neo_mp5

i've come to the conclusion that professional sports are immoral. they take extremely physically capable people out of the work force, and those people get highly highly overpaid to HAVE FUN professionally. and the people watching are not only tuning out the real world to concentrate entirely on a game, and getting fat sitting there watching, they are puting a lot of emotion into supporting a sports team when they could be just as passionate about something more important. plus all the money that goes into supporting a team, merchandising, leagues, arenas etc., that's a lot going to waste

what are your thoughts on this?

Karalora

I'll agree that professional sports uses up a lot of resources that could otherwise be used for more generally (rather than narrowly) beneficial things. But one could say the same of almost any human activity. The money I spend on fabric for my amateur costume sewing could have been donated to charity. Am I immoral for spending it on my hobby instead? I hope not.

I don't like sports any more than you do, but it's hardly my place to tell people what they may and may not spend their own time, effort, and money on.

Moreover, pro sports satisfy a lot of basic human drives that might otherwise be frustrated and channeled into more harmful activity. Rooting for a team is like fighting an intertribal war vicariously and "using up" aggression in a generally harmless fashion.

Pixnaps

i disagree... i'm not a big sports fan myself (except for cricket!), but i recognise that other people are, and i see no good reason to deny them their interests & hobbies... and that includes watching some of the most skilled athletes in the world striving for excellence and competing against each other.

professional sports make a lot of people happy. Unless you can come up with a more convincing argument than "it also makes them fat" (!?), this issue seems pretty clear-cut to me...

(note that you could make similar objections - about wasting time/effort/money etc - about just about any leisure activity or hobby. That doesn't make leisure immoral. Indeed, without such leisure activities, life would be far less worthwhile!)

OCLonghorn

I hate to sound like a conservative here, but I'd venture to say that the extent to which they are "EXTREMELY physically capable" is driven by the profession to which they have aspired. To say it another way, Terrell Owens wouldn't have worked so hard to get as strong/fast/coordinated without the incentive of professional sports. On this point, using your reasoning, I'd say that professional sports INCREASE the average physical capability of the workforce due to the low percentage of high school and college athletes who make it to the professional ranks. The "real world" gets the benefit of all those athletes who worked so hard on their physical abilities, but didn't quite cut it at the pro level. So they had to get real jobs.

The other side of that line of thought is that somehow our performance in our jobs are correlated to our physical ability. I can't honestly think of many jobs where that is true (assuming some baseline level of fitness, such that one is able to carry a briefcase up the stairs or a stack of files to the copier without going into cardiac arrest). Obviously office work is not correlated with physical ability. How about more physically demanding "real world" jobs? Stockers at the grocery store? Sometimes they have to lift really heavy boxes, but not that heavy and not that often. In fact, in my days of stocking, for anything over 60 lbs., it was suggested that two people lift it...and this was before workplace safety was a big deal. Even in construction, with all of the technological advances making machines cheaper and therefore more accessible, none of the tasks that are traditionally thought of as "labor intensive" are as taxing. Mini-bobcats are available to haul lumber, bricks or other materials at even the smallest jobsites. These days, labor cost-efficiency has made the workplace safer and less demanding for the unskilled worker, who would be the most dependent on his own physical ability.

Finally, even if they did have the impact you claim, that doesn't make them immoral...it just makes them inefficient.

OCLonghorn

Define "overpaid". If you mean "paid more than NEO thinks it's worth", then I guess I'd have trust you...but I like to see/discuss that spreadsheet. If you mean "pay more than it's relative value to society", then I might argue. Again, not to play the role of conservative, but I "trust" the market to let us know what it's value is to society.

I agree that many get too emotionally involved with their team's performance, but I think that becomes a question of your right to interfere with their right to pursuit of happiness. If you are not ready to allow them to question your [insert hobby here] , then I'd suggest you not question their devotion to their sports teams.

Doctor X

But the Patriots won!

--J.D.

Cutter

Yeah, 'cause we all know nothing says fun like a blown knee, snapped achilles, torn hamstring, herniated discs, compound fractures, concussion, chipped teeth, etc.

Not to mention the countless hours top athletes must spend conditioning themselves to remain in top condition; few probably truly enjoy the rigours of constant weight training, etc.

Not to mention all those long, boring hours of travel. And the time spent away from loved ones. One of our leading cricketers retired recently, mainly to spend time with his young daughter.

Yep, life's just a barrel of monkeys for professional athletes.

Oh and BTW, what exactly is wrong with having fun at work? I had fun at my last full time job (most of the time). Who says you can't have fun at work, other than neo_mp5?

Just because they're extremely capable at their given sport is no guarantee that they'll be particulary adept at anything else.

You'll find that quite a lot of professional athletes, teams and leagues these days pour quite a lot of money and volunteer work into local, national and international charities. I don't have any examples off hand, but you could probably find out by browsing their websites.

I see, I take it then that you've interviewed and studied every fan of professional sport in the world have you? I salute you sir or madam; how long did it take?

Godot

i've come to the conclusion that posting on internet message boards is immoral. they take extremely mentally capable people away from their paid work, and those people get highly highly overpaid to WASTE TIME professionally. and the people watching are not only tuning out the real world to concentrate entirely on a thread, and getting fat sitting there reading, they are puting a lot of emotion into supporting an argument when they could be just as passionate about something more important. plus all the money that goes into supporting the message board, the internet, etc., that's a lot going to waste

what are your thoughts on this?

Cutter

:notworthy

Cain

Negative. It's a rational allocation of society's resources by the fact that there's a market for such professional sports. Besides, physical prowess in terms of "meaningful" work does not generate a whole lot of wealth. We have machines which can push, pull, and crush far more weight than the strongest man in the world.

The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right. The free-market is always right.

An Indian economist once remarked (I'm paraphrasing) that our prices will be wrong until we get our values right.

Perhaps inefficency can be immoral, but inefficienies often result from irrational values (one suspects amorality rather than immorality). A society that squanders resources building pyramids, cathedrals, or (in our case) weapons of mass destruction could have invested in saving the thousands of people who die daily from preventable diseases. Some say this is a form of statistical murder.