A great question JY

Thanks but a rather poor answer as it did not even seem to address the question
FWIW the fact that many billionairre owners use a football club as a multimillion pound loss making toy rather highlights thelack of morality in the current system.

If patronising is holding up the mirror of absurdity to our modern lives, then DD yes guilty as charged.

Chuckles – I read it more as a sun type reaction tbh than high brow philosophy.

To isolate one of them and cast (partonising?) judegments on extend of earning/morals is highly questionable IMO.

Why would it be patronising? [ is the ? so you can back pedal way from it when challenged] to suggest beckhams or billionairres wealth could be better spent on say feeding the starving- in what sense would this be patronising or questionable? You do have a “subtle” way of trying to undermine those you disagree with without actually saying very much.

Let’s look at ourselves and our own decisions first.

Nice deflection anyway back to what I said

As for wealth distribution can someone explain to me why they would rather have billionairres than end starvation/eradicate poverty?

Well can you?

Probably cheaper and easier for him to live there with security etc on short term rent, hotel will make sure they get the publicity and he may even be on a free or very reduced rate.

Rather than, rent or buy flat/house, have it made secure, have to get maid service, cleaners, personal shoppers, chef etc…

Seems like a bargain

wow spouts some nonesence then confesses they wont read

Today’s prize for selective quoting and miss reading goes too……..

Is this a thread where no one can articulate an opinion but they can snipe?

Make a point, if you can 😕

{ yes I know, Oh the ironing etc]

I made a statement you just didn’t quote it and failed to see the ironing of the faux snipe

As for selective quoting, see approximately 50% of all your posts.

As for selective quoting, see approximately 50% of all your posts.

JY does a lot of posting. Have you just made that up on the fly or been through and counted for selective quoting?

I’ll have a few quid on the answer.

I think you’d be safe wagering more than a few quid.

well I quote the bit i want to comment on – do I need to quote everything- do you realy want longer posts from me 😉
FWIW you only quoted half of what I wrote re your quote never mind my post – in essence we both did this and i dont think either was done for distortion but for brevity.
as for the claim I do this 50% of the time I neither think i do this nor think this is in any way accurate

I can have a problem with sports men/women getting rich and then spending there cash.

To save you re reading they say Not sure at the start of my selective quote
I dont do contextomy whatever you claim as it would be pointless in a debate

Ooh you cheeky blighter

I might even flounce for that.

JY – sorry to be late in replying. Ride plus work took over. I am struggling with this new tactic of deliberately misunderstanding people, though, very odd. Can you not see that (for the second time recently) I wholeheartedly agree with you. Why would anyone want more billionaires….etc.

To repeat, it is a great question. Rammed home to me at the WC in South Africa. I was lucky enough to escort folk to the last three rounds in Cape Town and then the final in J’burg. Instead of enjoying the occassion, I found the whole thing grotesque and vulgar (well the final at least). My over-riding emotion at the end of the final was revulsion and shame combined with respect for the locals who maintained such dignity in the face of such appalling contrasts between those inside the stadium and those merely a few miles away (if that) in the townships. I find large parts of football grotesque (you missed out money laundering in your earlier comments) and for that reason (apart from WC) do not support/attend premiership clubs, do not buy their over-proced merchandise, boycott Sky (despite loving watching sports of most kinds – ok not dumper truck racing from Eindhoven) etc.

But, despite that, I think it is unfair and hypocritical to isolate one individual and to comment on his morals, or lack of them, and to question whether he “earns his money.” Beckham represents the top end of a pyramid that is involved in what I consider to be a dreadful allocation of the world’s resources. I have said before that football beats the poll tax in terms of the regressive element of the income transfer involved. And yet, is that really Beckham’s fault? He has not stolen someone’s talents. He was lucky in nature’s random distribution of talents. But then he worked hard, and nurtured them himself. From an economic perspective, his salary is as easy to justify as it as hard for most of us to comprehend or imagine in practice. But, and this is the big but, there is a massive chain that is involved in this (mis-) allocation of resources. If we are going to cast moral questions on one part of this chain (Beckham), then would should examine the morals of all of those involved (hence the irony of “oppressed/coerced”). They/we are all making the same decision – the opportunity cost of their/our time and money is ultimately the same, and so therefore is their/our moral responsibility. Too many people hide behind keyboards and attack others, while hiding from this uncomfortable reality. For my part, this is reflected in the sense of shame that I felt on a dark night in J’burg.

So can we all agree that there is nothing wrong in wealth but cash that pools in 1% of society is wrong and shows a system that is broken?

So what else is new? It’s the nature of mankind to be like this. Everything else is pointless debate.

I think I read that Beckham himself is not paying for the room but the club are. I also read that there is some business relation ship between the hotel and PSG, maybe there is the same ultimate owner. So ultimately this is a business deal that makes sense for everyone concerned, including the huge publicity as others have mentioned.