Every time I see what ball players earn, and their owners, and then see all the public money they demand for new statiums and access roads, which they shortly sell or abandon, or blackmail the cities so they won’t relocate …
Just seems wrong.
Yes. It is wrong. I see no reason why privately owned sports teams should not have to find their own capital from private sources. Cooperation from the local community in roads and zoning and the like is one thing, but outright paying for the stadium is outrageous.
In amelioration of the criticism, let me note that there is a substantial economic benefit to a community in being the venue of a major professional sports team, just as there is in hosting a theme park, lying adjacent to a natural wonder, or otherwise being the site of any “destination” recreational attraction.
However, IMO the amount invested by the typical community in stadiums and the like is usually far more than it recoups through those indirect benefits – making Pliny’s gripe as implied in the OP a very legitimate one.
But note that there are exceptions. Raleigh’s RBC* Center is a good example: the structure was built by a public authority in the classic manner, but with a specific multi-use function from the outset: not only is it the venue for Carolina Hurricanes NHL games (its most famous use outside the area) but it is also the site for any indoor sports events for North Carolina State University (a co-contractor in the original planning, and one badly in need of new facilities at the time it was constructed), and numerous stadium-size events are scheduled around that: ecumenical religious rallies, concerts by touring bands and performers, and the like. Although there was a locally-newsworthy lawsuit to quiet contractual disputes between the owners of the Hurricanes and the arena authority, since that was resolved the facility has been a net public benefit and TTBOMK is running in the black.
- Yes, that’s Royal Bank of Canada – it fronted the money for naming rights as promotion for its local subsidiary RBC Centura. Which leads to the wonderful irony that the only NHL team playing in a facility named after RBC is in the Southern United States!
The Twin Cities just fought a battle against the Twins and lost. Billionaire douchebag Carl Polad gets a new tax paid for stadium. Sure he contributed money to the plan as well. But we citizens are paying the lionshare. The twins, Hennepin County, and Pawlenty took away our right to vote on the tax knowing that there was no way in hell it would pass. So now we get a new tax.
Now the Vikings want a new stadium as well at the cost of nearly 1 billion dollars. Hmm, I wonder how they are going to pay for that? This welfare is bullshit. Polad can build his own damn stadium. Ziggy can build his own stadium. Forcing these fucktards to invest huge amounts of their own money in stadiums would actually make them think twice about leaving. Leaving would mean they leave behind a substantial property investment.
Here in San Jose they have spent like $20Mill for a MLB staium, and they can’t even have a team. And, there’s a law saying that before they spend public funs, there has to be a Ballot measure, but there hasn’t been such a vote. (They get around it by various legal shennanigans).
The "substantial economic benefit " that Polycarp mentions is nearly always overstated, and is more than balanced out by the extra burden the Stadium puts on sewers, water, police and other services, not to mention extra traffic, pollution, and a significant increase in crime.
If the voters had all the facts, they’d likely refuse a stadium that a team offered to build with nary a cent of public $$.
But even in the cases where the stadium appears to be built with private funds, often the city donates the land, which can be worth millions.
The rich arrogant pricks that own the stadiums have no loyalty to the fans. They love the city so much that if you don’t give them a multi-million dollar stadium they will move. The loyalty is one sided. They should build their own stadium and police it themselves.
They get free publicity from sports news and newspapers. They get police protection.They apparently owe the fans nothing.
I don’t think tax money should be used to build stadia. The ticket purchases are a user tax that pays the expenses of the sports franchise. The claim is that it brings business to the city. In that case let those whose business profits put up the money. In a city like New York millions of people who pay taxes never go to a game and don’t own a business that profits from the existence of the sport.
If even one penny of public money is spent on the building of stadiums, it’s too much. We have four of those public tit boondoggles here in Houston. The Astrodome was good enough. We haven’t finished paying for it yet and it now sits empty and unused except for the occasional monster truck rally.
This is illusory, based on the implicit assumption that the choices people have are: 1)spend money to attend sporting events, or 2)use the money to light cigars.
I’m not a sports fan. And I hate jocks. I’m not in a position where I’m particularly inclined to see the benefit to the public funding of sports venues.
But I think, even weighing my prejudice in, it’s usually a matter of major corporate welfare. For corporations that already incredibly rich, and which directly employ a scant handful of people. And which are paying salaries that are, when viewed in the most generous light, extravagant - at least - to obscene IMNSHO.
Of course there are too many of them: They are being heavily subsidized. When you subsidize something, you get more of it than you would if market forces were left to work (i.e. the people themselves chose how much they wanted to spend on sports and stadiums).
Public funding should get out of this area. It’s rather obscene that a middle-class person should be taxed to help pay the salaries of multi-million dollar athletes and wealthy owners.
The counter-argument is that stadiums and sports teams are a common good, like parks and playgrounds. A stadium in a city has positive externalities - even the residents who don’t watch the games feel better about their city when ‘their’ team wins the big championship. It attracts new population. Edmonton advertises its connection to the Oilers all over the place, and in fact the pride in that team cements together a pretty big percentage of the population. We named one of our busiest streets “Wayne Gretzky Drive”, and we’re about name another one “Mark Messier Drive”. For years, the official city slogan was ‘City of Champions’.
If you were to ask me whether the Oilers were more important to the city than the Symphony, the Jubilee Auditorium, or any number of other publically funded arts and recreation facilities, I would have to pick the Oilers.
I’m still opposed to public funding of sports, but I can kind of see the other side of the argument.
Negative. While I tried to be balanced and point out that the benefits are usually overstated, and others have drilled that point home with a blunt auger already, the net income benefit is from team fans from elsewhere travelling to the city and spending money on rooms, meals, etc., in order to attend games. In some cases (Green Bay being an extreme example) this can amount to a significant share of what a community derives in income from non-residents. And as I said earlier and above in this post, it’s traditionally overestimated and overemphasized. From a financial standpoint a publicly financed stadium is usually a substantial net loss to the community, despite the increased-income effect.
In re ownership, it’s my understanding that the overwhelming majority of stadia, arenas, StupiDomes, and similar structures are constructed either by public corporations or authorities set up for the purpose (by the state legislature or a metropolitan government or consortium of local governments), or by the city or county hosting it – and that ownership vests in said corp./authority/city/county, sometimes being leased to the team (generally for a flat fee plus a percentage of stadium-derived income). “Building the Fuschia Sox a stadium” is shorthand for “building a stadium owned by the county/county sports authority in which the Fuschia Sox can play.”
As noted in recent CS team-moving threads, there is generally a contract provision requiring a team for whom a stadium is built to guarantee it will not move within N years, often five, and that the team ownership must pay off the full value of the contract if it breaks that clause.
<playing devil’s advocate>
So… should a city not build a park, because it’s a net financial loser? How about a museum? Every year, my city shoots up fireworks on Canada Day, and it costs several hundred thousand dollars. Total net loss.
Unless you accept that the value of these things is that they improve the lives of the citizens, bind the population together, help create a pride in the city that keeps the best young people from leaving, attracts new people, etc. Cities do all kinds of things that lose money but ostensibly make the city better. The benefits are indirect, but real. Many would argue that building a stadium and attracting a professional sports franchise is the same thing. When the Oilers were in the playoffs last year, the entire city was buzzing. People’s lives got a little more exciting - even those who have never paid a nickel to watch a hockey game. So you can’t describe the benefit to the city in purely monetary terms.
Mine doesn’t. Can’t speak for everyone of course, but I am completley indifferent to anything sports related.
/Okay, so I was slightly excited when the Seahawlk from my then hometown played in the Superbowl, but that’s the exception that proves the rule. I have never watched an entire sports game of any kind from start to finish aside from that one game
The last time I rented a car in Seattle, I got sticker shock. Local taxes result in a 100% mark-up (This didn’t show up on the ticket when I made online rental arrangements). This was done explicitly to fund their new stadium. The “public” doesn’t mind buying those overpaid bastards a new stadium, so long as they don’t have to pay for it either. And there was absolutely nothing wrong with their old stadium, the Kingdome.
They could fund cancer research or something instead. I consciously decided to opt out of the parts of society that over-reward adults whose only skill is playing a children’s game, and they stuck me for their damn stadium anyway.
My problem with the whole idea is this: the stadia, arenas, ballparks, etc. often cost more than the team is worth, but the city isn’t allowed to just buy the team and keep it where it is. For instance, the Lerner family paid $450M last year for the Nats, which is probably a record price for a baseball team. Meanwhile, the District of Columbia is paying $611M for a new stadium to put them in.
ISTM that D.C. would come out way ahead by just buying the Nats and renovating RFK Stadium, if MLB would let them. Even more way ahead than the figures above suggest, since (1) probably $100M-$150M of that price was the difference between playing in RFK and playing in the new ballpark, and (2) given that the D.C. market is much, much bigger than anywhere else MLB might’ve moved the club to (Portland, Jacksonville, and Las Vegas seemed to be the main alternatives; don’t know why Charlotte wasn’t in the mix), it’s hard to imagine the ballclub would have been worth more than $250M to someone not intending to locate it in the D.C. metro area.
So D.C. paid a shitload of money to make MLB and the Lerners even richer than they already were, when (under a fairer system) they could have paid half to 2/3 what they spent for the ballpark, and achieved the same result: having a team in D.C. And D.C. isn’t exactly rolling in money.
If public builds the stadium they should share in the profits.
Why is it that only RICH MILLIONAIRES are allowed to own sports teams? Green bay (Packers) have been city-owned for 60+ years, and its worked out fine. i agree, why should taxpayers pay for millionaires ? It makes no sense.
What’s more infuriating is that fact that our brand new beautiful central library is now down to being open only five days a week due to lack of money. But hey, at least we get a new stadium!
Krokodil:
Having no bearing on whether or not the public should fund sports venues, this statement, at least, is untrue. The Kingdome was crumbling. Some fallen ceiling tiles forced the Mariners to play 2 weeks of consecutive road games a year or two before Safeco opened.