Is celebrities accepting $ for IP autos morally questionable

If I was a celebrity/athlete and I made good money, I would never ever in my life charge a person right in front of me for my autograph. If I'm making a good living doing what I enjoy, why penny-pinch and accept payment for doing something that takes so little effort on my part. I would sign at shows, events or wherever, but it would HAVE to be for no charge to the people. It makes no sense whatsoever that well-paid celebrities/athletes ask for money for their autographs. So what if a Derek Jeter auto is valuable. What should it matter to him if people sell his auto? What difference does it make to him? He will make his money none-the-less.

The ONLY way I can see taking money for your autograph as acceptable is if you need the money. That's the ONLY time it would seem acceptable to me. Clearly signing for companies is a different story, as you are not signing for anyone in particular but for a company. I'm talking on an in-person basis only, it seems wrong to accept payment for your signature if you are a well-paid celebrity/athlete. It's greedy, IMO. Your thoughts?

It isn't morally questionable to take money for any legal service you can provide to anyone willing to pay for it.

cgilmo said:

It isn't morally questionable to take money for any legal service you can provide to anyone willing to pay for it.

Click to expand...

I believe it is, because you already make your money and making your fans pay seems wrong. It is certainly your RIGHT to do so, but that doesn't automatically omit the act from being morally questionable.

You have something that is in demand (your signature), and you ARE taking YOUR time to sign autographs.

Why not charge?

Personally, I think the better moral question lies with people that ask for and receive multiple autographs for free and then sell them for gain.

Of course not. They're being paid for their time, not the ink on your card or whatever. Signing for free, at the ballpark or wherever is one thing. You're on the clock so why not scribble your name a few times. But on a day off, why in the world would it be "morally questionable" to be compensated for your time?

braden said:

Of course not. They're being paid for their time, not the ink on your card or whatever. Signing for free, at the ballpark or wherever is one thing. You're on the clock so why not scribble your name a few times. But on a day off, why in the world would it be "morally questionable" to be compensated for your time?

Click to expand...

Because you are who you are because of the fans. It's just funds-gauging at that point. You make millions of dollars, so you want to charge the people paying your salary $100-$200 per-auto for your 2 hours of "work"? It's really greedy, IMO. Like I said, it's their right, for sure, but that doesn't make it any less morally questionable.

sportscardtheory said:

braden said:

Of course not. They're being paid for their time, not the ink on your card or whatever. Signing for free, at the ballpark or wherever is one thing. You're on the clock so why not scribble your name a few times. But on a day off, why in the world would it be "morally questionable" to be compensated for your time?

Click to expand...

Because you are who you are because of the fans. It's just funds-gauging at that point. You make millions of dollars, so you want to charge the people paying your salary $100-$200 per-auto for your 2 hours of "work"? It's really greedy, IMO. Like I said, it's their right, for sure, but that doesn't make it any less morally questionable.

Click to expand...

It's not possible for me to disagree more with every point you've made.

MojoDan said:

Personally, I think the better moral question lies with people that ask for and receive multiple autographs for free and then sell them for gain.

Click to expand...

bingo.

Look at it this way.

Say you have a BC auto of a top prospect... You know that someone, somewhere, wants that card and will pay big bucks for it. Of course, you have a job that provides steady income.

You hold something valuable, and you know you can get money for it.

It's the same thing. The player owns his signature. He/She knows its valuable, and that they can get money for it.

However, I don't know if I have ever met a player/celebrity who pockets the money. I believe every time I paid for an autograph, the money went to charity. The player might get a small cut, but I think the majority goes to charity

On a certain level, I agree.

I have no problem paying a retired player $40-50 for a chance to meet them and get an autograph.
In most cases, that money goes to a foundation or other worthwhile charity anyway.

I do however feel it is wrong for current players and retired/HOF players to charge extortionary amounts of money
for autographs whether people are willing to pay or not.

I think it's absolutely criminal what is charged for players like Willie Mays, Emmit Smith, Adrian Peterson, and many others.

I don't care if 1,000 people line up to pay the fee, imo it is still morally wrong.

Was it "morally questionable" for me to have 2 crisp $100 bills to get Willie Mays' attention to sign some baseballs at Spring Training about 10 years ago? If so, which was more "morally questionable"...me offering to pay for his services, or him accepting it?

Hmm.

I seen Gene Simmons charge some obvious autograph hound $200 to sign a Bass guitar. He then turned around like 20 steps later and gave the money to a kid :lol:

It takes about one second to autograph something. I'm not talking about demand, clearly there is demand and people pay. I'm talking about the moral aspects of accepting a lot of money for a second of your time over and over again. The whole thing seems very pompous, arrogant and greedy to me... thus the morality question.

I dont think it is morally questionable at all. I wasnt aware that it was someones responsibility to sign autographs for free. If people are willing to pay money for your autograph, than why not. You said the only reason to charg money was if you were in need financially or for card companies. Well, how about if you are donating that money to charity? I read somewhere that Hank Aaron take a large percentage of his signing fees and sends it to his church. I think that is a noble thing to do. But even if it is for personal gain, so be it. They are paid to play the game. To entertain the fans. The fans pay for tickets to be entertained. Autographs arent at all a part of that.

elmalo said:

I dont think it is morally questionable at all. I wasnt aware that it was someones responsibility to sign autographs for free. If people are willing to pay money for your autograph, than why not. You said the only reason to charg money was if you were in need financially or for card companies. Well, how about if you are donating that money to charity? I read somewhere that Hank Aaron take a large percentage of his signing fees and sends it to his church. I think that is a noble thing to do. But even if it is for personal gain, so be it. They are paid to play the game. To entertain the fans. The fans pay for tickets to be entertained. Autographs arent at all a part of that.

Click to expand...

Then why did every player in the game sign for free when they were being paid **** to play the game itself?

I have never gone to a paid signing bc, for me, I refuse to pay money to meet someone. I am considering going to get Yogi, but only bc in person is cheaper now than sending into him. But otherwise, I could care less about meeting someone if I have to pay for it.

chashawk said:

Then why did every player in the game sign for free when they were being paid shat to play the game itself?

Click to expand...

Because at that time there was no real value in autographs yet. Now signatures are a business due to people who treat the hobby as a second job.

chashawk said:

elmalo said:

I dont think it is morally questionable at all. I wasnt aware that it was someones responsibility to sign autographs for free. If people are willing to pay money for your autograph, than why not. You said the only reason to charg money was if you were in need financially or for card companies. Well, how about if you are donating that money to charity? I read somewhere that Hank Aaron take a large percentage of his signing fees and sends it to his church. I think that is a noble thing to do. But even if it is for personal gain, so be it. They are paid to play the game. To entertain the fans. The fans pay for tickets to be entertained. Autographs arent at all a part of that.

Click to expand...

Then why did every player in the game sign for free when they were being paid shat to play the game itself?

Click to expand...

Who said they did? Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, Williams, those guys refused just as many people as they signed for. TThere are tons of stories about those guys being jerks for fans. Also, back then memorabilia wasnt the business it is today. Believe me, those guys did everything that they could to make money and if they could have made money on their signatures they would have.

nyc3 said:

chashawk said:

Then why did every player in the game sign for free when they were being paid shat to play the game itself?

Click to expand...

Because at that time there was no real value in autographs yet. Now signatures are a business due to people who treat the hobby as a second job.

Click to expand...

So it's morally responsible for a millionaire celebrity/athlete to take a "second job" accepting $100-$200 a second from their fans who pay their checks with their hard-earned dollars to begin with?