How often do you hear a commentator bemoaning the state of a nation that will stand to pay so much to its athletes and entertainers, while paying a mere fraction of this to the educators that we trust to teach our children? How sorry is this situation when the future of that state, in the form of said youth, is so valued?
Codswallop. This criticism betrays an absolute ignorance of the most elementary principles of economics. Teachers are paid less because they are less dear, though that hardly means that they are less important. Take the classic comparison between water and diamonds - the former, necessary for life, might often be forsaken in favor of the diamonds, mere baubles. Yet in the desert with a mere canteenful of water left and none in sight, that water may become the dearest thing you own, far more important than gaudy trinkets.
The crucial difference here is availability. Since water is common, like those who would be teachers, it is valued little. Since diamonds, like athletes, are comparatively rare, they are expensive. Eliminate 30% of teachers in the country and there would be little more than a temporary disturbance as substitutes and other entrepreneurs shifted careers. Eliminate 30% of the NBA and your problems might be more significant - fewer people can achieve the levels of physical performance desired. It's just not an apples-to-apples comparison.
So no more of such rubbish, thank you very much.