[wubrr]

The median NFL salary is like 850k/year, and the average is ~3million/year.

Seems like a lot for playing with a ball, while producing exactly zero in practical value (other than advertising and distraction, which is a net negative for society arguably).

[brandall10]

If you're taking that standpoint, then all entertainment has zero practical value. Game devs/studios, actors/movie studios, musicians, board game designers, etc, etc - all worthless.

Would you prefer they all do this work out of the goodness of their hearts, simply as fun hobbies? Gifts to society?

The vast majority of wealthy celebrities are such because they provide entertainment.

Back in the early 90s in my 10th grade econ class, the teacher spent a whole class examinging Michael Jordan's value through salary and endorsements, and whether or not he actually deserved it. By the end of the class, he made the point that not only did he deserve it, he was vastly under-compensated for the value he brought the NBA and the companies that endorsed him, and ultimately, society of a whole.

[wubrr]

> If you're taking that standpoint, then all entertainment has zero practical value. Game devs/studios, actors/movie studios, musicians, board game designers, etc, etc - all worthless.

I didn't say they are all worthless, yeah sports has value as entertainment, but it does not provide practical benefit to society generally speaking.

> Would you prefer they all do this work out of the goodness of their hearts, simply as fun hobbies? Gifts to society?

Not at all, I'm simply pointing out that earning 850k/year for playing with a ball for entertainment is not at all as terrible as others in this thread make it out to be. It's quite a sweet deal.

> The vast majority of wealthy celebrities are such because they provide entertainment.

And I would have no problem if the vast majority of these celebrities were not wealthy.

> By the end of the class, he made the point that not only did he deserve it, he was vastly under-compensated for the value he brought the NBA and the companies that endorsed him, and ultimately, society of a whole.

I mean cool story, but 'my 10th grade teacher said this' is not really interesting or convincing in any way. Yeah, star players provide income for the team/owners, and yes most of that is because of advertising (literally the dishonest manipulation of people into behaviors which are generally not beneficial to them), so just because they provide income for the team/owners does not mean it is a net benefit for society.

Take entertainment/sports watching and replace it with another type of 'entertainment' which people would love even more if it was as marketed nearly as much - heroin. Yes people love it, it generates 'economic activity and financial transactions', yes addicts will freely chose to spend their money on it. Does that make heroin a net benefit to society?

[brandall10]

It’s a wild argument that entertainment does not provide practical value for society. It absolutely, unequivocally does. It’s an overwhelming driver of capitalism and consumer behavior, and it also provides real social and cultural cohesion.

As to the 850k median salary, you also have to consider that the vast majority of players don’t last more than a few years in the league. The lifetime value of a typical NFL career is far less - and far more rare - than a big tech career. Additionally, NFL players subject their body to stress that can lead to lifetime medical issues.

And on top of that, the advertising you dismiss is what funds much of big tech, and is integral to how capitalist society functions as a whole.

[wubrr]

> It’s a wild argument that entertainment does not provide practical value for society.

I'm talking specifically about NFL (and some other sports). Not all entertainment.

> It’s an overwhelming driver of capitalism and consumer behavior

That doesn't make it a benefit to society. Slavery was an 'economic driver' - is that of overall benefit to society? Dishonest advertising is a 'driver of capitalism and consumer behaviour' - is dishonest advertising a benefit to society?

> and it also provides real social and cultural cohesion.

Really? An arbitrary made up game provides 'real' social and cultural cohesion? How so? The only reason NFL is so popular is because it was very strongly pushed onto society for decades in a top-down way everywhere from schools to television, radio, etc. It's been long understood that sports entertainment makes people pay less attention to things that actually practically affect them such as policy and economics, and that's part of the reason sports entertainment is so heavily pushed in US. You can replace NFL with another arbitrary made-up ball-game and nothing would change.

> As to the 850k median salary, you also have to consider that the vast majority of players don’t last more than a few years in the league.

I don't see how that's relevant? Are they incapable of working after playing the NFL? Or is working a regular job like the rest of us so shockingly terrible that it shouldn't even be considered for NFL players?

> The lifetime value of an NFL career is far less - and far more rare - than a big tech career.

If they were to live and spend like a regular person, they would save in 3 years more than the median person saves in their entire life.

> And on top of that, the advertising you dismiss is what funds much of big tech

That doesn't really contradict my point at all? I wouldn't mind at all if ads were less prevalent, more honest, and ad-based big tech like meta made less money.

> is integral to how capitalist society functions as a whole.

That's a big claim that I doubt you can back up.

[brandall10]

You’re free to dislike sports, but that doesn’t make their economic and cultural impact disappear. I’ll bow out here.

[wubrr]

I don't dislike sports. I love several sports, and am actively engaged in sports on a regular basis.

What I dislike is the mass propagandization of sports, and the use of sports as a means of mass advertising and manipulation of the public.

Also, just because something has an economic or cultural impact doesn't mean it's a benefit to society. WW2 also had an 'economic and cultural impact'.

[gdbsjjdn]

People who play professional sports basically sacrifice the first 20 years of their life for a lotto ticket to get, on average, 2-4 years of playing time. There's a high risk of debilitating injury even if they're successful. As other people have pointed out that salary is before you consider any professional fees for agents, etc.

I do also have to remark on the irony of someone on the "250k a year to type prompts into a AI to get the wrong answer" website complaining that athletes are overpaid and don't contribute anything to society

[wubrr]

> People who play professional sports basically sacrifice the first 20 years of their life for a lotto ticket to get, on average, 2-4 years of playing time.

Everybody who studies and works towards a career/goal 'sacrifices the first 20 years of their life' as well by that logic. And playing lottery is a pointless and practically useless activity, which only results in negative results for the vast majority of participants.

> I do also have to remark on the irony of someone on the "250k a year to type prompts into a AI to get the wrong answer" website complaining that athletes are overpaid and don't contribute anything to society

I don't see the irony at all. But I guess your point is that posting 'on the "250k a year to type prompts into a AI to get the wrong answer" website' makes your comments somehow irrelevant and/or meaningless? Is that the point you're trying to make lol?

[gdbsjjdn]

> I don't see the irony at all. But I guess your point is that posting 'on the "250k a year to type prompts into a AI to get the wrong answer" website' makes your comments somehow irrelevant and/or meaningless? Is that the point you're trying to make lol?

Yeah honestly HN is a huge circle jerk and commenting here feels like I am losing brain cells. Unfortunately as someone who doesn't live in the Bay and works remotely for startups there's some signalling value when interviewing if you can regurgitate whatever has been on the front page recently.

[bee_rider]

Although, we shouldn’t overstate the sacrifice, in the sense that: lots of people sacrifice those 20 years and don’t end up as professional sport players. We don’t reward sacrifice as a society, we reward value.

I don’t get much entertainment from watching sports, but I mean, the market is how we decide how to value things in the US, and it turns out professional sports are valuable by that metric for whatever reason.

[wubrr]

Sports like NFL, Hockey, etc. are completely arbitrary and artificial. The only reason most people that watch these sports is because of marketing and being pushed to do so by society. Remove NFL and replace it with another arbitrary made up ball-game and nothing would change.

What is materially produced by the NFL? What societal problems does it solve?

It's as practically useful as scrolling through a tiktok feed, and the 'value' is basically the same - pushing advertising (which I don't consider to be a net benefit to society).

[DrillShopper]

Just because you don't understand a sport doesn't make it "artifical", "arbitrary", impractical, or devoid of value.

I enjoy NFL football because it is a showcase of brain (from the offensive and defensive schemes), brawn (pretty self explanatory), and planning (drafting, trading, roster construction). Arguably moreso than most software development (replace brawn with the mental toughness to not crack after the fifth night of sleeping under your desk to ship something).

That you do not understand the game does not make it worthless. Clearly there is some worth because football is something people pay a lot of money to enjoy, and that money, while also concentrating in the hands of owners (and there's a lot to talk about there), goes to support the trainers, assistants, equipment managers, travel coordinators, hotel workers, security guards at the game, stadium staff, concessions staff, bars and restaurants (both around the stadium and at home during away games), and many other people. It inarguably creates value. That doesn't go away because you don't like and don't understand it.

In conclusion: GO PACK GO

[wubrr]

NFL is artificial and arbitrary literally by definition.

> I enjoy NFL football because it is a showcase of brain

You enjoy it because you were brought up by society to enjoy it and it was pushed on you from all sides. If you grew up in, say, Iceland, you probably wouldn't know anything about it or care at all.

> That you do not understand the game does not make it worthless.

That you clearly do not understand the history of big sports, the way they were pushed onto the public, and their explicit use in the manipulation public opinion, doesn't mean your 'understanding' of arbitrary tidbits of an arbitrary sport is any kind of argument for that sport's overall usefulness and benefit to society.

> Clearly there is some worth because football is something people pay a lot of money to enjoy

You should go look into the history of big sports and why an arbitrary artificial sport which has existed for less than 200 years is so popular in one particular country and almost entirely ignored everywhere else. Saying 'thing exists therefore it's good' is meaningless and boring.

> It inarguably creates value.

Just because something creates economic activity does not mean it's of overall benefit to society. I (and you) can very easily name many things that create(d) economic activity that we can both agree are bad for society (let me know if you can't). That doesn't change just because you like the thing, or because you know some arbitrary detail about the thing.

[DrillShopper]

> NFL is artificial and arbitrary literally by definition.

If so, then why does no other sport match its popularity in the US when NFL football isn't in season? If it's so goddamn arbitrary the something like baseball should make as much as it does. Basketball should make as much as it does. Hockey should make as much as it does. However, as marketed as those sports are in the US (and they are heavily marketed), then why don't they match the NFL in viewership and revenue?

>> I enjoy NFL football because it is a showcase of brain

> You enjoy it because you were brought up by society to enjoy it and it was pushed on you from all sides. If you grew up in, say, Iceland, you probably wouldn't know anything about it or care at all.

You don't know a goddamn thing about me. I grew up in The Netherlands watching (the other kind) of football, not in an area where the NFL existed. Maybe stop trying to pidgeonhole people that like things you don't.

Is there a lot of marketing around sports? Yes. There's a lot of marketing around software, video games, pharmaceuticals, fiscal policy, food, and automobiles. Would you say anybody who enjoys cooking for their family "brainwashed by Tyson into liking something they wouldn't like?

Fuck you for assuming

[gooosle]

'sacrifice' what exactly lol?

Going the athlete route is generally easier and requires less time investment than going the academic route.

[tomjakubowski]

No, I don't think so.

Including practice squad players (who are paid peanuts), the NFL has about 2,240 roster spots. About a million US high school students play football any given year. The average NFL career is 3.3 years.

So from 3.3 graduating classes of a million high school football players, you'd expect somewhere around 0.07% to make it into the NFL. Fewer even will have something resembling a successful career.

Then look at how many high paying "smart person" jobs there are. There are about a million doctors in the US, two million engineers, and four million computer professionals.

[wubrr]

Your logic/math doesn't make any sense.

Almost every student studies math, almost none of those ever become a mathematician - who are compensated much less than NFL players.

> There are about a million doctors in the US

Comparing # of doctors to # of NFL players is a very false equivalence. Try comparing # of athletes in all sports combined to number of doctors - that would be more reasonable. Or compare the number of brain surgeons to the number of NFL players - and the difficulty/time in becoming either.

Being a doctor is a much more stressful and difficult job, which requires more years of training/education and provides far more real value for society.

[cellis]

What point are you arguing here? That it’s more difficult to be a doctor than an NFL player? That is highly subjective depending on what one finds “difficult”. For instance my dentist in SF and even primary care or dermatologists don’t have very stressful jobs and although they had many years of schooling, they didn’t have to subject their bodies to the intense and unrelenting physical rigor of first HS football, THEN college football and then the NFL. I would say for low level or intense stress maybe surgeons, oncologists, anesthesiologists or cardiologists have more stress day to day but that’s just my subjective opinion as well, as to them it may be as easy as flying a kite.

So what do you consider difficult? Having a linebacker smash into you at a full sprint over and over in practice and then not choking in a real game? Or studying relentlessly, writing grants, doing essentially free work as a resident for years while being on call. They are just stressful in different ways, but again, different humans have more fitness for one or the other.

[steveklabnik]

One of my best friends is now in a wheelchair for life, thanks to high school football.

You are always taking a risk. Sometimes it's just that it won't work out financially. Sometimes it's more serious than that. It's a small risk, but non-zero. Even successful football players suffer from much higher rates of mental health issues, among other poor health outcomes.

[wubrr]

Just because someone takes risks, doesn't mean they deserve exorbitant compensation for that. Lots of people take risks all of the time for much less. Lots of sports, and even non-sport jobs are much more dangerous than playing in the NFL, and compensated much less.

Complaining about NFL players not making enough money is just funny to me.

[steveklabnik]

I didn't say they deserved anything. You said that they don't sacrifice anything. They absolutely do. This is completely independent from a compensation discussion.

I do happen to think that players should probably make more, for the same reason that I think all workers should probably make more, not because of any particular risk reason.

[wubrr]

> You said that they don't sacrifice anything.

No, I clearly didn't say that.

[cko]

I'd argue that the reason for people to do any sort of productive work is to be able to spend it on such "distractions" (as you put it) like Taylor Swift concerts and sports events.

Think about these fantasy sports gambling apps, your coworkers who distract themselves from the drudgery of work by discussing sports, the financial institutions that take a transaction fee from money being passed around, the infinite scroll of content on social media, all because of athletes.

Not me, I spend nothing and invest it all, but all these investments are basically leveraging what society truly wants, among which is leisure and art.

Functionally, as a curmudgeon, my value to the economy is near zero.

[gooosle]

> Think about these fantasy sports gambling apps, your coworkers who distract themselves from the drudgery of work by discussing sports, the financial institutions that take a transaction fee from money being passed around, the infinite scroll of content on social media, all because of athletes.

I don't see how you can claim gambling, and pointless discussion about some arbitrary game you (they) don't even play are positive. Financial transactions for the sake of financial transactions are also completely pointless.

[addaon]

> I don't see how you can claim gambling, and pointless discussion about some arbitrary game you (they) don't even play are positive.

By choosing different basis vectors? Not everyone's values match yours.

[wubrr]

Your argument amounts to a meaningless tautology - 'everything that exists is good and valuable'.

Yeah, maybe, but that's neither useful nor interesting.

'Heroin addition is good and valuable to society - if you disagree it's because the addict's values just don't match yours'

[addaon]

> Your argument amounts to a meaningless tautology - 'everything that exists is good and valuable'.

It's unclear how this is related to what I said.

> 'Heroin addition is good and valuable to society - if you disagree it's because the addict's values just don't match yours'

What does it mean for something to be "good and valuable to society"? What is the "society" that is passing absolute judgement here? I think of society as a collection of people, and collections don't have values, individuals do.

Is it surprising the the values of someone choosing to take actions you consider repulsive are different than yours?

[wubrr]

The main discussion point of this comment chain is around the practical benefit to society of the NFL.

Coming in and saying 'we can't judge the practical societal value of anything because groups of people don't have values' is both incorrect and does not argue either for or against NFL as having a practical value, or introduce any new argument or data into the discussion.

> repulsive

Spare me the poetics, you're the only one to talk about repulsiveness in this comment chain so far.

[dkurty]

lol speaking my language--spend nothing and invest all. I literally have holey socks and a linoleum floor from the 1970s that's starting to fray but make sure to get my BTC purchase in after every paycheck.

[bee_rider]

Yeah, the market often comes to weird conclusions. But in the end, what’s the alternative, right? If they put me in charge of everything we’d expend a whole lot less in: sports, social media websites… our diets could be a lot more rice and bean based… anyway, probably it is better not to micromanage this stuff too much.

[wubrr]

The only reason NFL is as popular as it is, is because of decades of very intentional top-down pushing of it on society everywhere from schools to government, television, radio, etc. It's not a natural development at all. That goes for several other sports as well.

[listenallyall]

Disagree, it is the most compelling American sport on a lot of levels - some people simply like the pure violence, but it also has the most diverse types of athlete (runners, throwers, catchers, kickers, blockers), the most diverse and interesting scoring plays, the largest rosters (so more personalities), the most types of scoring which then leads to most strategic decisions, most intense clock management, most debatable referee calls, most complex plays (22 individuals), a natural scarcity (only 17 games), possibility of the defense scoring on any play, and a few more reasons. Even college football is more popular than most professional sports. Football is a unique sport that actually is really, really interesting to watch.

[bee_rider]

I mean… they advertise for themselves extensively, unfortunately lots of organizations do. I’m not sure I see the grand conspiracy. Or at least, I’m not sure how to parse the conspiracy out from, just, lots of people liking sports.

[greatwave1]

Saquon's no-look hurdle alone produced more practical value than 95% of ZIRP-era startups