ghostguy123 said:
Christo said:
Perhaps you can explain why?
Probably because no one would care if they got rid of them.
If they got rid of the football players, well, then there is no football.
Please tell me you werent serious
This thread has established that your first sentence is wrong.
I don't see how your second sentence is relevant. There are lots of people who wouldn't care if there was no football.
I am serious. How are a football player and a cheerleader different? Neither are necessary. Both are just entertainment. The fact that their efforts are valued differently by different people doesn't change that.
The bum on the corner plays his sax and trumpet all the time. He is just entertainment. He provides a service. Why doesnt he get paid minimum wage? He isn't necessary.
Some strippers PAY to work at the clubs they dance at. Why? The provide entertainment and a service, yet are not paid. Why? They aren't necessary, they are just entertainment.
Some waiters and waitresses make like 2 bucks an hour. Why? The provide a service.
People do unpaid internships. They do a lot of work for nothing. No pay. Why?
None of these situations are analogous, for reasons already discussed in this thread.
So you've said, but I haven't seen much to support it.
But I see some of them as much better analogs than the typical fast-food scenario the minimum wage was intended for. As I've said before, but no one seemed to want to respond to, these ladies have generally opted for these positions over other more immediately lucrative positions. I don't see too many fast-food workers choosing to make less money at burger shack because it might enhance their future career in a related field. Did you know that the woman suing the Raiders left a cheering position making $12/hour to work for the Raiders? Afterwards, she seemingly wonders why she was paid so much more, but why did she CHOOSE to go with the Raiders after reading and signing the contract? Because it was a more high-profile gig of course and offered better long-term advantages than the basketball gig did.
It turns out the job was not really suited for her. I get that. She has a kid, and all of the required extra-curriculars made that hard. But did you know most of the other cheerleaders are unhappy with the suit? Only 2 of the eligible members have signed on. Some prominent former cheerleaders are concerned about just what I alluded to earlier. This could revert the positions back to strictly volunteer or eliminate some of the teams altogether.
Did you also know that three teams still have volunteer squads? The Packers apparently use a college squad from time to time as well. Maybe they do it because:
1) It is fun for them
2) They use the exposure to launch careers in modelling, acting, fitness instruction, dancing, etc.
Also, this "below minimum wage" thing is a "calculated" figure provided by the cheerleader's lawyer. Lawyer's figures are always 100% appropriate right? She was paid per 8 hour game day for 10 games. Even with rehearsals and appearances etc, this is NOT a 40 hour gig. The Raiders actually paid the her nearly 3,000 - which is a little more than 80 hours X $5/hour which would have been $400 bucks. So there must have been SOME pay for the other required activities, or we are talking over $35/hour.
But there are also paid appearances which I'm sure weren't added to the picture. They can make up to $400 per appearance. Can a fast-food worker do that? How does that figure in to the minimum wage? "Love the way you make that burger Johnny, can you show up to our corporate picnic to sign some autographs? We'll pay you handsomely!".
So yes, the cheerleading profession is MUCH closer to other performing professions, "tip" enhanced compensation professions, or internships than it is to machine-shop work, fast-food work, retail work etc.
Do I think that all is 100% well in NFL cheer-leader world? No, I do not. Some of the stories seem outrageous and I'm sure there is a lot of truth to some of them. But let's not take that and do the typical "slam the greedy big business" mantra without at least looking at the facts.