"What's needed is the valorization of people with modest, actually feasible achievements"

Have you ever tried to watch American Idol?

Isn't there the "natural law" of supply and demand.? Huge amounts of money are made on professional basketball. It seems to me that if anyone deserves to get that money, it's the actual players (and coaches), rather than the owners.

The old pre-free agency system of pro sports, where players were essentially indentured servants of whatever team drafted them, was a horrific exploitation of the people who actually do the work.

I agree that the players deserve a reasonable cut of the total revenues in the sport. I specifically agree that the old pre-free agenc system of pro sports drastically underpaid the players compared to the profits being generated for the owners and gave them too little control over their careers.

On the other hand, the current huge revenues being generated by pro sports result in part from a variety of public subsidies and from pro sports using a century of goodwill plus massive advertising to convince fans to keep coming even as they raise the prices of everything from tickets to hot dogs to parking.

While sports salaries today are so high that the typical superstar has very little in common with the typical fan, any form of salary caps or other brute force attempt to reign them in is treating a symptom not a problem. High salaries for pro-athletes are no more of a problem that high incomes for other entertainers, or for CEOs. The real solution is to have an honest discussion on income inequality in this country and whether effectively removing progressivity from our tax system over the last half-century was a good idea.

This strikes me as arguably misguided -- it's main effect is to further increase the valorization of star athletes and entertainers which merely entrenches the notion that unless you can develop Wade's level of basketball skills (which, obviously, the vast majority of people simply can't do no matter how hard they try) there's really no other constructive goals in life worth setting for yourself

While that is one perspective, there are others, far less cynical.

Consider the type of person who is most likely to read Wade's diary and find the entry intriguing.  It is likely to be a male child, with good athletic skills, who happens to like reading but it is not encouraged in his environment so he does not pursue that interest. Yet, he now reads, that this book was of interest to an athlete, like himself, he is far more likely to read it. That is a good thing.  No matter how you cut it.

The key being that the child does not have to beleive they can achieve what Wade has with basketball skills, they only need to IDENTIFY with Wade as an individual with their same interests, and likely from the same urban bkgrd, who also may not have had a peer group 'into education'...that will give the athlete more confidence and interest in pursuing some of his academic interests.  AND more importantly, if some knucklehead should ridicule him about it, he will be able to say WADE, likes Pride and Predjudice also...and that will shut down the trash talking, since his peer group more than likely admires WADE as a player.

I consider this scenario, far more likely, than the one you espouse.  I saw a similiar case with my son.  He did not want to go to a particular forum lecture being hosted at the University, until I told him that one of the speakers, was an NFL hall of famer....he went...and even introduced himself afterwards. That player now serves as a Chief Justice at the state level. He was impressed by what  the player had achieved outside of sports.

My point is, that often times, broadening an individual's exposure is about tapping into what interests and impresses him....not necessarily about what he personally believes he can achieve on his own merit, in terms of the athletic bkgrd of the person or his own personal athletic skills. 

Because realistically, these boys often know that they are already not as good as some of the boys they play ball with, but they have no other dream or interest or ability to introduce that into their present experience. Just knowing someone else who has done it...makes a HUGE difference.

Not to mention the fact, that it is  sports  figures and entertainment celebrities that receive the most press and that the child is most likely to be aware of. 

They are far less likely to see a Colin Powell, Faye Wattleton, Susan Rice, Ian Smith, Cornel West, Walter Massey,  Andrew Young, Reginald Lloyd, Maurice Ashley, Valerie Jarrett  in the news repeatively for a 20+ week long sports season where all there achievements are catalogued in a personal vignette for them to serve as role models.

In short, this is a wonderful thing that Dwayne Wade is doing and he should keep on doing it.  Lots of children will benefit from this, independent of whether they ever achieve his greatness in basketball.

I am sure I was not quite clear. However,

Isn't there the "natural law" of supply and demand.?

This statement is really frought with problems, but for a quick answer, not really, and even if there were there is an "is/ought" distinction problem here.

My first point is that there is too much money in sports. I mean this in a couple of different ways. First, despite revealed preference for the current amount of spending, I think society would probably be better off spending that money elsewhere. Second, and more importantly, I think that if you took a great deal of the money out of professional sports the resulting product would lose very little value.

For example, consider a $200K cap on salaries, with a requirement that $50K be paid per year for the rest of the players life. There are a few players in, say, the NBA that might decide there were better options, but I doubt many would. That is a pretty good salary, a great pension, and there would still be the fame and the glory. In fact, I think there is an arguement to be made that the product might actually improve, because fans could better identify with more pure incentives. Skill level would decrease because 1) Players would have less incentive to practice 2) Some players would choose other professions and (importantly) 3) many less young children would aspire to the extent they do now to be professional basketball players. As Matthew, I think argues, 3) is probably a good thing as the overwhelming odds are against them.

You mention that if there is a lot of money, the players deserve it more than 'owners' or whatever. I could not agree more. I only think this has a chance of working with other owenership restrictions in place as well - the real goal would be to reduce the money in sports overall, to ensure that players had more even salaries over their lifetime, and to decrease the incentives for young children to put all their prospects into an exceedingly unlikely basket.