If you were the best sports person on the planet, you would assume to be paid well. However, it depends on which sport you play. If you are a football player, you may be paid a vast amount, as compared to a weight lifter. Why is that?
There is a greater audience for football. More viewers, bring in more endorsements. More endorsements bring in more revenue collection, and a higher pay for every one involved in that sport – from the coach, to the football player, and even their entourage. The entire industry behind a popular sport such as football or cricket, is not necessarily due to the sport at all. The industry is created as a result of a global fan base.
By occupying the largest space in any industry, the viewers create the industry’s importance. By choosing to watch one sport over the other, one sport flourishes more than another. This is right in the name of liberty of choice, but not equality.
Equality and liberty may not go together. In fact their relationship hardly works out. Let’s understand an idea. There is no equality of pay among the sports people because there is liberty of choice amongst the viewers. Rawls argued that equality was important to keep balance in society. But equality would be accompanied by interference, Nozick clarifed. It would coerce equal pay for every sports person (in this example), and though that sounds fair, it does stand against liberty. If people are willing to use their liberty, in order to make a choice, where they put in more time and effort watching football, that too is fair.
Why should I, a football player be paid equal to a weight lifter when the people are willing to invest their time and money in my sport. Liberty does not give way to patterns. When liberty of choice is given, it takes away a comfortable prediction of how much people will want and choose. Because with choice, comes the choice of excess, or less.
Is it fair to give everyone the equal amount, even though it sacrifices someone’s liberty?