Less salary for Actors and Sports stars?

[Crewman47]

I know that theres been many questions and debates about the amount of money that top actors and sports stars get paid these days and how it's justified but what I'm looking to get answered is, if these stars and celebrities did get paid a lot less, like say a third or more less than they actullay do, then would it make any difference to what gets produced or what we go to see?

For example if the difference from the reduced salary of a movie actor is around $1 million (might be stretching it a bit) then couldn't that money be best used to go towards a set component or SFX that might've been removed because of budgetry reasons?

Would it actually make any difference in sports like for bringing the cost of admission tickets down for example?

So, could a reduced salary make a difference?

[FPAlpha]

No because ít is a moot point.

Companies (or in case of sports teams an owner) are not risking anything in that price range and if their accounting and research departments tell them that a certain star has the star power/talent to raise the odds of success they will pay his fee and add a bit to it so he/she doesn't wander off to the competitors.

This is the way of big business.. get the best talent, pay them very well so they won't get the idea to leave ship and reap the benefits. It works for everybody.. industry, sports, media etc. If you have unique properties and are highly sought after you can almost name your price and for the company to get back that investment prices for their product will remain at the level or be raised a bit.

[exodus]

I think certain sports stars like Football players, for example deserve it to a point.

You're only at the top over your game for a certain amount of years.
During that time, your body is getting the shit beat out of it along with all the injuries you suffer.
As you get older, all of that catches up to you. Many older players suffer from severe arthritis and other debilitating injuries to the point some guys need to get packed in ice on a daily bases. Much of the money these guys make will go toward medical bills just for them to try and phyically function like normal human beings the older they get.

So yeah, if I'm going to play ball and get knocked around like that. I'd want adequate financial compensation for it.

As far as actors.....
What's the point of being a celeb. if you can't live a lavish life style?
I mean, one of the reasons many seek better employment is to make more money.
So why shouldn't you get paid well for achieving your dream job?

[T'Baio]

I don't know about sports, but film stars are generally paid what they're worth to the production.

Tom Cruise is paid $20 million for a Mission: Impossible movie.

They save that money and I star in it.

Which movie will you go see?

Dude puts far more than $20 million into the gross revenue of those movies. So he's more than worth it, from a business perspective.

[Starbreaker]

As far as sports go, the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, etc. sell out their seats nearly every day, so they can afford to pay guys ridiculous amounts of money. The teams that don't make a lot of money (Marlins, Royals, Pirates) sell few tickets and therefore have few big names.

[Kirby]

Crewman47 wrote:

---

if these stars and celebrities did get paid a lot less, like say a third or more less than they actullay do, then would it make any difference to what gets produced or what we go to see?

They could always find someone to do the job cheaper but I'll echo T'Baio, There would be a lot less MI tickets sold if Tom Cruise wasn't in it.

In sports it's a little different because if say, the Red Sox won't pay someone a certain amount of money, then the Yankees probably will. If the owners were to all agree to pay less, then it's considered collusion and league would most likely get sued by the players union, causing all sorts of problems and eventually a strike or a lock out.

[Temis the Vorta]

if these stars and celebrities did get paid a lot less, like say a third or more less than they actullay do, then would it make any difference to what gets produced or what we go to see?

No.

Products are not priced according to what they cost to make. They are priced according to what customers are willing to pay for them.

If you'll pay $10 to see a Tom Cruise movie, then they'll charge that $10 regardless of whether Tom gets 10 cents or 10 gazillion dollars for his thespian talents. If you'll pay $10, why should they charge you less? Tom Cruise's salary has nothing to do with it.

Tom Cruise's agent negotiates his salary on the same basis. The agent will charge the studio 10 gazillion dollars if that's what the studio will pay. Why should the agent ask for less than he or she can get?

[Admiral Shran]

T'Baio wrote:

---

Tom Cruise is paid $20 million for a Mission: Impossible movie.

They save that money and I star in it.

Which movie will you go see?

I'll go see the one you star in, because Tom Cruise can't act worth a shit.