4 ms·

Outcome should still be proportional to effort and skill however. There are many top-heavy systems where the top benefits far more than the middle even though

Outcome should still be proportional to effort and skill however. There are many top-heavy systems where the top benefits far more than the middle even though the middle is close to as good. Consider sporting events where the second place receives 1/3 of the price of the winner, even if it was a very close finals. Yes, the winner played better, but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings.

endisneigh 4y ago
Not sure how that’s possible as long as compound results exist.
russelldjimmy 4y ago
> Outcome should still be proportional to effort and skill however. It seems to me that this is an unsolvable or at least a very hard problem. Ask 10 people about what they think the correct and fair compensation is and you’ll get 10 opinions. It is difficult to quantify effort and skill. If a very talented person produces better results - with less effort - than someone less talented but very hard working, who gets compensated more? These are tough questions to answer. > Yes, the winner played better, but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings. I am curious about these sporting events. Please help me understand them better.
- Blikkentrekker 4y ago
  For instance, The French Open awards double the money to the winner it does to the runner up. Compare this with the word chess championship, where it is often split 60-40%, or the found is often bound to performance differences. A victory by a sweep incurs a larger percentage for the winner.
  - dagw 4y ago
    The caveat with sports is that for many of the sorts of athletes that win major leagues/tournaments, prize money is not their only source of income. As an extreme example Roger Federer recently went over a year without playing a single game and still earned an estimate of $90 million during that time. The caveat to my caveat is of course the winning a major tournament also significantly increases all those other sources of income.
charcircuit 4y ago
>but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings It's a close finals because of the difference in reward between 1st and 2nd. If they were the same then the finals match would not matter financially as whether you win or lose you earn the same amount.
- Volundr 4y ago
  I'm not advocating for a flat pay structure for athletes, but if you think the world class athletes only give it their all because they'll get paid more, you have a pretty distorted view of athletes.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    I've watched first hand teams change their playstyle depending on how much prize money is available. It's the difference between playing to have fun and playing super sweaty.
threatofrain 4y ago
For sporting events the ability of interest is attracting sports customers. You might argue that metaphorical Nike is mis-pricing top tier competitors, but that's Nike's fault and Nike's prerogative.

endisneigh 4y ago

Not sure how that’s possible as long as compound results exist.

russelldjimmy 4y ago

> Outcome should still be proportional to effort and skill however. It seems to me that this is an unsolvable or at least a very hard problem. Ask 10 people about what they think the correct and fair compensation is and you’ll get 10 opinions. It is difficult to quantify effort and skill. If a very talented person produces better results - with less effort - than someone less talented but very hard working, who gets compensated more? These are tough questions to answer. > Yes, the winner played better, but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings. I am curious about these sporting events. Please help me understand them better.

Blikkentrekker 4y ago
For instance, The French Open awards double the money to the winner it does to the runner up. Compare this with the word chess championship, where it is often split 60-40%, or the found is often bound to performance differences. A victory by a sweep incurs a larger percentage for the winner.
- dagw 4y ago
  The caveat with sports is that for many of the sorts of athletes that win major leagues/tournaments, prize money is not their only source of income. As an extreme example Roger Federer recently went over a year without playing a single game and still earned an estimate of $90 million during that time. The caveat to my caveat is of course the winning a major tournament also significantly increases all those other sources of income.

charcircuit 4y ago

>but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings It's a close finals because of the difference in reward between 1st and 2nd. If they were the same then the finals match would not matter financially as whether you win or lose you earn the same amount.

Volundr 4y ago
I'm not advocating for a flat pay structure for athletes, but if you think the world class athletes only give it their all because they'll get paid more, you have a pretty distorted view of athletes.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  I've watched first hand teams change their playstyle depending on how much prize money is available. It's the difference between playing to have fun and playing super sweaty.

threatofrain 4y ago

For sporting events the ability of interest is attracting sports customers. You might argue that metaphorical Nike is mis-pricing top tier competitors, but that's Nike's fault and Nike's prerogative.