Lebron James

I'm surprised a discussion on the matter hasn't begun already, and now I feel compelled to start the thread because I had a dream last night that I did just that. To momentarily leave the topic, I'm frightened to figure out what that says about my social life when my dreams now consist of (detailed) renditions of me posting on AR. I actually woke up this morning, logged on, and looked for replies to the thread..only to realize it was a dream! All of which raises the interesting question, how do I know this is not a dream?

Anyway.....

So here we have an 18 year old who has now, without ever having stepped foot on a NCAA or NBA basketball court, being paid 90 MILLION DOLLARS to, for lack of a better, but appropriate nonetheless term, "hawk" basketball shoes. Now, feel free to discuss how misplaced this may be on SOOOO many levels (or, even what is okay with it), but here is my take as a sports fan and participant in American consumer culture:

As much as I'd like to scream and rant about the inequities in our economy, I am an AVID free market proponent, and as such, can not. While I may not be able to philosophically decry his being awarded such an incomprehensible amount of dough on those grounds, I can point out what I believe to be a rather sad irony within this system, of which this situation is emblamatic. On a small level, the merits of his being awarded this cash are what concerns me. Bill Gates, in my opinion, can keep every red cent of his 40 billion and never give to charity as far as I'm concerned. His is a situation (in my limited economic understanding) in which the actions resulting in his financial rewards have contributed a "value added" to our society that likely correlates with, if not exceeds, the financial compensation our system has accorded him (as I'm certain his operating system has streamlined business and operations in so many ways...likely saving lives in the process if you think of its medical and/or military applications). The same, unfortunately, can not be said for Lebron - nice a fellow as he may very well be. And the true irony lies in the fact the perceived value added being thrust upon him is being done so by the very segment of our population that is most further disadvantaged by the fact that almost 100 million dollars has been taken out of the economy and put in the hands of an 18 year old: young black males.

This is what I find troubling (and I'm not a leftist cultural conspiracy nut) on so many levels. The very group that is in the most dire need of who knows what 90 million dollars might bring to public schools, midnite basketball leagues, boys and girls clubs, scholarships, etc, etc, is actively (and this is a broad stereotype, but one that proves readily apparent as you examine the situation candidly) doing the most to virtually insure that such funds are as misallocated as possible. Anyone care to disagree, expand, etc??? Lookign forward to hearing what you have to say.

It's all about potential. They give him the cash expecting that he's gonna be pretty much the next Jordan. And when he does, up go their product sales. Do you think kids would be buying Jordan stuff if he wasn't the best ?? They expect him to be the best, and they feel that in return their market sales will increase because they have them under his belt.

Someone like Nike doesn't need it. They already have tons of big name guys - Tiger Woods is their main one. As for Adidas, the only big name I can associate with them is the Yankees.

Only in America can a 18 year old become more wealthy than the president of our United States. The money that is spent to obtain and to keep athletes of Lebron's caliber does not come from the pockets of the our economy. We are not talking about tax dollars here, therefore the impact of such a reward does not impact the economy nearly as much as the tax deferments of our political leaders. I would agree that a situation such as this symbolizes the degree of priority that our society places on entertainment, however I don't feel that it is necessarily misplaced. You most certainly can't say that Lebron's acquisition is "value added", but on the same token you can't say that his compensation is detremental. Bill Gates is not only a software pioneer, but he is also a monpolistic capitalist. While I concur with capitalism, I think that the approach that Mr. Gates has taken in his business ventures has been monopolistic and certainly detremental to the computing market.

Lebron James is an investment. The amount of money paid will defintely be accounted for in the increase in ticket sales due to a probable wining season. The same goes for any team that make major investments in star athletes. After the Falcons acquired Michael Vick tickets sales increased. The results of such trends result in a slight boost to the entertainment market which in turn has a positive impact on consumer confidence. So in conclusion I would say that such expenses can indeed be a boost for the economy. It proves that while we may be in a slump, we still like to be entertained. Its good for morale.

On another note, I am damn jealous!:D

you guys write to much in your threads

athletes are an entirely different breed when it comes to contribution to society and their fiscal rewards.

would my life change if every pro athlete's salary was docked to a level that is in accordance with the status quo? of course not, and yours most likely wouldn't either.

entertainment is an interesting industry since no rules or equity is applied to anyone, and your pay directly reflects your perceived value in the industry you hail from. actors are paid assloads of money to drive expensive cars in chase scenes, fire mock assault weapons, and be badasses without ever having to worry about real world repercussions.

major league baseball players have 2 hours and 45 minutes of downtime during a 3 hour game and occasionally have to run further than first base when not picking dandelions in the field. yet they have carried out strikes because they are not getting paid enough to stand around. on a capitalistic level, this is no different than UPS workers striking. both are noteworthy professions, however the baseball player is a rarer commodity in the scheme of things and teams are willing to retain players any way possible because of the revenue they generate.

On to Lebron...No 18 year old should be inking a 90 million dollar deal for endorsement until he has proven himself on the NBA court for at least a few games...of course if Nike didn't grab him Adidas or RBK would have given their left nut to swoop him up with equally enticing contracts.

as a proponent of the free-market system (for the same reasons BG spelled out above) and a believer that inequality will always exist in the US, this is just another example of an individual reaping the benefits of a profession that society idolizes.

Great points all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyMastur
As for Adidas, the only big name I can associate with them is the Yankees.

---

I believe Kobe Bryant has his own Addidas shoe. Definetly not as big as Jordan w/ Nike and Iverson w/ Reebok.

All very good points, gotta agree with you BG.. funny how the world turns these days..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wrstlr69sdnl
you guys write to much in your threads

---

haha...no shit

to whoever wrote that this 90 million dollars effects the economy in a negative way i tend to differ on this. that is just another expense that the company has and it is putting 90 million dollars back into the economy. you have to figure a huge house will be bought for him his family and probably friends about 50 cars will soon be bought with that money and that includes paying off the hummer he got in high school and the navigator he bought for Marice Clarett. and the 1000's he will spend on some "bling-bling" ( which by the way is now a word in the new dictionary's) so all this money will be probably wasted unless he has a good financial advisor, but it will all be wasted buying products here in the UNited States more than likely there for Nike is actually doing its part to help the economy.
JLI

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jleighty17
to whoever wrote that this 90 million dollars effects the economy in a negative way i tend to differ on this. JLI

---

I don't think the issue at hand is so much the fact that ninety million has been taken out of the economy altogether (if I'm not mistaken, the only way that can technically happen is policy change or increased wages without a correlative increase in productivity...but again, i know very little about econ). I think, rather, that the issue is one of equitable distribution, and this being emblematic of that distribution equity which tends to plague our economy for right or wrong. I, for one, find it more than a little alarming that this company can send 90 mill one KID'S way, yet pay the equivalent of 45 cents a day to those who produce its product (to say nothing of the fact that labor organizers in "their" factories have reportedly been locked in storage areas for upwards of a week while being interrogated by armed guards).

We've all heard the attacks on Nike, likely take them to heart, yet almost all own a pair of their shoes (as do I)...I don't want this to be another regurgitation of that so much as I want to raise the point that ninety million will be going towards Jaguars, Hummers, McMansions, and other various assortments of "bling-bling" (further diverting that 90 million towards an already wealthy segment of the population that might otherwise be used for viable social programs (or at least a portion of it)....with the irony being that those denied access to most of our nation's wealth are the very individuals who create and allow for the reification of Lebron James as a commodity. Now I think Nike should be allowed to do just that, and in no way should they be forced to comply with any social justice programs...that would be disgusting governmental practice. However, if certain segments of our population (and I am certainly guilty of this and a member of one of these segments...hell, we all are in some way) put more value on a company's social programs as opposed to what 18 year old wears their shoes (and purchased products and shoes on those merits), perhaps Nike, et al, might be compelled to invest further in such programs.

I interrogate this particular situation only because it seems so blatantly emblematic of the consumer culture problem, not because I have a problem with James...from my point of view, this is an indictment of our fan culture as opposed to an indictment of Nike or an 18 year old being given 90 mill (though there are certainly problems of varying aspects in that).

so you think that nike should pay thier everyday workers more money even though they are a dime a dozen and do nothign to increase profits while a rare human ie. Lebron should just say thats ok i dont want my money just give it to people i dont know just because its the right thing to do.

its supply and demand bro there is a limited supply of Lebron's and Kobe's and other top athletes that are marketable. they are just paying the equilibrium point for them.

i mean i love our economic system and where else can you have the potential to be so wealthy. but i agree it is retarded how some things work but it all is business. and lebron was a good investment.

thanks for the dicussion i enjoy listening to well educated people debate on a subject
JLI

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jleighty17
so you think that nike should pay thier everyday workers more money even though they are a dime a dozen and do nothign to increase profits while a rare human ie. Lebron should just say thats ok i dont want my money just give it to people i dont know just because its the right thing to do.

its supply and demand bro there is a limited supply of Lebron's and Kobe's and other top athletes that are marketable. they are just paying the equilibrium point for them.

i mean i love our economic system and where else can you have the potential to be so wealthy. but i agree it is retarded how some things work but it all is business. and lebron was a good investment.

thanks for the dicussion i enjoy listening to well educated people debate on a subject
JLI

---

I, too, enjoy these types of debates. That being said, with regard to "so you think that nike should pay thier everyday workers more money even though they are a dime a dozen and do nothign to increase profits while a rare human ie. Lebron should just say thats ok i dont want my money", I do think that to some degree, perhaps a very large degree. Guys who can fellate themselves, people who can drop obscene amounts of drugs and live to tell about, as well as people who TRULY, TRULY loathe jewish people are also very rare people, but none deserve any astronomical compensation for it (well, maybe the guy who can orally pleasure himself). As such, rarity does not, nor should it, correlate with earnings. A simplified rebuttal, to be sure, but I think it (simplisticly) makes my point. Additionally, these people do a great deal to increase profits. Profits would undoubtedly plummet if they actually secured a living wage or demanded something more than a .0002% (and I'm making up this number in a most marxist manner) "ownership" in the product they help to make. And again, I can't stress this enough: I by NO MEANS expect Lebron to say, "alrighty, this is too damn much cash, get me a list of deserving charities." Not at 18 and maybe not ever. Hell, if I had 90 mill right now, I'd like to say I would give a good chunk to charity (I do already give 50% of my work study check every week)...but then, having that kinda cash can justifiably blind you. My problem lies with the fact that we as a culture are so blinded to what is truly important (a subjective term indeed) that the manner in which we allocate our belief system quantitatively (spending) demonstrates that we care more about a round ball going into a hoop than we do about workforce inequities on a global scale...but it's all good.

The remainder of your economic analysis is really spot on. It is the economy we live in and it happens to be, imo, the best one going. In fact, I find it hard to believe we'll ever surpass it (unless socialism actually worked...but it NEVER will). If my point could be summarized succinctly, which I probably should have done from the start of this post, but failed to, it would be this: I don't believe corporations such as Nike are evil and "must go" so much as I believe that, in our current incarnation of capitalism, large corporations and consumer culture serve as the single most accurate reflection of who we are. It exposes our faults, our shortcomings and our willingess to ignore what we purport to be central values. And, in this instance, we are forced to face a most disconcerting image in this "mirror".

well bro i applaud you on donating so much of your money to charity's but i will never donate that much. first of all everyone that works for the charities gets paid so a percentage of your donation is skimmed right off the top and if you have a bad person in charge they can steal however much more they can.
and secondly i would rather give that money to my family and friends that need the money i am not saying charities are bad but i would rather just give money to people on the streets to their face than too go through a charity fund yeah you cant write it off on taxes or anything but you shouldnt be donating for that reason anyway.

and i still disagree with you on him not derserving it maybe not lebron persee' but top athletes should get paid the highest wage that someone is willing to pay. personally i would rather see an athelete getting millions coming from a lower income family and background than for a wealthy person who doesnt need the money as bad taking all the extra money for them selves.
but this my opinion and i respect yours
JLI

18 year old Lebron - 90 million
13 year old Freddy Adu - 1 million
And now Reebok has signed 3 year old, and no that's not a typo Mark Walker I dk the amount but apparently there is some video of the kid shooting 18-18 on an 8ft rim.

I used to get pissed off when I would see these athletes get these outrageous sums of money, but now I'm all for it. Nike is going to make a lot more than 90 million off of Lebron, so he should get as much as he can. If I had that type of talent and was that marketable I would get as much as I could, better the money goes to the individual than the company IMO. Take Adu for example say tommorow he tears every ligament in his knee and can never play again, Nike will do nothing but kick his ass to the curb when they realize he's of no value to them. Bottom line these kids are being used so they should be as greedy as possible.

As for this three year old that's not only apalling on Reeboks part, but his parents as well. I'd say it's a safe bet that he ends up like these child actors who end up getting used by their parents only to get all their money stolen.

oh yeah i bet his parents get a nice house out of the deal and his parents will try and force him to practice all the time and shit makes me sick to even think about it.
JLI

This is yet another great post by big green. You amaze me at your intellect and your verbage.

Being a firefighter and a strong union brother of the IAFF, I cannot and will not back any management view when it comes to wages. That is the very crux of a union, ie., MLBPA, NBA, NFL, or any local labor union. Do I think that it is disgusting and obscene that Alex Rodriguez has a $250 million dollar contract, yes. or Lebron James, or for that matter, is Jim Carrey or Tom Cruise worth $20 million per movie? In essence, no. However, in my opinion any person, in any profession should make as much money as someone is willing to pay. If my city manager said, we are going to pay you $1 million a year, would I turn it down and say, umm, take $950,000 and put it charity? No, I wouldnt and I would be hard pressed to find someone who would. So who is to blame for the exorbant prices? I beleive that we as consumers are. Who pays $150 for sneakers, we do. Who pays $200 for a family to take in a ball game, we do. Who pays $8.00 for a 90 min movie, we do. As long as we are willing to subsidize the salaries of professionals, then we are to blame. I grew up in Boca Raton, Fla, but my father has been a bulldozer operator for 30 plus years, and I had to watch as the rich kids got all the toys and the fancy jeans, and fancy sneakers. As an father, I pay the $200 it takes to get my family into a ball game because it is a small price to pay for the smiles it puts on my children.

great thread!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RATM
So who is to blame for the exorbant prices? I beleive that we as consumers are. Who pays $150 for sneakers, we do. Who pays $200 for a family to take in a ball game, we do. Who pays $8.00 for a 90 min movie, we do. As long as we are willing to subsidize the salaries of professionals, then we are to blame.

---

I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of using the word "subsidize", as that completely and accurately typifies what it is we are doing (and what it is I struggled to get across in several paragraphs...while you've done it with a single word!).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyMastur
As for Adidas, the only big name I can associate with them is the Yankees.

---

I think Tracy McGrady is their biggest name in the NBA right now. Adidas is big in the international market (Anna Kournikova, Sergio Garcia, World Cup).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigGreen


I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of using the word "subsidize", as that completely and accurately typifies what it is we are doing (and what it is I struggled to get across in several paragraphs...while you've done it with a single word!).

---

I concur to a large degree with this. The thing that's amusing about these professional athletes' high wages is that we are the reason they get paid such outrageous amounts. Business is business, and I may be an engineer, but one thing I know about business is that people are not in the business of losing money. Earlier it was stated that Nike will probably make their $90M back in the first few weeks of James' shoe release, which is an exhaggeration, but not far from the truth. The fact of the matter is that Nike performed an economic analysis on the potential future revenue benefit of having a young superstar on the payroll, and came up with a number which they could offer him and still make money as a result. If Nike thought they would make less than $90M off this deal, it wouldn't have happened; in fact, I'm sure it's quite to the contrary. I think it would be nearly impossible to make an assessment of Nike's actual dollar potential off this deal, because I don't think any of us *really* know how much each of their shoes cost to make, or what their overhead is. At the end of the day, however, Nike is going to make fat cash off of this deal, despite the potential perception that they are blowing uncanny amounts of money on James. Obviously, if James doesn't bring his game, Nike stands to take a loss. But that's a risk they have to be willing to take.

I am a staunch conservative capitalist pig! Therefore I applaud Nike for there ventures! If consumers don't like it then don't support it. I see nothing wrong with an athlete making $90M on an endorsement deal. At least they have a reason for getting paid that amount. People bitch and moan about how these guys don't deserve there salaries, yet when a lottery winner banks $100M nobody says anything! I would rather see a person get paid for there talent rather than get paid strictly out of luck!

Y'all should read this; it's a great article about James' newfound $$$.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ins...27/rushin0602/