Skip

Compare Football and Surgery Salaries
January 31, 2007 2:49 PM   Subscribe

Pro Football Salaries vs Surgeon Salaries Not to be a wet blanket during Super Bowl week, but it strikes me a little odd that surgeons make about 2 percent of what the top football players earn.
posted by CameraObscura (86 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Who cares? Do you want a law setting salary caps for pro football salaries, commie?

Well, I'm pretty much a commie and I think that this is a very minor problem with capitalism compared to a lot of shit to goes unchecked.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:52 PM on January 31, 2007


How many unassisted open-field tackles did Dr. Rosenberg have this season?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:52 PM on January 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


The skills necessary to be a top football player are far more difficult to attain than those of a surgeon. The market rewards those skills accordingly. Kinda how this whole system works.
posted by JPowers at 2:53 PM on January 31, 2007


Pro football players kill fewer patients.
posted by null terminated at 2:56 PM on January 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


I don't think it's fair to compare unless you also compare the average length of their careers.
posted by mullingitover at 2:56 PM on January 31, 2007


Football players entertain many more people.

It's not like basketball is an amazing skill set. But, lots of people love to watch it, and advertisers want their money.
posted by four panels at 2:56 PM on January 31, 2007


Look, buddy, football players have to undergo years and years of intense, competitive schooling and training; they work grueling hours, are called on to be cool and competent in the literally visceral midst of terrible daily human tragedy—and one may well save your life some day.

Oh, hell, I've got my cue cards all scrambled up again. Can I try that ag—
posted by cortex at 3:00 PM on January 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


What if we made a special income tax for sports stars? Would that help reduce the national debt?
posted by b1tr0t at 3:02 PM on January 31, 2007


There are 1472 professional football players in the US (46 players x 32 teams). There are about 20,000 practicing general surgeons in the US.
posted by muddgirl at 3:02 PM on January 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


There's not so much betting on the outcome of the surgeons' work is there? Except the figurative kind of course. And I guess they don't sell so much advertising.
posted by Coaticass at 3:03 PM on January 31, 2007


waa waa teachers and garbage men should all get a billion dollars waa waa
posted by Falconetti at 3:03 PM on January 31, 2007


I'm going to have to agree with the OP. Surgeons are overpaid.
posted by found missing at 3:04 PM on January 31, 2007


JPowers, I think you are dead wrong. The skill set to be a Pro Football player is not the issue, and they spend a lot less time training for their careers than surgeons. Having the right body type, and being able to survive injury are. Also, you have to be on the top of a pyramid to make any money in sports. The salaries reflect the real risk of wasting a lot of your life to make no money and/or get a crippling injury that addicts you to painkillers.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:05 PM on January 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


There's also the issue of longevity for sports-people. (If only that argument worked for ballet dancers! Yeah, right.)
posted by Coaticass at 3:06 PM on January 31, 2007


What about beloved porn stars? They entertain millions and have a short shelf-life, perhaps we should up their salary above football players and surgeons?
posted by CameraObscura at 3:08 PM on January 31, 2007


football players are more fun to watch
posted by caddis at 3:08 PM on January 31, 2007


red herring... if you want to bitch about something, start with CEO salaries and let's get upset that neither the top earning football players or the top earning surgeons (or the CEOs ) pay Social Security taxes on all of their income.

While we're at it, how about them nurses that actually do the work in the hospital?
posted by twjordan at 3:12 PM on January 31, 2007


Well, CameraObscura, this should blow your mind even more: Doctors pay the sports team for the privilege to treat the athletes. Apparently, as much as $1.5 million.
posted by krippledkonscious at 3:16 PM on January 31, 2007


Pornography.
posted by Eideteker at 3:18 PM on January 31, 2007


we should up their salary

"We"? You say that as if there's some "we" who decides peoples' salaries.
posted by matthewr at 3:19 PM on January 31, 2007


There are 1472 professional football players in the US (46 players x 32 teams). There are about 20,000 practicing general surgeons in the US.

Exactly. This is where all these "OMG athletes get paid too much!!11!!1!" things fall apart.

The top 1472 surgeons probably do a lot better than the average football player. And yeah it sucks that teachers don't get paid more. But compare athletes to the top 1472 people in the field of education (university presidents, government officials, etc), and I bet the disparity gets a whole lot less.

Also, it might be more informative to look at lifetime earnings. 10 years is an extraordinarily long career for an american football player. Contracts are not guaranteed and career-ending injuries are not exactly rare.
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:24 PM on January 31, 2007


And last but not least:

all the pro sports teams are owned by guys who are rich enough to sign the checks for all these guys and still make a profit. Why not pick on them?
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:26 PM on January 31, 2007


I hate this whole argument.

Football franchises fill massive stadiums, sell piles of merchandise, and sign ludicrously profitable television deals. This money is, of course, completely unrelated to their operating expenses. Like any other business, they have a team of experts who set their prices and build their business plan to make the most possible money.

And seeing as how the football players are the ones actually earning every penny of that money, and seeing as how they're sacrificing their bodies and cutting their lifespans in half for their employers, employers who don't pay them a pension, offer them no long-term health care and have negotiated themselves the right to immediately stop paying any employee who they decide is no longer worth his salary? I am pretty OK with a decent slice of those profits actually going to them.

There are a lot of people in this world who are getting more than they deserve, but football players are not among their ranks.
posted by Simon! at 3:27 PM on January 31, 2007


"We"? You say that as if there's some "we" who decides peoples' salaries.
posted by matthewr


I don't mean "we" in the literal sense, but in the proverbial sense. I would think that would be obvious, but will be sure in the future include an *astrerisk to all those posters who play lawyer ball.
posted by CameraObscura at 3:28 PM on January 31, 2007


We need really rich people to fund scientific laboratories instead of sports teams - labs already compete against each other, maybe televise peer review or something.

For that matter, for that kind of money, I wouldn't mind having a camera crew film me discovering the secrets of biology posting on Metafilter.
posted by porpoise at 3:31 PM on January 31, 2007


And seeing as how the football players are the ones actually earning every penny of that money, and seeing as how they're sacrificing their bodies and cutting their lifespans in half for their employers, employers who don't pay them a pension, offer them no long-term health care and have negotiated themselves the right to immediately stop paying any employee who they decide is no longer worth his salary? I am pretty OK with a decent slice of those profits actually going to them.

There are a lot of people in this world who are getting more than they deserve, but football players are not among their ranks.


Exactly correct, although I believe technically there is such a thing as an NFL pension.

These things tend to be misdirected blue collar anger at its worst. The players are working men too, working men who happen to be extraordinarily good at what they do and are paid accordingly.

The fact that the players are famous and on TV (and their salaries are public knowledge) makes it easy for the owners and other bigwigs to direct public anger onto them, and away from the owners themselves where it belongs. (assuming this kind of anger belongs anywhere)
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:34 PM on January 31, 2007


I don't mean "we" in the literal sense, but in the proverbial sense.

There was a serious point there, though. In a market economy, there's no "we" who decides anybody's salary — rather, salaries are determined by supply and demand. Even if "we" all decided that surgeons should be paid more, how would "we" go about making it so?

Also...
The "proverbial" sense? I can't think of any proverbs about this, off the top of my head, so do you mean "metaphorical" or something similar?
posted by matthewr at 3:34 PM on January 31, 2007


Football players also wear cooler uniforms and get laid more than surgeons, too. Life's a bitch, deal with it.
posted by jonmc at 3:35 PM on January 31, 2007


There are a lot of people in this world who are getting more than they deserve, but football players are not among their ranks.

Hahahaha good one. I may be a pessimist but I see our country as Rome before the fall.

Fast food/Entertainment (football, movies, tv) are destroying us, numbly.

We pay for gastric bypass surgery while children starve. But those poor football players, yeah.
posted by bkiddo at 3:39 PM on January 31, 2007


In a market economy, there's no "we" who

if only we-the-people could create & operate extra-market social institutions to institute economic regulations and enforcement thereof.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:41 PM on January 31, 2007


There was a serious point there, though. In a market economy, there's no "we" who decides anybody's salary — rather, salaries are determined by supply and demand. Even if "we" all decided that surgeons should be paid more, how would "we" go about making it so?

posted by matthewr


Matthew, I'd love to do a long involved thread on semantics will lead to the origin of language, and ultimately to the beginning of life itself, but I wasted too many years in AOL chatrooms doing that.

As some wise soul once said, arguing on the internet is like winning in the special olympics*." I include an asterisk* to relieve me of all responsiblity for any misquote, semantics or misapplication.
posted by CameraObscura at 3:42 PM on January 31, 2007


Pro football salaries come from the money that is the entertainment value of modern pro sports. The owners (capital), players (labor), and taxmen (government) get to divvy it up.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:43 PM on January 31, 2007


I include an asterisk* to relieve me of all responsiblity for any misquote, semantics or misapplication.

But not culpability for making retard jokes?
posted by cortex at 3:45 PM on January 31, 2007


There is a market solution to this inequity. We all just need to stop watching pro football and scheduling more surgery.
posted by found missing at 3:47 PM on January 31, 2007


Simon! writes "...employers who don't pay them a pension, offer them no long-term health care..."

Retirement benefits are part of the CBA between the NFL and the NFLPA.
posted by mullacc at 3:47 PM on January 31, 2007


Shit. Wait until this guy finds out how much teachers get paid.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:47 PM on January 31, 2007


This has nothing to do with semantics, even slightly. You said "perhaps we should up their salary", and I said that that statement makes no sense. There's no such "we", and even if there was, "we" wouldn't be able to up their salary, since it's determined by the market — stop watching football games and footballers' salaries will decrease, but there's no other way. And government intervention to limit footballers' wages is pretty unjustifiable, economically and morally.
posted by matthewr at 3:49 PM on January 31, 2007


This is stupid.
posted by docpops at 3:52 PM on January 31, 2007


The problem with all these free market arguments is that they all ignore the obvious problem of misplaced values: knocking heads vs, performing lifesaving surgery*.

Obviously, the American people would rather watch grown men push a ball up and down a field than watch a cardiologist save a life*.

That's the choice of the American people, but let's not place that values-vacant choice on the altar as holy and beyond question*.

Yes, I'm painfully aware of what teachers make*.
posted by CameraObscura at 3:54 PM on January 31, 2007


There is a market solution to this inequity. We all just need to stop watching pro football and scheduling more surgery.

Or eat more nachos and beer. I heard those are bad for your heart.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:58 PM on January 31, 2007


CameraObscura writes "Obviously, the American people would rather watch grown men push a ball up and down a field than watch a cardiologist save a life*. "

Of course they would. Have you ever seen what we look like on the inside? It's disgusting!

Plus, those surgeries are booooooring.

Seriously, though. Is there some sort of cardiologist shortage I haven't heard about?
posted by mr_roboto at 3:58 PM on January 31, 2007


There is a market solution to this inequity. We all just need to stop watching pro football and scheduling more surgery.

Well, pro football players get injured an need a lot of surgery anyway, so I guess they're doing their part. But of course if surgeons got paid more the cost of medical care would go up and everybody would bitch about that, too. I figure I'll just shut up and watch the game. or ER.
posted by jonmc at 3:58 PM on January 31, 2007


Let me know when a surgeon can call an audible, scramble from a collapsing pocket and drop a 70 yard pass directly into the arms of a receiver running full-out without making him break stride, all while being watched by millio.... ARE YOU READY FOR SOME MOTHERFUCKING FOOTBALL??!??!?!?! HOW PSYCHED ARE YOU FOR SUNDAY?
posted by nathancaswell at 3:59 PM on January 31, 2007


GO uh... not the Bears, the other team!
posted by mr_roboto at 4:01 PM on January 31, 2007


Not to be a wet blanket during Super Bowl week, but it strikes me a little odd that surgeons make about 2 percent of what the top football players earn.

...

Matthew, I'd love to do a long involved thread on semantics will lead to the origin of language, and ultimately to the beginning of life itself, but I wasted too many years in AOL chatrooms doing that.

As some wise soul once said, arguing on the internet is like winning in the special olympics*." I include an asterisk* to relieve me of all responsiblity for any misquote, semantics or misapplication.


Then why did you post this?
posted by Pacheco at 4:02 PM on January 31, 2007


Obviously, more people (millions) would rather watch football than surgery.

Yes, but when surgery had the competitive element artificially removed it was always going to come a distant second in the TV stakes.
posted by vbfg at 4:05 PM on January 31, 2007


But not culpability for making retard jokes?
posted by cortex


That too. The asterisk* relieves me from everything, just like a George W. Bush Executive order*.
posted by CameraObscura at 4:05 PM on January 31, 2007


That's the choice of the American people, but let's not place that values-vacant choice on the altar as holy and beyond question.

Eh? I would say that the choices of the people, in a democracy, are pretty much all that matters, and inflicting your own particular distortionary moral code on the labour market is against the core "American" value of freedom.
posted by matthewr at 4:10 PM on January 31, 2007


*GO COLTS

You forgot your outragefilter tag.
posted by The God Complex at 4:12 PM on January 31, 2007


There are 1472 professional football players in the US (46 players x 32 teams). There are about 20,000 practicing general surgeons in the US.

There are only 147 full-time typewriter repairmen in the country. They should be clearing billions.
posted by QuietDesperation at 4:16 PM on January 31, 2007


In the animal world colts get paid more than bears. What are we to do?
posted by Frank Grimes at 4:19 PM on January 31, 2007


Well, QuietDesperation, typewriter repairmen are certainly in small supply, but unfortunately I doubt they're in high demand.
posted by muddgirl at 4:19 PM on January 31, 2007


Also don't forget that actors, employing little other skill than memorizing lines and faking emotions, portray surgeons on TV and make far more money than actual surgeons.

Personally, I paid good money for a flat-screen plasma HDTV and pay for HDTV cable to watch, mostly, sports (and some Discovery Channel). And whenever I go to the doctor, for some reason I want to pay him as little as possible. Judging by my monetary outlays, apparently I don't value my own health over my entertainment. I am ashamed about this, to a certain degree. But okay.
posted by krippledkonscious at 4:24 PM on January 31, 2007


If they applied the managed care model to football, salaries would be capped at about 150K. Also, football players would have to play 40 games a day, 15 minutes a game. They could get paged randomly in the middle of the night and have to go down to the stadium to play an additional game on no sleep. They could get sued for everything they own if they made a mistake during a game. They would start their season with $250K of educational debt. This is fun i could go on and on i'm not bitter or anything...
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 4:38 PM on January 31, 2007


Eh? I would say that the choices of the people, in a democracy, are pretty much all that matters, and inflicting your own particular distortionary moral code on the labour market is against the core "American" value of freedom.
posted by matthewr


Wow Matthew, that would have been a great defense for slavery or even child labor back in the day when the majority of American people were for it.
posted by CameraObscura at 4:42 PM on January 31, 2007


Let's compare the earnings of the owners of the football teams to the CEO's of the hospital corporations. That would be interesting.

Throw in some insurance company earnings while you're at it.

The obvious deal in the medical business is to be a dentist, and work for yourself. Doctors boned themselves when they agreed to be employees.
posted by dglynn at 4:50 PM on January 31, 2007


Oh for goodness' sake...

OK: democracy is pretty much all that matters as long as a minimal but sufficient set of human rights is respected.

Now, back to what we were actually talking about....
posted by matthewr at 4:56 PM on January 31, 2007


In memory of Molly Ivins, I'll bury the hatchet with MatthewR... today at least.
posted by CameraObscura at 5:16 PM on January 31, 2007


Include all professional football players in the equation, and I think this thesis is totally invalid.
posted by pokermonk at 5:21 PM on January 31, 2007


Also don't forget that actors, employing little other skill than memorizing lines and faking emotions, portray surgeons on TV and make far more money than actual surgeons.

Include all actors in the equation, and I think this thesis is totally invalid.
posted by pokermonk at 5:25 PM on January 31, 2007


Football players also wear cooler uniforms and get laid more than surgeons, too. Life's a bitch, deal with it.

Somehow I doubt surgeons are hurting in the sack department.
posted by delmoi at 5:48 PM on January 31, 2007


I think I read, like, 25 years ago that the average NFL career is four years. I'd be willing to bet it's less than that now: There are salary caps, guys are bigger, stronger, faster (and Jim Brown groused last fall, fatter), so there's reason to wonder if they'd wear out or get injured faster or otherwise be more likely to get replaced to make room in an overcrowded lifeboat of a team payroll.
posted by pax digita at 6:18 PM on January 31, 2007


"Obviously, the American people would rather watch grown men push a ball up and down a field than watch a cardiologist save a life*. "

i have to admit that the last surgery i attended, i fell right asleep and didn't wake up until it was over
posted by pyramid termite at 6:27 PM on January 31, 2007


Not to be a wet blanket during this super thread, but it strikes me a little odd that a single link to a blog, accompanied by editorialising by the OP, hasn't been deleted yet (SLBOE, GYOBFW).

OK, flagged & moving on.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:36 PM on January 31, 2007


Apart from that, and to be less snarky, there is no point in approaching this sort of issue in terms of which profession is more skilled, valuable or deserving, or whether the pay is equitable in terms of career length or injury & litigation risk.

It's pure supply & demand, with a strictly limited number of (top-rank) playing positions, which allows the top players to demand whatever the employers can afford to pay. In a mass-marketed sport like this, advertising revenue means that the clubs are loaded, and therefore the players can extort top salaries. That's just economics, no? And who ever said that the free market system was supposed to be equitable?
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:52 PM on January 31, 2007


the "athletes make too much money!" argument never makes any sense to me. the money's THERE! should the team owners just keep it?
posted by subclub at 7:59 PM on January 31, 2007


"Could the team owners just keep it?" is probably more the question.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:08 PM on January 31, 2007


In the depths of the Great Depression a reporter asked Babe Ruth why he should be paid more than President Hoover ($80,000 vs. $75,000). Ruth replied "I know, but I had a better year than Hoover."
posted by JackFlash at 8:19 PM on January 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Not to be a wet blanket, but I think it's disgusting that surgeons make a squijillion times more than nurses do.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:52 PM on January 31, 2007


Not to be a wet blanket during this super thread, but it strikes me a little odd that a single link to a blog, accompanied by editorialising by the OP, hasn't been deleted yet (SLBOE, GYOBFW).

OK, flagged & moving on.
posted by UbuRoivas


A Little Odd? Really? Funny, you didn't say the same thing about any of these other metafilter posts that only had ONE LINK:

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/58215
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/58220
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/58223
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/58230
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/58205
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/58199
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/58200
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/58201

Editorializing? I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to respond the numerous distortions about my post.
posted by CameraObscura at 11:38 PM on January 31, 2007


This has probably been said, but I'm not reading it all:

Surgeons can start complaining about their wages when they are as low as teachers and firefighters. There.
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 11:59 PM on January 31, 2007


Why are the individual salaries of the very top, highest paid quarterbacks being compared to the average salaries of the lower-paid subset of all surgeons (those who choose to work for a salary, rather than own their own practice)? As docpops says, this is ridiculous in so many ways. Why not include all quarterbacks, including Joe down the street who hosts a pickup game in his yard every Saturday? That brings down the average remuneration for quarterbacking quite a bit.

The top, busiest clinical surgeons can net 5 million a year, more if they own their own operating rooms and pay their own techs. They're not hurting. Heck, the chair of academic neurosurgery at a prominent institution I know makes $2 million a year, only has to operate 1 day a week, and his residents do all the hospital work on his patients and also open and close during the actual operation. This guy is a special guy, though, and I think he's every bit as unique and valuable to society as Matt Hasselbeck.

If you want to talk about injustice, you should compare average surgeon salaries to average psychiatrist or pediatrician salaries. The years of training aren't that different, the stakes (mental health and children's health, including fragile, quick-to-decompensate little babies) are just as high, and yet surgeons on average are paid nearly 5 times what their colleagues in peds and psych are paid.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:38 AM on February 1, 2007


This debate is as old as professional sports, and it confuses me. Why does it confuse me? Because people get all up in arms about A-Rod making $27 million a year, but no-one gets indignant about, say, Oprah taking home $225 million in 2006. And ditto what other people upthread have said about no-one getting upset by what sports team owners are raking in.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:17 AM on February 1, 2007


You're contrasting perfect oranges with average apples, CameraObscura. This article, from today's New York Times, sheds some light on how the average orange lives once the juice has been squeezed out of him. Apples tend to land without much of a bruise at all.
posted by breezeway at 6:31 AM on February 1, 2007


Here's a little-known fact: the economy is not zero-sum. The fact that person X gets rich does not mean person Y gets poor. Once you understand this, a lot of the sulphurous bile you feel over capitalism drifts away. If you understand it but the bile still stings, you are merely jealous of the success of others, and should grow up.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 6:57 AM on February 1, 2007


stockbrokers make 10x more than teachers yet what do they contribute to society? Capitalism is a celebration of base instincts and a denigration of enlightenment. I thought that was well understood.
posted by any major dude at 7:30 AM on February 1, 2007


any major dude, who is harmed by stockbrokers' high salaries?
posted by matthewr at 7:45 AM on February 1, 2007


The now-broken stocks, for one. Poor little sumbitches.
posted by cortex at 7:50 AM on February 1, 2007


considering that historically it's been proven that you get a better return by investing in mutal fund that indexes the s&p 500 than paying a stockbroker to invest for you I'd say their value is a net negative and the world would probably be a better place tomorrow if they all found other more enlightened professions. Now if you get rid of all the teachers tomorrow...
posted by any major dude at 7:58 AM on February 1, 2007


The FPP was about salaries. The only possible justification for capping stockbrokers' salaries is envy, since no-one is made better off by stockbrokers being paid less. I don't think the state should go around intervening in markets purely on the basis of peoples' envy.
posted by matthewr at 8:55 AM on February 1, 2007


I always tip my surgeon if he performs well. Just my little way of trying to even things out.
I'm also not against bringing the boo birds out if he accidently leaves an instrument or two inside me. Fair's fair.
posted by Crash at 10:43 AM on February 1, 2007


A Little Odd? Really? Funny, you didn't say the same thing about any of these other metafilter posts that only had ONE LINK:

It's not that it's a one-link post. There are plenty of those around here, as you point out. It's that it is a one-link post to some guy's blog, which is not usually well regarded as making for a quality post. It probably depends on the blogger & their expertise or interesting angle on things.

In this case, "Dr Salary" compares the top 5 American footballers, in terms of their earnings, with stats on what various kinds of surgeons can expect to earn. While it makes for a reasonable sports bar debate, I don't feel that the blogger adds any interesting analysis or perspective - in other words, he does nothing other than tell us what we already know, and it's also a discussion that I'm sure we've all heard before.

Editorializing? I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to respond the numerous distortions about my post.

Oh, no - of course you discuss your own post. The editorialising is in the it strikes me a little odd that surgeons make about 2 percent of what the top football players earn. This turns the post into "here is some guy comparing footballers' and surgeons' salaries & here is what I think of it. Discuss!"

Anyway, if the people like it & the mods like it, who am I to express my surprise?

posted by UbuRoivas at 1:57 PM on February 1, 2007


he does nothing other than tell us what we already know, and it's also a discussion that I'm sure we've all heard before.

We've all KNOW that an Atlanta Falcon's Quarterback make 98 percent more than an Atlanta cardiothorasic surgeon?

Really? Since when?

Interesting, well, it's nowhere in metafilter search, nor is it anywhere in Google search, nor is it anywhere in Yahoo search. I guess the collective "we" have just been have been holding back all this time.

I fully expect a star player to make more than a surgeon, but 98 percent more? I think most people (not infected by know-it-all-ism) would be shocked by that number.
posted by CameraObscura at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2007


CameraObscura writes "I fully expect a star player to make more than a surgeon, but 98 percent more?"

A little less than twice as much? That's actually a lot less than I would have expected. Surgeons are well-paid in Atlanta!
posted by mr_roboto at 4:17 PM on February 1, 2007


MATH BURN
posted by cortex at 4:37 PM on February 1, 2007


Oh come on, CameraObscura. There's no need to get precious just because I criticised the post.

Of course pretty much nobody knows the *exact* comparison between one particular Atlanta player vs one particular medical speciality in that city. Hell, I've never even heard of the Falcons, and I couldn't give a flying fuck about a sissy sport where everybody wears helmets & padding, and gets to sit out half the game as part of a team of around 200.

But that's beside the point. Even with this near-total lack of knowledge & caring, and even from my position on the other side of the Pacific, I already know that your top sports stars get paid way more than top doctors. It's exactly the same here, as it is for soccer stars in Europe, and, like I said, it's something that everybody knows. It's been like that for a very long time.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:49 PM on February 1, 2007


« Older Clean as a Whistle. Sharp as a Tack   |   Thief took towels Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post