Author Topic: Are sports (somewhat) anti-mustachian?  (Read 3177 times)

vagon

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Location: Sydney
Are sports (somewhat) anti-mustachian?
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:36:09 PM »
Here I refer to any sport that requires some additional equipment, registration fees etc.
Theoretically you could get most of your fitness requirements from bodyweight exercises and having access to a park.

So then is spending money on registrations, uniforms/accessories etc a waste?
Can you get the same endorphins and social experience from, say, a free,  bare-foot running club as you would joining a football team?

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Are sports (somewhat) anti-mustachian?
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2014, 06:42:54 PM »
If you buy the equipment to play at Play It Again Sports, then it becomes Mustachian.

Terrestrial

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
Re: Are sports (somewhat) anti-mustachian?
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2014, 08:32:26 PM »
Needing to buy equipment in order to do an activity you enjoy is not anti-mustachian.  Mustachian doesn't mean 'never spend money on anything'.  Sports are not just 100% about exercise and fitness, I truly like playing them for enjoyment and socialization.  I would not get anywhere near the level of enjoyment with replacing playing on my indoor soccer team or occasional round of golf (even thought they take fees and equipment purchases) from just running around with no purpose except exercising.

But, there is a limit.  Needing to buy the brand new line of equipment that is released every single year even though your existing stuff probably works just fine...perhaps that would be anti-mustachian, and I do know a few people who do this and must always have the latest and greatest.

vagon

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Location: Sydney
Re: Are sports (somewhat) anti-mustachian?
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2014, 10:52:47 PM »
I would not get anywhere near the level of enjoyment with replacing playing on my indoor soccer team or occasional round of golf (even thought they take fees and equipment purchases) from just running around with no purpose except exercising.

Right and thats what I was trying to capture. Is there a certain level at which expensive sports like Golf, road biking etc etc have an entry cost that is un-mustachian?
To me something like rally car driving seems intuitively unmustachian, so where is the line?

Terrestrial

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
Re: Are sports (somewhat) anti-mustachian?
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2014, 06:57:52 AM »
Right and thats what I was trying to capture. Is there a certain level at which expensive sports like Golf, road biking etc etc have an entry cost that is un-mustachian?
To me something like rally car driving seems intuitively unmustachian, so where is the line?

Perhaps it is best viewed in the context of at which point it starts to take an amount of money that would impact your financial goals. I don't know if having a rally car as a hobby is anti-mustachian to a guy that makes 500k a year.   To a guy that makes 40k a year, probably extremely anti-mustachian.

In my own context, the ~$600/year I spend on playing soccer and golf doesn't 'move the needle' if you will, i.e. an extra 600 a year into savings would not realistically make any difference in my life or get me to any FI goal appreciably faster...so it does not seem wasteful for the amount of enjoyment it generates. 

Gone Fishing

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2754
  • So Close went fishing on April 1, 2016
    • Journal
Re: Are sports (somewhat) anti-mustachian?
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2014, 07:06:54 AM »
All in how you do it. 

Used golf clubs at the public course-Mustachian
New clubs every year for the fanciest private club in town-Antimustachian

$10 football for your best friends to play flag football at the park-Mustachian
Buying season tickets so you and your buddies can spend another wad of cash on nachos and beer-Antimustachian.


Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: Are sports (somewhat) anti-mustachian?
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2014, 07:15:55 AM »
If we're excluding motorsports, where the sky's the limit, then probably any equestrian sports.  Even if you're renting someone else's horse (which I don't even know if this is possible, but I'd bet it is) it's going to be expensive, and certainly if you own your own horse, pay for boarding & training/conditioning, pickup truck & horse trailer, plus whatever the event fees are.

My parents used to live next to an equestrian center and every other weekend when the weather's nice you'd see a bazillion dollars of trucks & horse hauling stuff along with plenty of RV's, since it's almost inevitible that some percentage of people who do out of town events will want to buy an RV so they can sleep on-site instead of searching for a hotel in each town.

Granted, it's still a pretty cool way to spend money if you've got the free cash but the costs have to be way up there.  I'm not sure if sailing is considered a non-motorsport either, but I had a boss that was into competitive sailing and I know that can easily get quite expensive as well for similar reasons to anything with horses.

Seņora Savings

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
  • Age: 31
Re: Are sports (somewhat) anti-mustachian?
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2014, 01:12:14 PM »
Right and thats what I was trying to capture. Is there a certain level at which expensive sports like Golf, road biking etc etc have an entry cost that is un-mustachian?
To me something like rally car driving seems intuitively unmustachian, so where is the line?

Perhaps it is best viewed in the context of at which point it starts to take an amount of money that would impact your financial goals. I don't know if having a rally car as a hobby is anti-mustachian to a guy that makes 500k a year.   To a guy that makes 40k a year, probably extremely anti-mustachian.

In my own context, the ~$600/year I spend on playing soccer and golf doesn't 'move the needle' if you will, i.e. an extra 600 a year into savings would not realistically make any difference in my life or get me to any FI goal appreciably faster...so it does not seem wasteful for the amount of enjoyment it generates. 

I'd make a slight alteration to what you are saying: spending money without thinking about it is unmustacian.  I would say that this means the CEO who spends 20k a year on a golf club because it doesn't seem like a big deal is unmustacian while the plummer who spends 20k per year on a horse while saving elsewhere may perfectly mustacian.  If the whole point is to quit your job so that you can spend time with your horse or golfing or whatever, then that's your goal.  I'd give your soccer spending a pass because you've weighed the amount of joy it generates against the amount of joy that money might generate elsewhere, not because it's a minuscule percent of your income.

Once you start thinking "any spending under $x doesn't require careful consideration because I have a fancy pants income" you're on the highway to consumer sucka hell (in a leased SUV).