Alex from Relevant History provides a nice counterweight to all the mass amateurisation hoopla, reminding us of what Wimbledon tennis commentators never forgot :

The notion that being a ‘professional’ is a good thing, and that professionals know more than amateurs, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Before the mid-1800s, being a ‘professional’ meant that you were a shill, a hired gun: you dealt in skill or knowledge rather than coal, but you weren’t that much higher than the collier. The people who had real credibility were amateurs.

He goes on to explain how and why. It’s entertainingly written, check it out.

[found via Public Opinion]