 10y ago
  The sport is enormously popular but professional football players are poorly paid compared to baseball and basketball, especially when considering their much shorter average career and the physical damage caused by the sport. Further, football players are forced to spend years earning billions for the NCAA and its TV partners in exchange for college tuition, whereas the best baseball players and basketball players can earn a market salary by turning pro after high school.
  - davidgay 10y ago
    Compared to the subject under discussion, their lot is not so bad: "After seven savage laps, those who managed not to be upended or killed, ..."
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    > best ... basketball players can earn a market salary by turning pro after high school Not actually true, at least directly. They're currently required to play at least one year in NCAA, and the NBA commissioner is advocating for two years.
    - ben_jones 10y ago
      You're right for the most part, but there are a few exceptions for basketball which are becoming more popular. International players can play professionally as early as 16 and then immigrate over. A few top US prospects have also gone overseas @ 18 for 6mo/1yr to bypass the NCAA restriction and start playing as early as 19.
    - mobilefriendly 10y ago
      It is funny, it was once true but the NBA added the year. As you get older the stuff you know becomes incorrect but you don't know it is wrong...factual atrophy.
  - olalonde 10y ago
    I was surprised by your comment so I Googled it and it seems you are right: https://news.sportsinteraction.com/sports/how-to-make-money-in-pro-sports-infographic-45774/ https://news.sportsinteraction.com/sports/how-to-make-money-...
    - protomyth 10y ago
      Being the 6th man on a pro Basketball team is a generally a better move than being a starting Football player. Bonus is that you will probably have a longer lifespan.
      - douche 10y ago
        Being the 15th man on an NBA team can be better than being a starter on an NFL team. The median NFL player only makes about as much as a 1st-round non-lottery pick NBA rookie. Moreover, for the most part, NBA contracts are fully guaranteed, unlike NFL contracts, that have all manner of byzantine bonus and base salary constructs. http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html http://blog.futureadvisor.com/nfl-players-must-go-long-on-retirement/ http://blog.futureadvisor.com/nfl-players-must-go-long-on-re...
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure the salary differentials between football, baseball, and basketball are better attributable to the fact that football teams are an order of magnitude larger than the other two, meaning while there's more pie to go around, more people want a slice.
- backtoyoujim 10y ago
  Or NASCAR
vinceguidry 10y ago
I know why they do it, but it's really annoying when authors compare sums of money in ancient societies to today's monetary system. It's probably the laziest way I can think of to describe differences between societies. Do some real effing research, fer chrissakes. So 35 million sesterces can be roughly equated to $15 billion in todays monetary system. So what? You might as well be comparing apples to space aliens.
- 67726e 10y ago
  Care to explain why the comparison is so troublesome, for the ignorant?
  - NhanH 10y ago
    Those athletes didn't have access to refrigerator, air conditioning, washing machine or Hacker News in their daily life.
    - epicureanideal 10y ago
      But we also can't buy dozens of domestic slaves to act as air conditioner (leaf-waver), washing machine, story teller, and so on. Or have a low population so we don't need air conditioning because we own a villa on a (relatively) sparsely populated Mediterranean coast. Etc.
      - thesmok 10y ago
        Slaves need food. It doesn't make sense to have slaves for leaf waving and laundry today because machines and electricity are cheaper.
  - toomanybeersies 10y ago
    The relative cost of goods has changed so much over the centuries. For instance, clothing is the cheapest it has ever been, yet housing is relatively more expensive now.
  - 10y ago
drumttocs8 10y ago
"...assuming the apt comparison is what it takes to pay the wages of the American armed forces for the same period..." Wait, what?
NicoJuicy 10y ago
He compares Rome's military wages to the US. How many militairs where there in Rome? Probably not that much as the author compares it to
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  The Roman army reached perhaps 640,000 under Constantine I. Compare, the current active duty US Army is about 475,000.
  - Retric 10y ago
    US has ~1,301,300 million active duty military. The army makes up ~1/3 of that.
    - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
      Sure. But the population of the US is 320+ million. The peak population of the Roman Empire was probably in the region of 70 million. And that peak was in the 2nd Century CE, whereas the 640k figure is from the 4th Century CE.

61 points by acheron 10y ago

iambateman 10y ago

In 2000 years, someone will write this exact same essay about American football.

mobilefriendly 10y ago
The sport is enormously popular but professional football players are poorly paid compared to baseball and basketball, especially when considering their much shorter average career and the physical damage caused by the sport. Further, football players are forced to spend years earning billions for the NCAA and its TV partners in exchange for college tuition, whereas the best baseball players and basketball players can earn a market salary by turning pro after high school.
- davidgay 10y ago
  Compared to the subject under discussion, their lot is not so bad: "After seven savage laps, those who managed not to be upended or killed, ..."
- arcticfox 10y ago
  > best ... basketball players can earn a market salary by turning pro after high school Not actually true, at least directly. They're currently required to play at least one year in NCAA, and the NBA commissioner is advocating for two years.
  - ben_jones 10y ago
    You're right for the most part, but there are a few exceptions for basketball which are becoming more popular. International players can play professionally as early as 16 and then immigrate over. A few top US prospects have also gone overseas @ 18 for 6mo/1yr to bypass the NCAA restriction and start playing as early as 19.
  - mobilefriendly 10y ago
    It is funny, it was once true but the NBA added the year. As you get older the stuff you know becomes incorrect but you don't know it is wrong...factual atrophy.
- olalonde 10y ago
  I was surprised by your comment so I Googled it and it seems you are right: https://news.sportsinteraction.com/sports/how-to-make-money-in-pro-sports-infographic-45774/ https://news.sportsinteraction.com/sports/how-to-make-money-...
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Being the 6th man on a pro Basketball team is a generally a better move than being a starting Football player. Bonus is that you will probably have a longer lifespan.
    - douche 10y ago
      Being the 15th man on an NBA team can be better than being a starter on an NFL team. The median NFL player only makes about as much as a 1st-round non-lottery pick NBA rookie. Moreover, for the most part, NBA contracts are fully guaranteed, unlike NFL contracts, that have all manner of byzantine bonus and base salary constructs. http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html http://blog.futureadvisor.com/nfl-players-must-go-long-on-retirement/ http://blog.futureadvisor.com/nfl-players-must-go-long-on-re...
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure the salary differentials between football, baseball, and basketball are better attributable to the fact that football teams are an order of magnitude larger than the other two, meaning while there's more pie to go around, more people want a slice.
backtoyoujim 10y ago
Or NASCAR

vinceguidry 10y ago

I know why they do it, but it's really annoying when authors compare sums of money in ancient societies to today's monetary system. It's probably the laziest way I can think of to describe differences between societies. Do some real effing research, fer chrissakes. So 35 million sesterces can be roughly equated to $15 billion in todays monetary system. So what? You might as well be comparing apples to space aliens.

67726e 10y ago
Care to explain why the comparison is so troublesome, for the ignorant?
- NhanH 10y ago
  Those athletes didn't have access to refrigerator, air conditioning, washing machine or Hacker News in their daily life.
  - epicureanideal 10y ago
    But we also can't buy dozens of domestic slaves to act as air conditioner (leaf-waver), washing machine, story teller, and so on. Or have a low population so we don't need air conditioning because we own a villa on a (relatively) sparsely populated Mediterranean coast. Etc.
    - thesmok 10y ago
      Slaves need food. It doesn't make sense to have slaves for leaf waving and laundry today because machines and electricity are cheaper.
- toomanybeersies 10y ago
  The relative cost of goods has changed so much over the centuries. For instance, clothing is the cheapest it has ever been, yet housing is relatively more expensive now.
- 10y ago

drumttocs8 10y ago

"...assuming the apt comparison is what it takes to pay the wages of the American armed forces for the same period..." Wait, what?

NicoJuicy 10y ago

He compares Rome's military wages to the US. How many militairs where there in Rome? Probably not that much as the author compares it to

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
The Roman army reached perhaps 640,000 under Constantine I. Compare, the current active duty US Army is about 475,000.
- Retric 10y ago
  US has ~1,301,300 million active duty military. The army makes up ~1/3 of that.
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    Sure. But the population of the US is 320+ million. The peak population of the Roman Empire was probably in the region of 70 million. And that peak was in the 2nd Century CE, whereas the 640k figure is from the 4th Century CE.