TheGame wrote:
None of you guys would give the cash back, why should he?
How can you know what others would do in the same situation Game? I think you'll find this is called projection - you project onto others your own beliefs/actions as a way of defending the less defensible parts of your personality.
The myth that an individual should be able to reitre in their early 30s because he's chased a piece of leather around the park is simply bullshit and funny at the same time. Even funnier is the fact that he'd be retiring on your money.
The only reason footballers are paid as much as they are is because they and the AFL are greedy. If they really had the best interests of the game rather than themselves at heart they'd accept a far more reasonable wage and drop the price of entry to the game for supporters or invest the difference back into community projects or even perhaps allow their clubs to get by without the need for never ending fundraisers etc.
Imagine if the salary cap was half what it currently is and there was $3.1 million per club per year - that's $49.6 million PER YEAR that would be available for the good of the game.
Guys like Kouta would have to get by on a mere $500K poor bastards but no club would ever look like going to the wall as each could have $3.1 million extra in their kitty.
On the other hand you could simply make entry to the ground free or close to it. About 3 million people went to the football last year (from memory). That's more than $16 you could refund to every man, woman and child for every game they attended. Imagine how popular football would become if you didn't have to pay to attend? The other sports wouldn't stand a chance.
Or of course you could just hand it all over to the 600 or so individuals who have been lucky enough to find themselves living out every boy's childhood fantasy.
They're some of the choices.
At the moment we stick with the greedy bastard scenario but it needn't always be the case.