(Name)

(Instructors’ name)

(Course)

(Date)

Are Actors and Athletes Paid Too Much?

The issue of payment for actors and athletes has generated plenty of debate especially within academic circles. While proposers believe that actors and athletes are paid too much for their actual work, opposers believe that these people are not paid as much as everyone believes and whatever they earn is worth the amount of work they do.

This paper argues against the notion that actors and athletes are paid too much. The paper argues this out from two main perspectives market value and talent and will explain that actors and athletes are paid just enough.

Actors and Athletes are not Paid Too Much they are Paid Just Enough

We live in a society where entertainment surpasses all other things in people’s lives. People are more concerned about what is going on in the entertainment and sports industries than they are other industries (White 1). Admittedly, professionals in these two industries have found themselves being at the center stage of the society. As mentioned earlier, most people believe that actors and athletes are paid too much for the amount and type of work they do. Proposers of this debate argue that these professionals do not contribute much to the society in relation to their career, and what they do does not add much value to the society. They believe that teachers, doctor, and other professionals who contribute positively to the society should be paid much more than these athletes and actors are paid (Sammi 1). However, this is not entirely true because the society today is responsible for this phenomenon. Much as people would not admit to this, the society in itself has contributed to the emphasis and importance given to these athletes and actors. Societies have put entertainers and athletes on a pedestal, whereas the doctors and teachers remain unnoticed in their contribution to the society. This makes it easy for the actors and athletes to receive more payment for their contribution to society even if they believe that these professionals do not contribute much to the society.

As mentioned before, the argument in this paper will be presented from two main perspectives including market value and talent. In relation to market value, it is important to note that the emphasis given to actors and athletes gives them their market value, hence the amount of money they receive. Market value describes the value awarded to a sports team or film studio based on the services provided by the studio or team (Seymour and Shneider 1). For example, if a film studio and sports team is preferred in its customer base or market, then it is said to have a market value. Additionally, the number of tickets sold for a sports match or a film also adds on to an organization’s market value. Arguably, movies and sports matches, earn money based on the actors and athletes that are part of the teams. Customers’ preference of a specific team of production studio is highly dependent on the players and actors in the teams and production companies. Specific actors and athletes provide their respective employment organization with the market value the organization requires for the attainment of income. The more market value an organization receives, the more money the organization earns, which in turn translates to a higher income for actors and athletes.

The second argument in opposition of the notion that actors and athletes are paid too much is based on talent. In business, as well as, other areas, individuals are reimbursed based on their talent and ability. For example, in the school setting, the most talented student is usually awarded prizes for their ability to perform in class. The same strategy applies in the professional setting where professionals who display the most talent and skill are rewarded for their contribution to the organization (Seymour and Shneider 1). As mentioned earlier, market value ensures more earnings for the organizations, which in this case are sports teams and the studios. However, this market value is not just granted to any organizations. It is only the best performing organizations that have the ability to enjoy market value, hence earn more money. Accordingly, performance is dependent on the amount of talent and skill that the organization has. The more talented actors and athletes each organization holds, the higher the possibility of better performance in their respective fields. Evidently, not all actors and athletes earn as much money as people would imagine. Only the talented actors and athletes receive more and better salaries for the work they do (Seymour and Shneider 1). This then questions the argument that actors and athletes are overpaid for their works and contribution. Awarding individuals based on their ability and talent does not come with a limit as to how much one can be awarded for their ability. In essence, what these professionals receive as reimbursement for their talent is just enough for their contribution to their respective organizations and industries.

Conclusively, it is unjustified to say that actors and athletes are paid too much. This is because of their value to their respective organizations, as well as, the amount of money that these organizations make because of them. If actors and athletes help an organization make more money and increase its market share, then the money they make from their work is just enough for the services they provide to the organization.

Work Cited

Mahler, Jonathan. Can Bill Simmons Win the Big One? New York Times, 31 may 2011. Web. 7

November 2011.

Sammi, N. Are Actors and Professional Athletes paid too Much? Edublogs, 29th November 2010.

Web. 7 November 2011.

Seymour, Ryan and Schneider Caroline. Are Professional Actors and Athletes Paid too Much?

The Northwood Omniscient, 27 January 2010. Web. 7 November 2011.

White, Barry. Are Actors and Professional Athletes Paid Too Much? Debate.org, 28 February

2011. Web. 7 November 2011.