The MOST a tenured Ph.D professor with 10 years at a distinguished university can expect to make will be in the $100-$125000 per year range, and you still have to "publish or perish". Unless you win some internationally recognized award which might increase your value to $250,000 or so.

The STARTING salary in major league baseball, is over $100, 000. The top salaries in major league sports are in excess of $20 million and thats before the endorsement contracts kick in.

When did the ability to sink a 3 point shot become worth more than the ability to think?

Of course, its the bottom line. There's far more profit in hawking shoes and soft drinks than there is in researching a cure for cancer, or designing a better mousetrap.

Its just a simple example, but in my honest, humble, and idealistically driven (in this case) opinion, it illustrates just how far out of kilter our priorities have become.

Its fluff over stuff, style over substance, primping over principles, and All Hail the Great God MONEY!!!

Don't get me wrong, I recognize the tremendous value of sports both as participant and spectator. But to proclaim by rote (for example)  that a 17 year old "phenom" with a 100 mph fastball and a wicked curve is worth 100 times that of a research engineer developing a new form of rocket engine is simply wrong.

It is not the fault of Bush, Clinton, or anyone named Roosevelt. It is the degredation of society in general that is the cause. And I assure you, this is definitely a bipartisan issue.
And that, friends, is my honest opinion.

-- Modified on 1/10/2005 6:00:49 PM

but its just the law of supply and demand. How many PHDs are there in this country vs how amny people who can throw a ball at 100 miles an hours and control its direction with any accuracy.

I see your point and sometimes share your fustration, but its just economics...

The reason Shaquille O'Neal (as just one example) earns 20 million+ is that he's the only 7"1 325lb. guy who can average 25pts., 15 rebounds, & 4 blocks per game.....He's irreplaceable, as the Lakers are finding out this year....But more importantly, people will pay between $30-1000 (rough range of NBA ticket prices) to see him play (and luxury sections & suites cost waaay more than that).....Furthermore, most NFL & NBA games are sellouts, & both leagues have huge TV contracts, certainly more so for NFL....I don't have an issue w/athletes salary as very few  people can do what a Shaq, Barry Bonds, Brett Farve (etc.) do year in & year out...

There is no doubt the work of teachers, engineers, etc. is significant, but no one is paying to $30-1000 a ticket to watch them work & subsequently the teachers association won't be getting a large TV contract either anytime soon......

I especially have respect for NFL players because that is such a brutal game to play, the careers are short, & the injuries that will stay w/many NFL players well after their careers are over in part justifies their huge salaries....(And of course it doesn't hurt that Commissioner Tagliabue just re-negotiated a multi-year, multi-billion $ contract w/the networks)......I mean, Super Bowl Sunday is practically a national holiday.....

Now, as far as some CEO pay, I think in some cases it is unjustified.....There are countless stories of CEO's who failed miserably at a company & yet receive a tremendous golden parachute.....Not bad for running a company into the ground.....If a pro athlete is cut because of poor performance, he likely won't see the remainder of the deal as many pro contracts are not guaranteed....Also, in a corporation there are MANY departments that contribute to making a company successful, including, but not limited to, accounting & finance, Information system, human resources, R&D (if applicable), advertising, marketing, etc. etc....I think in some cases CEO's get too much credit & too much money/bonuses, when numerous people & departments contribute to an organizations success, not just the CEO......

I appreciayte your feedback, but you miss my point. I acknowledge the fiscal value of sports entertainment and its players.
Thats just it. Everything is based on the perception of the financial bottom line. And in so doing, we have lost sight of the future.

I think the argument could be rephrased this way:

"Unless you're willing to adequately pay scientists who are researching cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's etc., then you're unlikely to ever get cures for these diseases."

And as to the relative value of athletes versus scientists, ask yourself the following two questions: 1) Who won the SuperBowl five years ago (does anyone know or really care)?; and 2) Do you have any loved ones who've died from diseases, and what would you give to have them back?

Not to mention that these diseases may ultimately be your own undoing.

But you're right, scientists doing science isn't very sexy, and we're nowheres near as entertaining as Shaq.

The real issues are supply and demand and personal fulfillment.

There are more people with teaching ablity than pro-ball ability.  Secondly, many people would never consider a career as empthy as sports.  They like the satisfaction that comes from teaching, building or creating things.

Entertainment is always out of whack with other pay because so few can do it and suceed.

Rags to riches St. Louis QB Kurt Warner passed for a superbowl record of over 400 yards on that day to beat the Cinderella story Titans in a game that many say was one of the best football games ever played.  Why is this important?? Well,like it or not, this is part of American culture like the Wild West, Hollywood and the Big Mac.  We are a culture based upon exploration, advancement and capitalism.  I personally do not worry if there are not enough scientists doing enough scientific things.  I don't think that there are a lot of science students in high school and college making the tough decision to either continue with their academic goals or become a defensive tackle for the Chicago Bears or cutting the next smash hip/hop CD.  There is an enormous amount of money (public & private) being poured into the university systems hoping to invent/discover/create the latest and greatest drug or device for the medical industry for the sole purpose of exploiting its profit potential while at the same time saving or improving the quality of life of the people of the world.

I will say that compared to other diseases and causes of death, way too much money has been thrown at HIV/AIDS (which is in most part, very preventable) and not enough at the various types of cancer or heart disease.  According to the CDC, there was just over 18,000 Aids deaths in the U.S. but over 930,000 deaths due to heart disease for the year 2003!!!  

By it's own estimate, close to 1/4 of the U.S. population has or will have a cardiovascular disease.  The cost of heart disease & stroke (health care and lost productivity) in the U.S.A. in 2004 will be 368 BILLION $$$

Anyhow, I'll jump off my soapbox now.  That's the disease in my family history.  If you want a real headache, look up and compare the cost in human lives and $$$ between HIV/AIDS and motor vehicle accidents.

I agree GOOD teachers and professors should get paid well, but the problem is that their pay is based on tenure, not on merit.  Can you imgaine if major league baseball pay their players based solely on years of experience, and not performance?  

I've had great teachers in my high school and college, but I also had many average, or downright bad, ones, why are they allowed to keep their jobs?  

Besides, your comparison was between athletes and professors.  If you compare the pay of professors to other professions like doctors, lawyers, executives, I don't think they are underpaid at all.