The term "economic rent", or just the unadorned term "rent" as used in political economy describes any payment for the use or consumption of non-produced objects or lincenses. Produced objects are the products of labor. A non-produced object is an object that exists without any initial or continuing requirement of significant human action (labor). Therefore, a payment for any license to produce (a taxi medalion) or a payment for any necessary input to a production process in excess of actual production costs is an economic rent.

The most obvious example of economic rent is the rent of land. A simplified explanation of land rent is available at the Henry George Institute website as The Law of Rent.

In this presentation the principle of perverse privatization is illustrated. The principle of ownership (normal privatization) is so subsumed into our modern society as to become accepted axiomatic morality. But looking at this example we see moral acceptance of ownership regardless of what is being "owned". Ask yourself what prevents the newcomers to the example area from harvesting the naturally occurring fruits or planting fruit trees on the best land right alongside the first planter/harvester. Why not do that until such time as the "best" land is all used up. As the example plays out we see that the need for fruit as sustenance is only one bushel and that the other 3 illustrated bushels on the 4 tree land are what most economists refer to as "surplus". These surplus bushels have value in that they can be traded for commodities other than fruit. In the illustration any new arival is "better off" working on the "owned" land and giving up some of his/her produce to the "owner" than such new arrival would be if (s)he used less desirable land. At the end of the day these renters (new arrivals) will have more produce in their baskets than they would have had by working "rent free" land. But it is also obvious that the newcomers would be better off without the enforced payment of rent to the "owner" of the more productive land. See RightfulOwnership

Rent collection cannot occur without the enforcement of moralities/laws concerning ownership. This will be true even if the enforcing government is the "landowmer" himself standing over "his" property guarding it with a sharp stick (feudalism). The rent cannot be collected unless other people are prohibited from using the more productive resource until the "owner" of this resource is paid a rent.

We then have the modern updated definition of rent which is designed primarily to hide the fact that privatized rent is unearned and its expropriation purely a matter of political enforcement. An example of such a definition, a presentation from the current "economics profession", can be found at Economist.com.

Here we see the attempt to confound and confuse economic rent in such a way as to make it some benign and natural happenstance; an attempt to legitimize the concept by mixing it with what might best be categorized as "producer surplus". In using a "soccer star" to demonstrate rent, the trained seal economist seeks to confuse rent so as to avert one's eyes from both the need of enforcement and the "unearned" nature of the "owned" resource. The star's skills are inalienable. Unlike the land owner and the land, the star can't be disposed of and the skills then used by a Wall Street Weasel or a lobbyist to acquire a new swimming pool. Once the star is gone, the skills are also gone. Ergo, there is no need for enforcement in securing the rights of the owner of the skills. The other rather marked difference is, of course, that the skills were naturally endowed and then perfected by the labor of the soccer star. (s)he didn't just stumble into the land of milk and honey and plant a flag on a prime piece if real estate that existed prior to human infestation.

The only way that a rent could be realized in regard to celecrities (including sports stars) is if the entry into the arena of celebrity is controlled by enforced licenses or similar devices. To what extent are the actions of the "soccer union" a mechanism to reduce the exploitation of soccer players by the owners of political/financial power and to what extent is the "soccer union" employing enforcement (government backed force of law) to limit competition and increase the reward to the current players? value is being expropriated (rent taken) only to the extent that the soccer union is operating in the latter capacity. What is also missing here is the "essential" nature of access to a resource. One does seek out soccer matches for sustinence but only for entertainment value. In the case of the sports star or celebrity there is absolutely no enforcement involved because the decision to consume the entertainment offered by the individual is strictly voluntary. Yet we see this used as an example of rent by many of the trained seal latter day economic apologists.