Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
You're glossing over the fact that they chose this life.
In this case, the sport doesn't make money. I think everyone here would agree that if Womens Hockey was as popular as Womens Tennis and was raking in cash that the women should be compensated as such. When their sole argument is "We don't make enough, look at how much they're spending on the boys!" and ignoring (or at least choosing not to address) all of the other factors that come into play, people are going to call them on their arguments.
People dismiss the complaints of high level athletes because they're not contributing much to society and no one feels sympathy for people choosing to live a life in sports over a more sustainable career. When you choose to focus your life around a game or art, be it Chess, Hockey, Soccer, Curling or Canadian Aussie Rules Football, you better be prepared for the reality of that choice. The reality that 99% of people will never be able to make a living doing just that. The "Pinnacle of my sport" "lifes work" argument doesn't hold water if there is no demand to watch your sport. Again, these people contribute nothing to society besides entertainment. If no one wants to watch you then you're S.O.L.
Frankly most athletes are extremely lucky to get any support at all. There's only a handful of sports that generate any real money.
|
Polak lecturing on the art of contributing to society and
not-complaining about the life you've chosen.
Alright, I've seen it all.
They've simply said: We're not going to be a part of this life anymore if this doesn't change. If they truly aren't valued, nothing will change and someone else will take their place, if they're right and they are valued, U.S. Hockey will make a change.
I still don't see how you see an issue in it.