Rogoff: Jeremy Lin and the political economy of superstars
Jeremy Lin of the New York Knicks looks on during a game against the Miami Heat on February 23, 2012. (Getty Images)
March 2nd, 2012
09:38 AM ET

Rogoff: Jeremy Lin and the political economy of superstars

Editor's Note: Kenneth Rogoff is Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University, and was formerly chief economist at the IMF. For more from Rogoff, visit Project Syndicate or follow it on Facebook and Twitter. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Kenneth Rogoff.

By Kenneth RogoffProject Syndicate

The biggest news around Cambridge in recent weeks has been Jeremy Lin, the Harvard economics graduate who has shocked the National Basketball Association by rising overnight from “nowhere” to become a genuine star, leading a losing New York Knicks team to an unlikely string of victories.

Lin’s success is delicious, partly because it contradicts so many cultural prejudices about Asian-American athletes. Flabbergasted experts who overlooked Lin have been saying things like “he just didn’t look the part.” Lin’s obvious integrity and graciousness has won him fans outside the sport as well. The whole world has taken note, with Lin being featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated for two consecutive issues. The NBA, which has been trying to build brand recognition and interest in China, is thrilled.

I confess to being a huge Lin fan. Indeed, my teenage son has been idolizing Lin’s skills and work ethic ever since Lin starred on the Harvard team. But, as an economist observing the public’s seething anger over the “one percenters,” or individuals with exceptionally high incomes, I also see a different, overlooked facet of the story.

What amazes me is the public’s blasé acceptance of the salaries of sports stars, compared to its low regard for superstars in business and finance. Half of all NBA players’ annual salaries exceed $2 million, more than five times the threshold for the top 1% of household incomes in the United States. Because long-time superstars like Kobe Bryant earn upwards of $25 million a year, the average annual NBA salary is more than $5 million. Indeed, Lin’s salary, at $800,000, is the NBA’s “minimum wage” for a second-season player. Presumably, Lin will soon be earning much more, and fans will applaud.

Yet many of these same fans would almost surely argue that CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, whose median compensation is around $10 million, are ridiculously overpaid. If a star basketball player reacts a split-second faster than his competitors, no one has a problem with his earning more for every game than five factory workers do in a year. But if, say, a financial trader or a corporate executive is paid a fortune for being a shade faster than competitors, the public suspects that he or she is undeserving or, worse, a thief.

Economists have long studied the economics of superstars in fields where a company can lever enormously the decisions of a small number of individuals, making them valuable in a way that someone who can, say, chop down trees like the legendary Paul Bunyan, is not. But the political economy of what levels of income differences countries will tolerate remains uncharted territory.

Of course, there is a certain logic to the public’s disdain for superstar compensation outside of professional sports and entertainment. This is especially the case in some areas of finance that are essentially zero-sum games, in which one person’s gain is another’s loss. There are other areas, such as technology, in which someone like Apple’s late founder, Steve Jobs, arguably delivers real innovation and quality, rather than just employing lawyers and lobbyists to maintain a monopoly position.

As a basketball fan, I would not describe the sport as a zero-sum game, even though one team wins and one team loses. The best players have huge creative flair. But so do some “street ball” players who excel in slam-dunk theatrics; perhaps because they are not tall enough to compete, they make almost nothing.

Do fans tolerate outsize sports incomes because players are role models? Many certainly are, but not all high-paid sports celebrities are exemplary citizens. Michael Vick, a star quarterback in the U.S. National Football League, served time in prison for running a vicious dog-fighting operation, and arrests of players on charges ranging from illegal possession of drugs and weapons to domestic battery have been a regular occurrence.

And, back on the field or court, serious infractions occur all the time. Think of Zinedine Zidane’s infamous head butt in the 2006 football World Cup. In the NBA itself, a star player, Ron Artest, was suspended for the remainder of the 2004 season after going into the stands and brawling with heckling fans during a game. (Artest has now changed his name to Metta World Peace, perhaps in response.)

Moreover, sports teams surely lobby governments as aggressively as any big business. Professional sport is a legislated monopoly in most countries, with top teams extracting free stadiums and other privileges from host cities. Indeed, Lin’s story, it should be remembered, grew out of a huge labor dispute between the NBA’s billionaire owners and its millionaire players over division of the league’s nearly $4 billion in annual revenues - more than many countries’ national income.

As the late University of Chicago economist Sherwin Rosen postulated, globalization and changing communication technologies have increasingly made the economics of superstars important in a variety of fields. That is certainly true in sports and entertainment, but it is also the case in business and finance.

I wish Lin a long and successful career as a superstar, though he will have already had a huge cultural impact even if his success proves meteoric. One can hope that, as Asian-Americans continue to break barriers in other arenas - they remain under-represented among corporate CEOs, for example - these rising superstars will be greeted with similar acclaim.

If the public is not happy about high superstar incomes, the obvious remedy is to improve the tax system, including for powerful sports-team owners, many of whom benefit from huge tax breaks in their day jobs. Who knows? With a more level playing field, superstars outside sports and entertainment might find themselves a bit better appreciated.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Kenneth Rogoff.
Post by:
Topics: Business • Economy • Sports

soundoff (11 Responses)
  1. jason

    the impact of a 'superstar' status is much greater than the ceos, thus the analogy is unfair. if a ceo gets as much of media attention as a professional athelete, then surely we wouldn't vilify him or her as overpaid.

    March 2, 2012 at 10:30 am | Reply
    • j. von hettlingen

      These supernovae in sports have definitely a market value. I doubt if they would play a major role in political economy.

      March 2, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Reply
  2. Mark

    Much flawed article. Most if not all Fortune 500 companies are public companies. Public as shareholders have the right to question how much the CEOs make, especially when they do not deliver. The salaries of NBA superstars are the business between the NBA teams and the players, that's why we saw the lockout earlier this season.

    March 2, 2012 at 11:45 am | Reply
    • Gordon

      Public companies don't mean they're owned by the public, they're owned by the shareholders. Shareholders have the rights to know if compensation is fair, but if you're not a shareholder, then it's really none of your business.

      Oh and how about the arenas and stadiums? They're usually funded by muni bonds, now that's public money.

      March 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm | Reply
  3. Deborah

    Ridiculous comparison. NBA stars are stars because of their superior stats. Are corporate CEOs subjected to the same amount of constant scrutiny and statistical analysis? Or do they hide behind boards, market fluctuations, and other excuses? Even when they are let go because of poor performance, they receive huge severance packages which they had negotiated before taking those jobs. Outrageous!

    March 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Reply
  4. IRAQI SHIIA AND NORI AL MALEKI STEALS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

    دبي-الشرقية 28 فبراير: كشفت لجنة النزاهة في محافظة ذي قار عن قيام اشخاص مرتبطين بمتنفذين في الحكومتين المحلية والمركزية بسرقة وثائقَ مهمة تتضمن فسادا اداريا وماليا بمليارات الدنانير العراقية.واكد متحدث باسم لجنة لنزاهة في ذي قار اَن هناك من يقوم بتسريب كُتب اللجنة الى الأشخاص المعنيين بالكِتاب ليساعدَهم في ترتيب أوضاعهم قبل ان تُباغتَهم اللجانُ المختصة.وأوضح المتحدث ان اللجنة طالبت مجلسَ محافظة ذي قار باتخاذ قرار ينص على معاقبة المسؤولين عن التسريب وتشكيل ِلجنة لتقصي الحقائق.

    March 2, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Reply
  5. hcl

    I do not doubt the value of corporate CEOs, and even believe that many are *underpaid*; and this was especially true before the 1980s and 90s.

    But the difference is this: we know sports stars aren't stealing off anyone, whereas the opposite is true of Wall Street CEOs.

    March 2, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Reply
  6. wilindrocca

    As much as I respect Prof. Rogoff's work – especially the alarm that he's been sounding about our country's debt and deficit – this article's comparison between professional athletes and CEOs is a bit flawed.

    First of all, CEOs enjoy much longer careers, as a general matter, than athletes, because CEOs use their brains mostly in their work (or are supposed to anyway), whereas athletes use their bodies mostly, and bodies wear out much faster than brains. Therefore athletes may deserve a higher "risk premium", so to speak.

    Second, athletes are subject to public scrutiny of their performance stats all the time, which stats represent the epitome of transparency and ease of calculation – the chances that these stats can be fudged or manipulated are about nil. On the other hand, CEOs' performance can be subject to a host of approaches to massaging earnings and revenue numbers, or self-serving interpretation of accounting rules.

    Finally, athletes are like sovereign individuals within their work sphere – they can only fall back on their own day-to-day performance ultimately to justify their rewards. On the other hand, many CEOs enjoy the "cooperation" of complicit boards, whose members are hand-picked by the CEOs and are basically glorified employees of the CEO, given the substantial compensation and benefits packages that these directors receive.

    March 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Reply
  7. adult halloween party ideas

    Terrific work! That is the kind of info that are supposed to be shared around the internet. Disgrace on the search engines for not positioning this post higher! Come on over and discuss with my website . Thank you =)

    August 14, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Reply
  8. ekuptpdntkin

    kvjocfzopzif

    June 24, 2013 at 8:30 am | Reply
  9. this is a fantastic theme nwntkrwqql click here =) vyncoevkkcjh, >:o gjwkhdeavl [url="http://www.qhfghfueyvzs.net"]or here[/url] O:) gtyzs, :-0 myrcqpxjew http://qhfghfueyvzs.info :-X vyncoevkkcjh, =( nooxejlvde [url=http://qhfghfueyvzs.ru]jclcyxmnxx[/

    ldfcemplzaga

    July 24, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,583 other followers