[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'.

[signatoremo]

Sports have been the ways of life for many many people since forever. People identify themselves with, and bond via the sport teams they support. Are you saying that isn't enormous? Kids playing sport because they look up to their icons. That's hugely positive. There are pros and cons of everything, but to say sports have no benefit to the society is very shallow.

WW2 had profound and positive impact in the society. It reshaped the geopolitical picture, just to name one. Many previous colonies became independence after WW2, countries like India, China, Vietnam, or Indonesia. Wars are brutal, but wars can have positive impact.

[wubrr]

> Sports have been the ways of life for many many people since forever. People identify themselves with, and bond via the sport teams they support.

Obviously not since forever, and big difference between playing sports and watching other people play sports. There are also different kinds of sports.

> Kids playing sport because they look up to their icons. That's hugely positive.

Nah, that's not a good reason to play sports. Having human 'icons' in general is not that great.

> There are pros and cons of everything, but to say sports have no benefit to the society is very shallow.

That's clearly not what I said, your engagement here is quite shallow.

> WW2 had profound and positive impact in the society.

lol, carry on bud