Surely, you’ve heard by now that the top athletes in the world: Aaron Rodgers, LeBron James, Mike Trout, all run contracts valued in the millions of dollars. That’s a ridiculous amount of cash. But, has this become the new normal?

One could argue that professional athletes are paid fairly within their respective sport. Even the likes of professional football (soccer) have top stars, like Cristiano Ronaldo, that are well paid even with their changing of teams. That in itself is another story (the changing of teams, but another time for that).  If we value our athletes so much, surely we could do the same for college athletes, right?

The argument made by many is that scholarships pay for the student athlete’s right to attend college and play sports. While that’s a fine point, it doesn’t necessarily address the cost of living, which a lot of those student-athletes have a hard time getting by, especially when the majority of their time is spent training and playing. Pro sports, on the other hand, have financial access upfront with the ability to train whenever, play and provide other necessities as they see fit. Of course, there’s a difference of who deserves what, but if pro sports can pay their athletes well based on recurring revenue that we, the people, pay through TV fees, ticket prices and various merchandise, then maybe we have a “sports fanatic” problem.

Sports is still one of the biggest money generators in the United States and around the world. And it’s understandable for businesses to want to cash in on the golden money cow for all it’s worth. There just needs to be some form of understanding on how much is too much? Not everyone wants to pay for something they may or may not watch. Forcing them to do so with no other option isn’t the way to go. It limits choice, ensuring the broadcast providers that they’ll get their money, no matter what. Surely, the professional athlete could see this and say, “That doesn’t seem fair to the people that watch me play.” But likely put, they won’t care at that much. Why? Because it’s not good business…..for them or the people that pay them.

Their business is solely on one thing: to make as much money as possible and providing for their family by any means necessary. If you’re an athlete, you’d want that for yourself, wouldn’t you?

The thing about it is injuries happen and money can’t always be guaranteed in terms of seeing that player on TV or in-person on the field, on the court or on the ice. If you’re a fan wanting to see this particular player, your money is almost guaranteed for the team, not for the individual. So, you’re likely out of luck, and that player still has their money pocketed.

Take into note that this is basically predominant with male athletes, Female athletes do not share the exact same benefits as their male counterparts, no matter the sport. Serena Williams could be paid the same as Roger Federer. This simply doesn’t happen. Male tennis seems to have more value than female tennis, though, the excitement value when Serena plays is no less similar than Federer. Here’s the bottom line, you will see more athletes than female athletes, on TV and in-person. And because of that, male sports will ALWAYS be valued more than females due to viewership not being equal. Until it is, the scale is where it is. But that’s another major issue for later, as well.

Businesses will get theirs, always have. And with the boom of TV and internet, this always-on, 24/7/365 sports coverage will continue to generate as much money as possible. Athletes will be paid accordingly, but the little man and woman will still foot the bill. And we’ll still continue to watch, buy and like it. It’s become part of our preverbal DNA. The question will still be how much is too much?

Maybe there is no limit.