3 ms·
>> "rich kids" advocate against it Of course they do. That's their direct leverage against those who actually need money to live on. You don't need to be smart
by heavenlyblue 8y ago
>> "rich kids" advocate against it
Of course they do. That's their direct leverage against those who actually need money to live on. You don't need to be smarter - you just need to work for free. At the end of their degree they'll be the ones with an interesting portfolio and poorer won't.
- mhb 8y agoSame as the Olympics in the amateur only days.
- all2 8y agoThis isn't quite true. Many olympic athletes from the U.S.A. have day jobs. [edit] Don't believe me? Here, read this: http://mentalfloss.com/article/84182/day-jobs-15-olympic-athletes http://mentalfloss.com/article/84182/day-jobs-15-olympic-ath... [/edit]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mhb 8y agoI certainly believe you that it is not possible to make a living in most sports. My point was that an amateur-only rule is a big advantage for athletes who don't need to work and excludes many who might be able to earn money in an Olympic sport.