3 ms·

The entertainment industry is notorious for not paying 'The Artist' their due. And in many cases, they can get away with owning the artist because the artists a

The entertainment industry is notorious for not paying 'The Artist' their due. And in many cases, they can get away with owning the artist because the artists are typically approached when they are very young and have not developed acumen for business. In many cases, artists even hired business managers to look out for them, and those persons simply took another share and ensured that The Artist had plenty of sex, drugs and rock 'n roll so they'd feel they were being successful while everyone else made the money. The primary lever, as I understand it, is that the production company, whether it be movies, music or comedy would tally up all the expenses related to the production and then require that those expenses be paid back, with profit, before The Artist got more than enough to live on. Then, they'd inflate the expenses in any number of creative ways so that in most cases, their accountants could show that the production was a net loss, even when box office and record sales were excellent. It's a highly exploitative 'monster' and Chapelle is not the only one taking them on. Kanye West has also gotten to work on the record industry [0]. I wonder if sports has a similar problem. Young, talented persons enabling huge industries... it seems that it's ripe for exploitation as well. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/kanye-west-universal-masters-war-1064225/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/kanye-west-univers...

toyg 6y ago
> wonder if sports has a similar problem. Not as much, because those careers have an expiration date and there is no real reselling value in performances after the first broadcast (with very rare exceptions). Players' agents make a large cut (and it's historically increasing) out of signed contracts, but the overwhelming majority of the money goes to the actual athletes (who then proceed to squander it, typically, since they often come from unprivileged background with no familiarity with long-term wealth management). There is some distortion (agents are more interested in brokering newer and larger contracts than renewing on same terms year after year, regardless of how settled the player is) but it's not really exploitation. This said, South American and African football are plagued by "third-party ownership" arrangements: investment companies literally buy footballers when young and then take massive cuts from any contract they sign, in perpetuity, in exchange for promotion and rights management. The governing body FIFA has officially banned the practice, but it remains widespread in the poorest regions like Africa.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Agreed, but I take issue with the idea that people squander money because they have no "experience with long term wealth management". I actually don't think many people at all, including those raised with money, actually have much knowledge and experience with money. And in fact, lots of middle class people become wealthy and manage that wealth fine. The real difference is whether you were raised in poverty or not. Because poverty imparts a very different psychology on a lot of people. Many raised in poverty have the mentality that you had better spend money while you have it, because it will eventually run out or be taken from you. Maybe stolen by someone on the street, but more likely stolen through bank fees lending schemes and other institutional grifts. That's not to say that poverty can't lead to the extreme opposite, which is to hold on to and save every penny. But either way, poverty can have a strong effect on people.
  - toyg 6y ago
    I do not disagree, but I think it really depends on your definitions of "poverty" and "middle class" here. There is a big chunk of people in between those. Middle-class people (in UK/European terms at least) are likely to have had some exposure to long-term wealth management of some sort: owning a house, having a regular income that allows for significant savings, small investments, small businesses, pensions, etc. Hence it's easier for them to "turn out fine", as parents will have taught them the basics of interest and investment, the value of recurring income, inflation, and so on. The working class, though, is a step below. They have stable paychecks but that's it. There is less of a long-term view, and there is a concept that money is entirely linked to performing work. They are not necessarily poor or ignorant, but they are unprivileged and unfamiliar with "money issues", if not downright hostile to the concept of accumulation - because they'll never be rich, so might as well live a full life instead. A lot of athletes start from here. It's not poverty, but it's also a situation where there is no familiarity with, or propensity for, significant long-term wealth. And then you have utter poverty, and that's definitely a killer like you said. Some athletes come from here, but not all of them, I would argue not even the majority (although I don't know the stats, and it probably varies across countries). However, from what I read, the issue of well-paid athletes that end up bankrupt after a few years is widespread, and going well beyond the limits of people coming from really poor backgrounds.

toyg 6y ago

> wonder if sports has a similar problem. Not as much, because those careers have an expiration date and there is no real reselling value in performances after the first broadcast (with very rare exceptions). Players' agents make a large cut (and it's historically increasing) out of signed contracts, but the overwhelming majority of the money goes to the actual athletes (who then proceed to squander it, typically, since they often come from unprivileged background with no familiarity with long-term wealth management). There is some distortion (agents are more interested in brokering newer and larger contracts than renewing on same terms year after year, regardless of how settled the player is) but it's not really exploitation. This said, South American and African football are plagued by "third-party ownership" arrangements: investment companies literally buy footballers when young and then take massive cuts from any contract they sign, in perpetuity, in exchange for promotion and rights management. The governing body FIFA has officially banned the practice, but it remains widespread in the poorest regions like Africa.

jjeaff 6y ago
Agreed, but I take issue with the idea that people squander money because they have no "experience with long term wealth management". I actually don't think many people at all, including those raised with money, actually have much knowledge and experience with money. And in fact, lots of middle class people become wealthy and manage that wealth fine. The real difference is whether you were raised in poverty or not. Because poverty imparts a very different psychology on a lot of people. Many raised in poverty have the mentality that you had better spend money while you have it, because it will eventually run out or be taken from you. Maybe stolen by someone on the street, but more likely stolen through bank fees lending schemes and other institutional grifts. That's not to say that poverty can't lead to the extreme opposite, which is to hold on to and save every penny. But either way, poverty can have a strong effect on people.
- toyg 6y ago
  I do not disagree, but I think it really depends on your definitions of "poverty" and "middle class" here. There is a big chunk of people in between those. Middle-class people (in UK/European terms at least) are likely to have had some exposure to long-term wealth management of some sort: owning a house, having a regular income that allows for significant savings, small investments, small businesses, pensions, etc. Hence it's easier for them to "turn out fine", as parents will have taught them the basics of interest and investment, the value of recurring income, inflation, and so on. The working class, though, is a step below. They have stable paychecks but that's it. There is less of a long-term view, and there is a concept that money is entirely linked to performing work. They are not necessarily poor or ignorant, but they are unprivileged and unfamiliar with "money issues", if not downright hostile to the concept of accumulation - because they'll never be rich, so might as well live a full life instead. A lot of athletes start from here. It's not poverty, but it's also a situation where there is no familiarity with, or propensity for, significant long-term wealth. And then you have utter poverty, and that's definitely a killer like you said. Some athletes come from here, but not all of them, I would argue not even the majority (although I don't know the stats, and it probably varies across countries). However, from what I read, the issue of well-paid athletes that end up bankrupt after a few years is widespread, and going well beyond the limits of people coming from really poor backgrounds.