Athletes on Wall Street

M

mwr

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
CNBC just ran a short about athletes that have begun careers on Wall Street after they stop playing their respective sports in college. One ex-basketball player was interviewed and claimed that athletes can bring valuable team work ability and a history of goal setting to a job, making them good hires. That may or may not be true, but I don't see how that's any better than someone who went to a top school and studied economics/business/finance for four years, and who, presumably, had more time to devote to this course of study. For this reason, and personal experiences that many athletes tend to be ego-centric by nature (which has a dilutive affect on team work), I think this claim is complete bunk. I also played sports in college, and I don't see that it has given me any meaningful advantage. Just wondering what you guys think.
 
There was an ex-NBA player at a insurance agency I interned at in college. If nothing else, he had a great network of people to call on for sales.
 
"had more time to devote to this course of study"

My experience has been that nothing you actually learned in school is all that relevant to the real world (except maybe writing skills).

Being personable is far more important than being educated - and I'd say sports do a better job of preparing you to be personable than pure academics do.
 
Ted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "had more time to devote to this course of study"
>
> My experience has been that nothing you actually
> learned in school is all that relevant to the real
> world (except maybe writing skills).
>
> Being personable is far more important than being
> educated - and I'd say sports do a better job of
> preparing you to be personable than pure academics
> do.


Good points. MIlitary service probably does too, in terms of having a work ethic.
 
I played sports in college and while you do mentioned good points, most of these guys are on case to case basic. I doubt average Joe from average school who was a sec. education major is interviewing for any wall street job BUT I played basbeall in college, I studied economics, I graducated with a 3.8. Many of these guys mentioned in the interview I am sure are the same. I know 3 ex-Iowa football that are all on a FX desk in NY....I think that you gain certain skills in different in your younger years. For these guys it is a sport while for a good friend of mine it was his school's finance club. Everyone is different but about 20% of my desk are ex athletes.
 
If you play sports in college and attain high academic marks (at a good school), you learn discipline. Cracking your books open at 7pm after an afternoon of watching film, lifting weights and banging heads (not to mention classes in the morning) and having a good 4 hours of study time ahead of you is no easy feat. The only thing you want is sleep, but know that the 8am econ exam the next morning is going to be a real biznatch. Compare that to the common Joe who mismanages his time, and, well, you get the picture. Add the discipline to the competitive nature and teamwork skills most athletes have, and it helps them succeed relative to the others.
 
I have been in full athletic scholarship during school. Once a teacher told methere are a lot of good students, there a lot of good athletes, but there are really few good students -athletes.
 
sportsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you play sports in college and attain high
> academic marks (at a good school), you learn
> discipline. Cracking your books open at 7pm after
> an afternoon of watching film, lifting weights and
> banging heads (not to mention classes in the
> morning) and having a good 4 hours of study time
> ahead of you is no easy feat. The only thing you
> want is sleep, but know that the 8am econ exam the
> next morning is going to be a real biznatch.
> Compare that to the common Joe who mismanages his
> time, and, well, you get the picture. Add the
> discipline to the competitive nature and teamwork
> skills most athletes have, and it helps them
> succeed relative to the others.

I agree, but this is no different than students who work to pay their own way through school, engage in rigorous academic research, act as a leader in the community, etc., etc. The notion that sports is the only, or even the best, avenue for learning discipline is a false one and appears to be a play on the priveleged position that sports have in American culture. Sports are certainly a lot sexier than working full time to pay for school.

Further, who isn't a good team player? I mean really, you have to be pretty socially dysfunctional to be unable to work on a team. And what serious candidates apply to Wall Street firms without being goal oriented? Let's be real here, throwing around buzz words like "team player" and "goal oriented" amount to nothing more than rhetoric.

If you had to choose between two candidates for a job related to the capital markets, all else equal, where the first candidate was a collegiate athlete and the second candidate had instead used his time to build a good, verifiable track record of trading, had participated in meaningful economic research/been published, etc. (read: done something relevant to the job), you would be deluding yourself if you think the athlete is a better candidate.

I'm not saying that sports don't have any value in terms of producing discipline, but to try to say that sports provide learning opportunities that no other activities do, or to even imply that athletes are more capable than other strong candidates that are not athletes, is absurd.
 
Most athletes in the industry end up as retail brokers, many successful.
 
mwr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sportsfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you play sports in college and attain high
> > academic marks (at a good school), you learn
> > discipline. Cracking your books open at 7pm
> after
> > an afternoon of watching film, lifting weights
> and
> > banging heads (not to mention classes in the
> > morning) and having a good 4 hours of study
> time
> > ahead of you is no easy feat. The only thing
> you
> > want is sleep, but know that the 8am econ exam
> the
> > next morning is going to be a real biznatch.
> > Compare that to the common Joe who mismanages
> his
> > time, and, well, you get the picture. Add the
> > discipline to the competitive nature and
> teamwork
> > skills most athletes have, and it helps them
> > succeed relative to the others.
>
> I agree, but this is no different than students
> who work to pay their own way through school,
> engage in rigorous academic research, act as a
> leader in the community, etc., etc. The notion
> that sports is the only, or even the best, avenue
> for learning discipline is a false one and appears
> to be a play on the priveleged position that
> sports have in American culture. Sports are
> certainly a lot sexier than working full time to
> pay for school.
>
> Further, who isn't a good team player? I mean
> really, you have to be pretty socially
> dysfunctional to be unable to work on a team. And
> what serious candidates apply to Wall Street firms
> without being goal oriented? Let's be real here,
> throwing around buzz words like "team player" and
> "goal oriented" amount to nothing more than
> rhetoric.
>
> If you had to choose between two candidates for a
> job related to the capital markets, all else
> equal, where the first candidate was a collegiate
> athlete and the second candidate had instead used
> his time to build a good, verifiable track record
> of trading, had participated in meaningful
> economic research/been published, etc. (read: done
> something relevant to the job), you would be
> deluding yourself if you think the athlete is a
> better candidate.
>
> I'm not saying that sports don't have any value in
> terms of producing discipline, but to try to say
> that sports provide learning opportunities that no
> other activities do, or to even imply that
> athletes are more capable than other strong
> candidates that are not athletes, is absurd.


I didn't say otherwise and your claim has good merit. However, when I place my current position of 50-60 hour (stressful) work-weeks next to my undergrad life, I'll take my current situation any day of the week. The scenario you describe is an exception to the rule. Trust me, playing collegiate sports is more than a full time job. It's taxing on both the mind and body.

and regarding your comments:
> If you had to choose between two candidates for a
> job related to the capital markets, all else
> equal, where the first candidate was a collegiate
> athlete and the second candidate had instead used
> his time to build a good, verifiable track record
> of trading, had participated in meaningful
> economic research/been published, etc. (read: done
> something relevant to the job), you would be
> deluding yourself if you think the athlete is a
> better candidate.
>

when you play sports AND do that, then make your choice. That's the point I'm trying to make. I'd take the athlete any day of the week. It's a factor of time management. Collegiate athletes are forced to learn good time management skills. Mind you that I'm speaking of an athlete at a quality academic school. Athletes at most blow-off academic schools don't fit this mold.
 
" I mean really, you have to be pretty socially dysfunctional to be unable to work on a team."

Are you still a student? Every firm I've ever worked for has "that guy" who's incredibly smart but nobody wants to work with.

The bottom line is that the hiring game is all about probabilities. Wall Street firms have had considerable success with athletes in the past, so they see them as lower risk hires. I wouldn't say that brilliant kids lose spots to jocks - but there simply aren't that many brilliant kids, and athletes are the next best group.
 
So Ted, if I were to show up with a bar and 5 plates on each side, and just deadlift all day long on the steps of your firm, do you think I could score a job as an I-banker?
 
finance_machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Ted, if I were to show up with a bar and 5
> plates on each side, and just deadlift all day
> long on the steps of your firm, do you think I
> could score a job as an I-banker?


I think Ted was talking about athletes, not pulley systems. Nothing says teamwork like deadlifts.
 
Hey Ted, do you think Papi still has any shot at the MVP? I hope so. I'd love to see him tag 3 more and finish with 55 homers. Not much else for us fools to cheer for at this point. If it was the Boston, NY, or LA Twins, I think Morneau would walk away with it though.
 
I think Ortiz is pretty out of the MVP race. He demonstrated last year that as a DH, he just has too much to overcome.

At the same time, it's a wide open race. Morneau? Dye? Ortiz? Mauer? Frank Thomas? Jeter? I really don't know who gets it.

I will say though, that because of the way the BBWAA balloting is done, I really don't think there is an east coast bias in the award - considering the success that Boston and New York have had over the last 20 years, they have had remarkably few MVP winners.
 
I unfortunately agree with you. I think this would have been his year had the Sox stuck in there. I truly hope Jeter doesn't win. I have trouble imagining the Twins being where they are without Morneau. All else equal, I think the east coast has a slight edge but that is offset by the historic depth of the eastern teams. They usually have more stars so it is harder to identify a MVP from one of their lineups. Hard to call Jeter MV with so many other great hitters on the roster. WIthout him, they would still have a five game lead. Without Morneau, I think the Twins would be five games out of the wild card. I think there is an edge for the big market teams though. The Twins, Royals, Rays, & Rangers probably don't have as much combined coverage as the Sox. Just my disappointed view as I flip between the Sox-Jays game and Fever Pitch on the movie network.
 
"The Twins, Royals, Rays, & Rangers probably don't have as much combined coverage as the Sox."

That's true. But the voting isn't like electing All-Star team starters. I believe (somebody feel free to correct me) each MLB city gets two votes (NYC and Chicago may get four, because they have AL and NL teams), chosen from the sportswriters of that city. Because of that, the small market teams, of which there are many more, swamp the votes of the few big-market teams. I think writers for the St. Louis papers are loathe to vote for a Yankee, and look for any excuse to prove they're not part of an "east coast" bias.

The Twins, for me, are a tough commodity to judge. They were so bad early in the year, and so good late, it's difficult to evaluate. I highly doubt they make the WS though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top