Why would you be mad that a CEO makes $3 million a year but not mad pro athletes & actors make more? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Why would you be mad that a CEO makes $3 million a year but not mad pro athletes & actors make more?
in Philosophy

I'm interested in why the same people who are angry that CEOs make millions aren't mad that athletes and actors make millions.
joecavalry



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • I definitely support your opinion here and I am definitely not mad whatsoever. Honestly, athletes should not be paid that much because they train and they go on TV so people can watch them play a sport. However, actors should be paid that much because they actually have to deal with a lot of stuff and they really have to get into character and if they do it well then I think that they deserve that money. CEO's, however, do most of their work for a good cause so I see no reason to be mad for that. 
  • NopeNope 322 Pts
    averyapro Athletes have to train a lot and go from places to place often. They deal with stuff to. A normal athlete trains 5-6 hours for six days. The pressure they deal with of trying to when or be a good player so they don't get kicked of their team is pretty large. Many teams go from one place to another to play other teams. I don't see why you would think actors should get paid more then athletes. I think teachers should get paid more.
    PogueSlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • Nope said:
    averyapro Athletes have to train a lot and go from places to place often. They deal with stuff to. A normal athlete trains 5-6 hours for six days. The pressure they deal with of trying to when or be a good player so they don't get kicked of their team is pretty large. Many teams go from one place to another to play other teams. I don't see why you would think actors should get paid more then athletes. I think teachers should get paid more.
    In short, each job comes with its own successes and challenges. I would agree that an actor should be possibly paid more than an athlete because of the persona they have to put on for the sake of a movie. In terms of both, however, perhaps the WWE has a mix of good acting and athleticism that comes with the job title. Finally, I just have a question for Nope, you said that teachers should get paid more, which ones: high school teachers, college professors, special needs teachers, professionals, etc.?
    SlanderIsNotDebate1995
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 


  • A CEO's influence over the entire organisation can be viewed as marginal. They don't produce the commodities the business creates and often the decisions they make are simply affirming the conclusions of people lower down the chain. While some might be more influential, ultimately their influence is nebulous. If the CEO has a year long holiday, is there much difference or does everyone just carry on as before?

    On the other hand a sportsperson or actor can deliver entertainment to millions of people and the service is directly related to their efforts. How entertaining is a boxing match with no boxers?
    PogueSlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • VaulkVaulk 440 Pts
    edited February 2
    Anyone's influence over an entire organization can be viewed as marginal, whether or not it's factually marginal is the vastly more important than an opinion on the matter.  The CEO of an organization is the highest ranking Leader of the organization and provides direction while holding the ultimate responsibility of the success of the organization as a whole.  Saying that a CEO's influence over an organization is marginal is like saying that the President of the United States' influence over America is Marginal.  Highest ranking member with ultimate responsibility who provides direction for an organization.  The U.S. is an organization, the President is the highest ranking member of the organization and he does in fact hold ultimate responsibility for the direction of this organization.

    Leadership is largely misunderstood as being synonymous with "Being in charge" when that's simply not the case.  One does not need to be in charge of anything in order to lead, one doesn't need any authority at all as a matter of fact.  Being a boss does not make you a leader and vice a versa.  

    Leadership is hands down the most critical skill in an organization.  Without leadership, you have no organization, no direction, no goals, and overall no success.  In my opinion, the reason why people generally hold such disdain for CEOs and other leadership roles in organizations is because seldom do people have any understanding of exactly what leadership is and more importantly...how to obtain the skill set.  It's simple to quantify a football player's skill set, they practice a majority of their life by physically training and exercising in ways that compliment the game they specialize in.  Now try to quantify a CEO's skill set.  For that matter, try to explain leadership.

    The simple fact is that Leaders are always needed, anyone who can read and write can follow menial tasks and basic instructions...but Leaders shape the world we live in.  Take the coaches out of football and you've got a bunch of unskilled athletes, take the NFL CEOs out of the game and you've got no game coverage, funding or organized competition.  Take the Director out of the movie and the actors stand around wondering what's going on.  Take the CEO out of the company and no one is ultimately responsible for the direction of the company and decisions regarding the company's future will come to a halt.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • The CEO directly employs and leads a whole workforce, the professional athlete does not.  Your true comparison would be why would we take issue with a CEO making millions but not with a sports team owner making millions?  And then even in that scenario you're not going to see any outrage, because the sports team owner actually DOES pay its most important players well and have a vested interest in the success of the team as a whole.
    Vaulkagsr
  • The reason why athletes are paid so much is actually simple - they need to be able to pay for medical bills when they suffer an injury. Try playing an NHL season without a million-dollar contract. Also, numerous footballers have lost their lives to cardiac arrest as recent as November 2017. Another point is that association football is dominated by a particular country ravaged by poverty called Brazil. These types of athletes are born in an environment where money is tight and sports serves as an exit out of that. It makes you really question whether or not athletes really are overpaid.
    PogueSlanderIsNotDebate1995agsr
  • People should not be mad at CEOs, because they may employ people unlike some athletes.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • Is it possible to be upset with all? I actually believe businessmen are more likely to have to truly prove themselves to get where they are, but not always, as plenty come from family inheritance and such or by cheating the market, etc. Then comes actors and actresses which, yes, they do in fact often get payed WAY too much. I think sports stars even MORE so as at least with music or acting, that requires a sort of schooling and such often. Where as, in sports, a lot relies on physical aspects of luck. Should we not be a bit upset at them all? They do in the end, intertwine with each other anyway. If people too, rise up and agree, all together, that too few make too much, and refuse to give in until it's solved, it would send a ripple effect. Not maybe too much, but at least a bit. And that bit, surely, is better than nothing. 
  • @LibertineStates Wow. Really good argument. I didn't think about that factor too much. Really good job!
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 123 Pts
    The income people receive on the free market is dictated by the conditions of that market. In a way, the market is always right, it is always what it is - hence being mad at anyone for receiving too high or too low income is not reasonable.

    Some people, however, are not in favor of the free market, and they have their own scale of how much income a given person "deserves". People with more socialist views tend to exhibit this behavior. In their case, you can only learn why they have a certain scale by talking to them; there is no universal guideline, and different people will have different scales.

    From my perspective, as someone who has seen the insides of successful business companies and been present at CEO meetings, let me just say that many people do not realize just how much CEOs have to know and do. Knowing the intricacies of the market and the economy to be able to get the most out of them is hard enough. Add to that the need to maintain hundreds contacts, to negotiate difficult deals with millions dollars at stake, the need to control the work flow of the entire company (let alone international corporation), the need to make sure the top managers are doing what they are supposed to do, the need to constantly make company-wide speeches to be seen as a good leader and get positive publicity... And most importantly - how much you and everyone else stands to lose if you fail your company.

    Some people just assume that because CEOs are very rich, their lives are easy. They should realize that the richer one is, the more responsibility they have, and the more they stand to lose if something goes wrong. A person with a $2,000 car crashing it loses much less than a person with a $200,000 car crashing it, and a person who lives a regular life takes much fewer risks than a person holding a fortune of dozens people in their hands, including their own. 

    If you look deep enough, you will see that people on top of, pretty much, any profession have very challenging and emotionally taxing jobs. Whether you are a carpenter or a king, if you are one of the best in your class, then you have to endure the degree of competition few people can even imagine.
  • People should not be mad at CEOs, because they may employ people unlike some athletes.
    They should be mad at the CEO of the Clinton Foundation...

    ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch