The problem is who gets to define what is "fair"?
I have similar qualms about an athlete who nets $46 million per year [1] for shooting balls into a basket. But, then, who am I to decide his "fair" pay? His club obviously thinks he's worth that…
I have similar qualms about an athlete who nets $46 million per year [1] for shooting balls into a basket. But, then, who am I to decide his "fair" pay? His club obviously thinks he's worth that…
Limits on compensation are ineffective at achieving their goals under the best of circumstances, and the inevitable "unintended" consequences of further government manipulation in the market place would likely have negative effects.
Taxation is not and will never be in a place that serves the commonwealth, rather it will always align with those closer to power.
Have you not been paying attention?
Did I say the feds should set the limit? Why can't a respectable board set respectable limits? Cause they don't give a fuck about anything except the stock price EVEN if it means that others suffer in their wake.
That's why. That's the side you're on. Miss me with that libertarian Thiel bullshit.
I think we, collectively, as humans well define some vague idea as to what's acceptable and what's not, because no matter how smart you are, the realities that humans in motion provide are a couple more orders of magnitude more complex than your SPA repo. And it should be.
Between more ticket sales, higher ticket prices, playoff tickets, more merch sales, and possibly better TV revenue, a player that good can absolutely be worth it.