Thom Kuby wrote:
>
> >In a message dated 98-01-02 17:46:51 EST, vinttr4@forbin.com writes:
> >
> ><< BUT -- I will continue to be mildly irritated that I have to pay a $300
> > - $400 entry fee and employ my high investment car (no giggles, please)
> > for an event that provides major profits for others. I can't think of
> > any other activity where such a principle exists, but there may be one.
> > The appearance money approach for major spectator events might be a way
> > to make it a little more equitable. >>
>
> and MAC writes:
> >
> >That comment was made without the old brain being engaged. EVERY sport uses
> >valuable assets from participants and tries to make a profit from them.
> >
> >If you can't (or don't want to) spend $300 -400 for an entry fee -- DON'T.
> >
> > Mac
>
> No shit...
>
> v/r
> Thom Kuby
--
uncle jack in frigid iowa
TR4 Rallye Replica vintage racer
If we take the position "if you don't like it, stay home", it closes the
door to all discussion and says we can never change anything. I'd rather
think that discussion can result in improvement. In my previous
paragraph I distinguished between what I thought was more agreeable and
less agreeable.
And, where profit is a consideration, generally the participants are
compensated --
Local circle tracks - prize money down to 20th place
Indy cars - prize money down to last place
Formula 1 - appearance money for all, I think
Golf - prize money pretty far down in the field
Tennis - prize money for most participants
Baseball, football, basketball - pays the players
Exceptions like high school sports are non profit and are another
situation entirely.
College sports could be debated
And I'll admit to the brain being old, but its rounded off gears are
still engaged.
|