The difference is that it is much easier to predict how well an actor will perform from movie to movie than a player will from season to season. And if an actor bombs in one movie for $30 million, he'd be hard pressed to find a producer to pay him the same money for his next project.
Originally Posted by ShinobiNYC
On the other hand, Clay Kershaw could forget how to pitch tomorrow; he could develop Steve Blass or Rick Ankiel syndrome, and he's still guaranteed of collecting 30 mill for the next 7 seasons, even if he doesn't throw another strike for the rest of his career. Actors don't have those kinds of deals.
As much as we like to equate ballplayers entertainers, the fact is we don't really care how entertaining they are; we care how well they play and how well they help our teams win ballgames. Those things aren't necessarily synonymous. Entertainers aren't competitors while they're entertaining. That's a pretty big difference.
However, the OP makes a great point about the increasing size of the pie. Thirty million a season is probably no bigger a deal than $100,000 was back in the 40s and 50s, not in comparison to a team's overall revenues.
Ultimately it comes down to us, the fans: Is it worth it to pay $30 for parking, $50 for a ticket, and $10 for a hot dog and so many more dollars for our cable bill so our team can spend $30 million a year for baseball players? Until fans stop paying, players can never be accused of being overpaid.
Last edited by fanofclendennon; 01-19-2014 at 11:00 AM.
"Mr. Martin Tanner, Baritone, of Dayton, Ohio made his Town Hall debut last night. He came well prepared, but unfortunately his presentation was not up to contemporary professional standards. His voice lacks the range of tonal color necessary to make it consistently interesting. Full time consideration of another endeavor might be in order."