It doesn’t seem that realistic if you need to perform in the top 1% among all your poverty stricken competitors. There’s a finite number of places for successful athletes.
Of course, but it is a career path where a young person’s socioeconomic and cultural background is less likely to affect their chances of earning a wage that can take them and their families out of poverty.
I think some of you have a very privileged view of life. Go listen to footballers from Brazil talk about their experiences, for example. Or if you want something closer to home, listen to Indigenous AFL players talk about the opportunity sport provided them and their families.
But again - it’s the 1% that made it there. Only ~450 players are in the NRL. Many of them earn the minimum allowed of 100k still, and their careers average like 3 years. That’s the 1%.
Sure, a not insignificant number of sports stars have a background that’s considered lower class, but the number of people living below that poverty line that will become sports stars is so low I’m not even sure how many zeros go between 0.[…]1%
Even if all of those people were top class athletes, there’s only room in the sports world for a few hundred of them at most.
It’s not a realistic career path, it’s a lottery that requires high level athletic skill.
No, I understand your point - it’s not like you are offering a particularly deep insight here.
The problem is that you are taking my original comment too literally. I am not arguing that it is a realistic career path in terms of overall success rates. I am saying that, relative to many other career paths in which these people face massive systemic and social roadblocks, sport is the only realistic option to escape poverty.
It doesn’t seem that realistic if you need to perform in the top 1% among all your poverty stricken competitors. There’s a finite number of places for successful athletes.
Especially when the people with financial resources will usually have a better chance of making it for one reason or another.
Of course, but it is a career path where a young person’s socioeconomic and cultural background is less likely to affect their chances of earning a wage that can take them and their families out of poverty.
I think some of you have a very privileged view of life. Go listen to footballers from Brazil talk about their experiences, for example. Or if you want something closer to home, listen to Indigenous AFL players talk about the opportunity sport provided them and their families.
But again - it’s the 1% that made it there. Only ~450 players are in the NRL. Many of them earn the minimum allowed of 100k still, and their careers average like 3 years. That’s the 1%.
You’re missing my point I think.
Sure, a not insignificant number of sports stars have a background that’s considered lower class, but the number of people living below that poverty line that will become sports stars is so low I’m not even sure how many zeros go between 0.[…]1%
Even if all of those people were top class athletes, there’s only room in the sports world for a few hundred of them at most.
It’s not a realistic career path, it’s a lottery that requires high level athletic skill.
No, I understand your point - it’s not like you are offering a particularly deep insight here.
The problem is that you are taking my original comment too literally. I am not arguing that it is a realistic career path in terms of overall success rates. I am saying that, relative to many other career paths in which these people face massive systemic and social roadblocks, sport is the only realistic option to escape poverty.
I see, my apologies.
I thought you were trying to say it was a realistic way for them to escape poverty when you said it was the only realistic way to escape poverty.