he really should be willing to sacrifice his arm. pop some pills and get out there until it falls off.

btw, did anybody know that wayman tisdale lost his leg completely? the picture on ESPN is jarring.

of everyone in the movie business you chose Reese Witherspoon?

Would you rather the money go to the owners or the people you actually pay to see? Do you actually, seriously believe that if a player took less money the owner would pass the savings onto the fans? Hell and no.

You have Citibank and AIG getting bailed out by the taxpayers. Both companies have sponsorship deals with sports teams (AIG – Arsenal?) so the taxpayers bail out the companies, companies make good on their sponsorships, owners take the money to pay the players, players get paid with tax dollars. (I’m absolutely aware how simplistic this is and probably wrong).

Its annoying when you get football players sitting out training camp because they don’t like that they haven’t been offered an extension. But that isn’t all that often. For the most part, the players are just getting their fair share of the multi-billion dollar industry that they participate in.

Say Steve Kelley asked the Seattle Times for a huge raise (he being so popular) and the Times said, sure, but we’ll have to raise prices of our papers or make your internet columns subscription-service only. Would he take the raise?

Mostly he’s bitching about althletes being dumb and selfish. I’m no expert, but I’m sure what happens in the stock market isn’t going to change that.

that would piss me off, paying $116 mil for losing 101 games.

Cause nothing will teach those old men not to rant like a slightly younger man ranting the counterargument!

because he makes 25M a year, i hate him because he acts like twerp, but i’d probably act like a twerp too if i made 25M a year. That kind of money could screw anyone up.

Because it’s the debt-loving public that puts money in the team’s pocket in the first place.

I’m really sad FJM closed up shop.

they are only paid so much because we watch/attend their games.

However, this would be the time I’d like to see pro athletes step up and donate more of their money to worthwhile charities. It’s not just profit-making businesses that are suffering, but non-profits, too. The people that have always needed help (not just due to the recession) are suddenly not getting any, because programs are being cut.

Athletes have a big audience, and it’d be great to see them use their voice to advocate their own decision to help others instead of themselves so much. Many do this (including a good number of Rangers), but I’d just like to see a greater volume when more people are hurting. This isn’t just limited to athletes (love the Reese Witherspoon part), so I’m just talking about them because of this dumb article.

That Steve Kelley is bitter, or hand wringing about inflated egos getting huge pay. Just MHO we haven’t seen the biggest of the economic impacts yet, and won’t for a couple of years or more. Even a good rebound is likely to be temporary. One facet of what may have Kelley columnizing his aggrevation is the dark side of what Cahill posted above. The entire genre of actors, rock stars, and to a degree, athletes, is being financially favored by people pouring discretionary income into entertainment. When anything as non-durable as entertainment is such a large slice of your gross national product, something is seriously wrong with the collective value system. Sure, music, theatre, movies, and professional sports should exist, and no harm in taking pleasure from the efforts of those in the industries. However, for at least a couple of decades, it hasn’t been good music, good theatre, good movies, and sports may be the lone exception, being pretty good. I think more money, sometimes serios money, is spent “being there” or “being seen” than anyone would imagine. We tend to have an associative ego with the teams we follow, the music we like, the movies we view, etc.

Then look at the incredible amounts “earned” by leading performers in those entertainment venues. I’m not quite as good a golfer as Tiger Woods. He’s great. And deserves the top paycheck. But the size of the top paycheck would feed two 3rd world nations, or complete the infrastructure of a medium size state. Or operate an Ivy League university for a couple of years.

It isn’t the stardom paycheck that’s bad in and of itself. It’s the wretched excess of consumption of everything associated with entertainment that’s insane. And that excess bloats those star incomes beyond usable dimension. Only a sick society pours a quarter of its’ worth into the luxury of being entertained. You don’t spend a quarter of your net income on entertainment? OK, maybe individually you don’t. But a great many do, if you count trips, resorting, fine meals, sports, memorabilia, luxuty vehicles, fashion clothing seldom worn except “on show”, media devices (like HD), your own copy of movies, and the rest of the “I like” and “I’ve got” list.

Anticipating “OK, I’ll get off your lawn” ………….

Go cover intramurals, brother.

Ha ha ha, sick ’em, Morris.