Umm, if we are judging which sports athletes should be playing by the highest paid player in that sport, why aren't baseball players playing golf instead? I guess they had to settle for baseball because golf was just too hard for them, it involves too much walking around. . It's so much harder to make an Olympic track and field team than it is to make a baseball team that it's laughable to even compare the two. There are 750+ (because of callups and injuries) jobs available every year in baseball, compared to 70 spots every 4 years in U.S. Olympic track and field. In addition, the field of possible track athletes includes basically anyone who ever played any sport. If a guy was especially fast or strong but mainly played football or basketball or soccer or wrestled, I guarantee the coaches had him go out for track as well. You can just as easily make the case that pro baseball, football and basketball players aren't good enough to make the track team as you can the opposite point. Yeah, not real sure where you found anything to get snippy about. In fact, I'm pretty much convinced that you took what I was saying, added a couple of paragraphs, an "ummm", and an "it's laughable to even compare the two." What I said was that the world's best athletes often aren't as good at the mainstream sports as they are in their arena. Simply being super-athletic doesn't generalize all over the range of sports one can play. Michael Jordan was both one of the best athletes in his sport's history and a failed baseball player.