Conservatives spent much of the 90’s going off on taxpayer subsidies to organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts. Now it’s my turn.
This whole phenomenon is made possible of course by the fact that it’s happening at the state and local level. If it were in the federal budget, it would take just a single pen stroke to eliminate it.
Major league sports is actually one of the most heavily subsidized industries, despite the fact that they don’t actually produce anything we depend on like energy or food. Not only that, they’re very capable of absorbing the costs themselves – probably most of what we give them could be taken care of by small pay cuts by the players over a number of years.
D.C. recently plunked down half a billion for a new stadium. Likewise with Cincinnati. And those are just the cities where I’ve lived in the last couple of years.
There are much better ways to spend that money. I’m not against sports - I’d be happy to pay for community centers or the like with sports facilities for people to actually use. But I just can’t see any justification for such huge investments that don’t really have anything to do with public infrastructure.
Why is it the players you are angered by, and not the team owners. The players aren’t the ones negotiating with the local cities/counties/states for the stadium deals. It’s the owners.
Who cares if it’s taken care of or not? If the Pittsburgh Penguins go under or move to Hamilton, so be it.
The dollars that were previously spent on Penguins tickets would simply end up being spent on other entertainment expenses and diversions, or spent affording a higher payment for a nicer car, or something. The money doesn’t vanish, and the economy in the long run will be fine.
[nitpick]
I didn’t see any particular sign that he was angry with the players. He suggested that they could take a pay cut. That may not be a suggestion that players would like to hear, but you don’t have to be angry with someone to make a suggestion that they won’t like.
[/nitpick]
It’s part of the entertainment world. The arts. Yes, I’m serious. Should governments also refrain from in any way subsidizing art museums, concert halls, libraries? What’s the real difference other than the number of dollars?
Well, this conservative is in agreement with the OP. (Except for the part where he put “resolved” in the thread title. Tacky.)
Yes, yes, and yes.
I’m serious, too. If they are providing a value to people then they should be able to support themselves with fees and generate revenue just like any other business.
Oh, and I’ll add that I don’t care who pays for the stadium, as long as it’s not the taxpayers. Clearly, these organizations and teams have plenty of money. They can pay players less, make less profit themselves, or pass the costs along to spectators at the games or even advertisers at the games. That’s not my concern.
Paying for stadiums for an industry that has plenty of money to pay for them itself is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
I think there’s definitely a difference between libraries and sporting events.
I see the general purpose of libraries to be the collection, organization, and dispersing of information for the purpose of supporting an educated populace. Granted, more people go to the library to check out the latest John Grisham than to peruse great works of literature. Still, I see the primary function of libraries as education and only secondarily as entertainment.
Similarly, I see the value of museums to be the collection and storage of important artifacts. The fact that museums can charge people admission to come see these artifacts helps defray the costs of the storage and preservation, but even were this not the case I think the government has at least some duty to take care of such things.
Concert halls and other performances (including sporting events, ballet, plays, etc.), however, I classify as primarily entertainment and do not believe they should be funded by the government.
Only the rich should have these things. Everyone else should be tied to the land with no opportunity to better themselves. I’ve always said things were better when we had serfs.
One very significant difference is that sports are a for-profit business, whereas the others you have listed are generally nonprofit organizations. There is also substantially more educational value in museums, concert halls, and libraries, and public education is generally regarded as a legitimate function of government.
I would suggest that sports teams make profits, when in fact they do, simply because they can, because of their appeal to wider audiences than symphony orchestras or museums. Those are also expected to make revenue, if not profit. But when they don’t, when the total of their ticket sales and public subsidies don’t match their costs, they’re in the same situation as a money-losing sports franchise - they either cut back their costs and the quality of their product, or they come to the public for more money, or they simply shut down.
But do the taxpayers of your city ever say “The art museum is just a drain on our resources. Let’s shut it down” they way they’d say “The football team is hopeless. Let 'em leave”? Of course not. Now let’s not be snobbish about what amount simply to our own personal tastes. Sports play an even deeper and broader role in civic life than do music and art. They play a strong unifying role for the fans, giving people of all walks of life something to feel, something to share, something to talk about, reason to take pride in living where they do. A great game does that much more than a great art exhibition, wouldn’t you say? It’s a public purpose, wouldn’t you say? Arguments to the contrary are simple expressions of taste, even snobbism, not policy, wouldn’t you say?
Debaser, perhaps you could expound upon your notion of what government functions are “legitimate” rather than simply tell us museums and libraries should make a profit. I do so look forward to yet another exposition of the libertarian position on toll roads and lighthouses. :rolleyes:
At least in football the salary cap is tied to the television (advertising) revenue, so player salaries are paid for by the advertising revenues while extra money from better stadiums are basically just to enrich the owners. This extra money also makes it possible for teams to backload contracts.
And we should have to pay for this… why? I don’t expect the government to pay for my concert tickets or use money to lure my favorite bands to play here. I don’t expect them to pay for my movie tickets even though movies give me something to feel, something to share with others, and something to talk about. I do expect them to pay for libraries since a 100% literacy rate is an important thing to have for society and libraries aid in this. But I don’t see why government should be expected to pay for ANY entertaining thing no matter how many people like it or how much it will do for public morale or how important it is culture-wise.
(I’m in favor of cutting funds for a lot of entertainment-based “arty” things too, like the ballet and opera. So it’s not snobbery.)
Sports team will continue to receive subsidies until there’s a major revision of how government runs in this country. Professional teams will always be owned by people (or organizations) with vast amounts of money. People with vast amounts of money hold disproportionate amounts of power at every level of government, from federal down to local. Whenever there’s a debate about whether the city government should finance a stadium, the team owners will spend as much as necessary to convince the city council to provide a subsidy. Nobody on the other side has the time and money to fight back.