5 ms·
> 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 ab
by 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 agoFor 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 agoThe 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.