I think money is the primary issue here. The city is constantly strapped for funds, so any request for massive funding for a football stadium is going to run into significant opposition.
USC has been one of the most consistently successful teams in college football, and they still don’t sell out every game. I know it’s a big stadium, but still. There are a lot of other things in Los Angeles that people would rather be doing.
There’s also the (conspiracy) theory that by having Los Angeles available it gives other NFL teams leverage when asking for new stadiums. If Minneapolis doesn’t want to build a new stadium, then maybe the Vikings will just move over to the second biggest media market in the country.
The last time there was serious talk of moving a team there (or getting an expansion team?) it brought up the question of where the team would play. By modern standards, the Coliseum is kind of a dump, and there aren’t enough luxury boxes. The aforementioned financial problems means there isn’t going to be much money for the city to build a new stadium … and the NFL loves its publicly financed stadiums.
The lack of a suitable stadium. Period. There are at least a half dozen teams who would move there tomorrow if there was a place to play.
The NFL has promised to find a team for the city, either through relocation or expansion, if the stadium issue is resolved. Both the Rose Bowl and the LA Coliseum would need significant upgrades, and the citizenry has repeatedly voted down funding proposals to do so. Casino magnate Ed Roski has a plan to build a stadium, but he needs about a billion dollars in funding to make it happen. What are the chances of the state or local governments forking over that kind of money given their current fiscal crisis? Close to nil, I suspect, but who knows. That didn’t keep them from building new stadiums for the Jets, Giants, Yankees, Mets, and Nets in the big apple this year.
Those stadiums were started before the financial crisis hit and were billed as not requiring public funds (the latter was untrue, but that’s a separate issue). I seriously doubt it would have happened if they had asked the city to foot the entire bill. With the economy the way it is, and a feeling by more and more people that a stadium is a luxury, the idea of LA building a stadium is politically a non-starter.
LA would require someone with deep pockets to build the stadium. Remember – the Mets and Yankees both have TV networks, so they had the cash, though the Mets took shortcuts like not hiring a graphic designer for the stadium sleeve patch. And when Guilliani gave the teams money for the stadiums as he was leaving office, the outrage was so great that the offer was rescinded.
Los Angeles seems to be the sole sensible city in the country by refusing to bow to sports-magnate blackmail. You want a new stadium? You’re billionaires. Fuck you. Build it with your own money.
One other (slightly more speculative) factor is that sports leagues are well-served by having a plausible destination for would-be relocated teams: several baseball teams got new stadiums, in part, from the threat to move to St. Petersburg (and later Washington DC), and basketball and hockey teams unhappy with their leases or facilities can point to the new (and dramatically underused) arena in Kansas City.
Every NFL team that wants a new stadium or upgrades or a renegotiated lease can do the same with Los Angeles.
That really never made sense to me either. Stadiums generate such a massive amount of private income. Why would they not have to put their own investment capital into that? Or at the very least if the city is going to put funds toward it they should be paid back with interest.
Do stadiums really generate massive amounts of money? When San Diego was talked into partially funding Petco Park there was a lot of talk that it was just the opposite.
There are a lot of things to do in/around NYC (9 major pro teams), Chicago (5), and San Francisco (6), too.
Aw, you’re cute.
They also bring in tons of money, sometimes directly (if the city owns the stadium), and always with tax revenue. Though I agree that the league/team can build their own fucking stadia (like we did). And with some good planning, traffic can be drastically reduced. Public transit from every part of the Bay will get you within walking distance from AT&T Park. And does anyone drive to say, Wrigley or Fenway (granted, those ae more historical circumstances rather than planning)?
I wouldn’t mind seeing a cite about rising crime rates, though. I don’t necessarily doubt it in general (though I do with AT&T Park), but I don’t think I’ve heard that before.
I suppose, but that’s like saying the Bills don’t play in Buffalo and the Cowboys don’t play in Dallas because their stadiums are just outside the city limits. Giants Stadium is five miles from Manhattan via the Lincoln Tunnel.
There have been something like 75 new venues built for major league sports teams since 1990. I think all but PacBell in San Francisco were built with public funds. There are at least two books that debunk the myth that pro sports teams generate revenue for their communities. In “Major League Losers”, Indiana University professor Mark Rosentraub looks at the actual numbers and concludes it’s a net financial loss in every case. In “Free Lunch,” Pulitzer Prize winner David Cay Johnston argues that it even forces cities to cut funding in other areas. A good overview of both books available here.
God, I know. Traffic from the Stapels Center and Dodger stadium is bad enough and spills out into half of the city when there is a big game.
I don’t need a football team here, and I am a football fan. I occasionally miss going to see a game live, but when I feel that way I can always head down to the Rosebowl and watch my alma matter lose.
And the Colluseum is a dump and way too large, it isn’t really suitable for a normal sporting event.
