Taxpayer Funded Sports Facilities

StandOnIt

StandOnIt

Farm Truck
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
81,909
Points
1,033
Location
yoooklahoma
Some don't think so
The Economics of Subsidizing Sports Stadiums
Sports economist Michael Leeds suggests that professional sports have very little economic impact, noting that a baseball team (with 81 regular-season home games per year) "has about the same impact on a community as a midsize department store." His research suggests that if every professional sports team in Chicago (including the Cubs, White Sox, Bears, Bulls, and Blackhawks) were to suddenly disappear, the economic impact on Chicago would be a fraction of 1 percent.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/pub.../the-economics-of-subsidizing-sports-stadiums
 
Sorry, but what the hell does public financing of stadiums and arenas have to do with the business of sports on television? I agree with the naysayers on that. It's a giant scam, a grift, and most cities should wise up to it. The vast majority of venues would be built and renovated with private funds if they didn't have local governments to swindle, and they should be.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the scope of the thread should be changed to include tax payer funded arenas and stadiums, NCAAF players being servants and slaves, NFL concussions, tennis elbow, the DH rule and traveling never being called. On one hand it is kind of nice as it adds variety but on the other hand it stinks because instead of addressing an issue you can just change the subject. Back to the business of sports on television and do you think that when the NHL, NBA, NFL and MLB broadcast deals need to be renewed will they go up, down or be flat. How about for Nascar?
 
Speaking of business. I wonder how many teams there would be if the stick n ballers had to get investors together to build stadiums and then show a profit without government welfare? I wonder how long the stadium shell game will continue
 
Speaking of business, I wonder which city you guys think will land Amazon's second headquarters? Or which mutual funds will show the best return for the remainder of 2018?

I'd be glad to start a thread about public financing of sports venues. It's a worthy subject, but a different one. I wish more people were interested in the details of the sports television business, as a segment of sports fans are, and not fighting a jihad over NASCAR vs. all other sports.
 
I would suggest looking at the title of this thread Sports TV ratings, etc. Random sports talk Leaving out topics like this that could change the face of sports because they illuminate the serious flaws that are present (denial) while focusing on the pitfalls of another that is a sport that is self supporting? I don't think so.


http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id...bit-teams-using-municipal-bonds-fund-stadiums
Senators aim to stop use of municipal funds to finance stadiums


 
Last edited:
AtomicPunk55 said:
Maybe the scope of the thread should be changed to include tax payer funded arenas and stadiums, NCAAF players being servants and slaves, NFL concussions, tennis elbow, the DH rule and traveling never being called. On one hand it is kind of nice as it adds variety but on the other hand it stinks because instead of addressing an issue you can just change the subject. Back to the business of sports on television and do you think that when the NHL, NBA, NFL and MLB broadcast deals need to be renewed will they go up, down or be flat. How about for Nascar?
Click to expand...
Hard to say, since most of them are long-term and the landscape of sports television can change significantly until then. I think NHL will increase by a lot considering that they're locked into the old Versus contract, which pays really lowly...I'd wager most everything will increase just because live sports are still the staple of television (along with cable news recently).
 
OK. If your position is that TV sports ratings and financing of stadiums belong together, I guess we're stuck with it because of shoddy thread titling. I doubt TRL has time to look in here anyway.

My real point is that discussion would be more fulfilling among posters who are genuinely interested in the subject. I get that there was one poster here who angered several other posters by constantly trashing NASCAR's prospects. I don't think we benefit from the flip side of the coin, the poster who is fixated on talking down all other sports on behalf of NASCAR.
 
Is there a precedent for a major sports rights fee decreasing from one contract to the next? I'm sure it will happen at some point, but I doubt it will be during the next cycle. This is a profitable enterprise with more players looking to enter (Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc.) Even in limited spaces where it is not, the networks successfully use live sports as a tool to promote their other programming.
 
The NFL is a corporate welfare funded sport, with players having a 3 year average life expediency. Nascar is a self supported sport. Insane to say they have the same business principles. NFL billionaires don't use their money, and they blackmail the politicians to help fund new stadiums that are mostly half full. :confused:
 
Last edited:
StandOnIt said:
The NFL is a corporate welfare funded sport, with players having a 3 year average life expediency. Nascar is a self supported sport. Insane to say they have the same business principles. NFL billionaires don't use their money, and they blackmail the politicians to help fund new stadiums that are mostly half full. :confused:
Click to expand...

As I stated the other night, I'm with you on the scam of publicly financed stadiums and arenas. It is massively wasteful, and taxpayer money gets thrown away building replacements for facilities that should last three times longer than they do.

That said, you just posted an informative article in another thread about Talladega seeking public money for renovations, citing a bunch of other major tracks that have received it and stating that it's "fair" they should too. Surely things are a bit more complicated than your absolutist statements and exaggerations. I lived in Kansas City when Kansas Speedway was built and watched the process closely. They got a sweetheart land deal, tax breaks, and funds from the local and state governments because Kansas didn't want to see it get built on the Missouri side. This stuff goes on in racing too, just not quite to the same extent.
 
StandOnIt said:
The NFL is a corporate welfare funded sport, with players having a 3 year average life expediency. Nascar is a self supported sport. Insane to say they have the same business principles. NFL billionaires don't use their money, and they blackmail the politicians to help fund new stadiums that are mostly half full. :confused:
Click to expand...

The same principles apply to large and small businesses as you have to supply a product or service that people want. If you don't have that you don't have anything.

Maybe we could have a discussion on some of the things you brought up on the appropriate thread but I will leave you with this. I don't care how long a NFL player's career lasts, I don't care if they get concussions doing what they love and I don't care if they snore through them national anthem. Oh and I really don't care if a taxing jurisdiction pays for a sports stadium or if they tuck the mayor in every night.

If you were sincere about not wanting taxpayers to fund for profit structures and infrastructure you would be up in arms about the Talladega project. You can't have it both ways.

gnomesayin said:
As I stated the other night, I'm with you on the scam of publicly financed stadiums and arenas. It is massively wasteful, and taxpayer money gets thrown away building replacements for facilities that should last three times longer than they do.

That said, you just posted an informative article in another thread about Talladega seeking public money for renovations, citing a bunch of other major tracks that have received it and stating that it's "fair" they should too. Surely things are a bit more complicated than your absolutist statements and exaggerations. I lived in Kansas City when Kansas Speedway was built and watched the process closely. They got a sweetheart land deal, tax breaks, and funds from the local and state governments because Kansas didn't want to see it get built on the Missouri side. This stuff goes on in racing too, just not quite to the same extent.
Click to expand...

I completely respect those that oppose taxpayer money being used to woo teams and build palaces for millionaires teams to play. What I can't accept is when fabrications are used in order to push an agenda.
It doesn't bother me a bit if a taxing jurisdiction decides to allot funds to build a new home for its pro sports teams every 5 years as it has no impact on me. Even if it did I still dont care.
If I lived in an area where this sort of thing occurred and I didnt like it I would either attempt to change it or I would move to another jurisdiction.
 
Totally different animal. Tax breaks for an as built facility aren't the same as the corporate welfare using tax exempt government money to build the football stadiums.
 
How so? Football stadiums do that routinely. they raise the hotel taxes, use tax free bonds for an average of 70% to fund the construction. Billionaires having the tax payers making them richer.
 
When I lived in Houston, I always voted against the referendums granting public money/tax abatements. Those owners
have more money than they know what to do with. Let them build their own damn stadiums.
And for that matter, race tracks, too.
 
The NFL was freakin tax exempt from 1942-2015. Sorry I get a bit rankled when some like to puff up and say how great and popular the NFL is and ya know, try to compare their success to autosports. They're a bunch of billionaire pot lickers
 
It doesn't bother me that cities and municipalities use tax dollars to fund stadiums used for pro sports, concerts, home and garden shows or the Ice Capades. If I was bothered by that kind of thing I would either work to defeat it or move to an area not impacted by it. Some of the best races I have been to have been in run down short tracks and some of the worse racing I have seen has come from multi million dollar facilities. It isn't the stadiums that make the NFL great in the eyes of many it is the game itself. I cannot see getting worried over people making comparisons of different sports and how successful they are because who cares what other people think?
 
It was the NFL league office that filed with a tax exempt status, as did MLB, PGA, and several other sports leagues. MLB voluntarily stopped doing so in 2007, the NFL in 2015. They did this primarily so they would no longer have to report the salaries paid to top executives, including the commissioners. The tax exempt status wasn't worth it to the leagues anymore and the money saved through it was tiny as a percentage of overall revenues. The vast majority of NFL and MLB revenues go to the franchises that collectively own the league. The teams are not and have never been tax exempt.

However, MLB famously has an antitrust exemption, giving it a legal monopoly that helped its fortunes enormously through the first half of the 20th century. All major sports leagues benefit from various forms of government help. Some more than others, of course.

The NFL is far and away more popular than any other sport, motorsports or otherwise. No modern sport should be expected to compete with it. Why this has to bother anyone is beyond me. The only good reason I can think of to hate the NFL is perhaps the brain damage and especially their lies about it. But other sports aren't totally safe from that reality either.
 
There are a vast majority of American's concerned. Some people have their heads in the sand

Republicans cut tax break for NFL, let churches pick sides in political elections
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/2/gop-bill-slashes-tax-break-nfl-pro-sports-stadiums/
but of course
NFL owners’ tax break remains intact
The original House version of tax cuts prohibited all sports teams from tapping tax-free municipal bonds — but the Senate won out, and the break was maintained.

Sen. Cory Booker, who has been pushing a separate measure with Sen. James Lankford to repeal the break, said it was ridiculous that their proposal was ultimately set aside.

“Insane that my bipartisan bill ending sweetheart tax giveaways for NFL stadium construction doesn’t get included,” Mr. Booker, New Jersey Democrat, tweeted this week. “They are preserving so many tax gifts for the most privileged while ending breaks for low and middle income Americans.”
 
Yes, I agree with the Cory Booker quote. I think the problem is that the vast majority of Americans aren't concerned or even aware. That's why it keeps happening.
 
gnomesayin said:
It was the NFL league office that filed with a tax exempt status, as did MLB, PGA, and several other sports leagues. MLB voluntarily stopped doing so in 2007, the NFL in 2015. They did this primarily so they would no longer have to report the salaries paid to top executives, including the commissioners. The tax exempt status wasn't worth it to the leagues anymore and the money saved through it was tiny as a percentage of overall revenues. The vast majority of NFL and MLB revenues go to the franchises that collectively own the league. The teams are not and have never been tax exempt.

However, MLB famously has an antitrust exemption, giving it a legal monopoly that helped its fortunes enormously through the first half of the 20th century. All major sports leagues benefit from various forms of government help. Some more than others, of course.

The NFL is far and away more popular than any other sport, motorsports or otherwise. No modern sport should be expected to compete with it. Why this has to bother anyone is beyond me. The only good reason I can think of to hate the NFL is perhaps the brain damage and especially their lies about it. But other sports aren't totally safe from that reality either.
Click to expand...
gnomesayin said:
Yes, I agree with the Cory Booker quote. I think the problem is that the vast majority of Americans aren't concerned or even aware. That's why it keeps happening.
Click to expand...

I agree as I don't know why the juggernaut aka the NFL would bother a soul and in some quarters the only reason the taxpayer funding of stadiums is an issue is a last ditch attempt to make the sport look bad. Joe and Mary Sixpack don't give a flying freaken fig about this issue as they want a home team to cheer for.
 
They are very aware, Jessie Ventura who wasn't a career politician said no to building another one in Minnesota. The next governor afraid of losing votes and here we go again. Billions more of welfare. The NFL has been skipping town leaving the tax payer holding the bag for years. But the awareness grows San Diego had enough.

For two decades after the Raiders departed, the NFL held the threat of a move to Los Angeles over many cities, extracting massive subsidies. Voters in San Diego eventually rejected a 2016 ballot measure to pay $1.15 billion for a new $1.8 billion stadium with a staggering 4 percent hotel occupancy tax. In response, the Chargers announced that they were moving to LA. The City of San Diego had already paid $68 million to renovate the Chargers' football stadium in 1997, and was spending an additional $5-7 million each year for repairs and to subsidize operating costs.
 
StandOnIt said:
They are very aware, Jessie Ventura who wasn't a career politician said no to building another one in Minnesota. The next governor afraid of losing votes and here we go again. Billions more of welfare. The NFL has been skipping town leaving the tax payer holding the bag for years. But the awareness grows San Diego had enough.

For two decades after the Raiders departed, the NFL held the threat of a move to Los Angeles over many cities, extracting massive subsidies. Voters in San Diego eventually rejected a 2016 ballot measure to pay $1.15 billion for a new $1.8 billion stadium with a staggering 4 percent hotel occupancy tax. In response, the Chargers announced that they were moving to LA. The City of San Diego had already paid $68 million to renovate the Chargers' football stadium in 1997, and was spending an additional $5-7 million each year for repairs and to subsidize operating costs.
Click to expand...

You should include a link when copying and pasting material from another source. People in San Diego, Oakland and St. Louis may not have wanted to build new barns but Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Los Angeles again all did. If a city does not want to support their team the team will move. It's been that way for decades.
 
StandOnIt said:
support..that's funny..subsidize is the word, a nice one for give welfare too.
Click to expand...

Subsidize, welfare, blackmail, who cares? As long as the individual voters don't mind why should I care? If voters in some jurisdictions do care they can kill things and the team can move to greener pastures.
 
As long as the NFL has its hog noses buried in the taxpayer trough, I’ll keep speaking up about all the football militants who backed former 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick and his disgusting cops-as-pigs socks.
You wanna raise your fists on the field? Get your grubby hands out of our pockets first. :D
 
StandOnIt said:
As long as the NFL has its hog noses buried in the taxpayer trough, I’ll keep speaking up about all the football militants who backed former 49ers QB Colin Kaepernick and his disgusting cops-as-pigs socks.
You wanna raise your fists on the field? Get your grubby hands out of our pockets first. :D
Click to expand...

No problem and I support your right to be anti football, anti Kaep, anti NFL and anti anything else. I am glad we have this thread where you can voice you concerns about all that and taxpayer funded stadiums.

I am 100% opposite as I like football, don't care about Kaep or anthem protests or taxpayer funded stadiums.

I am afraid this thread will have a short shelf life as I don't think it is a hot button issue. We will see but at worst we can at least keep talk like this and concussions from the ratings thread.
 
Saying my peace and then I am out, taxpayer money should NOT be used to build new stadiums/arenas or even race tracks.
 
StandOnIt said:
Totally different animal. Tax breaks for an as built facility aren't the same as the corporate welfare using tax exempt government money to build the football stadiums.
Click to expand...

Spending taxpayer money is spending taxpayer money regardless if it is for new construction or to remodel or refurb and existing facility.
 


The topic of building a new arena for the NHL's Calgary Flames is in the news at present. The Flames ownership need a new building in order to remain competitive and offered a proposal that included taxpayer funds. The mayor said no way so neither side is talking and it is quite possible the team will move to Houston and share an arena with the Rockets.
 
600x-1.jpg
600x-1.jpg



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...tball-s-top-teams-are-built-on-crippling-debt
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting that. It is worth me considering. Please also consider that these are summaries of athletic departments overall. Nobody disputes that every single college sport except for men's D1 football and basketball are money losers, and most big school athletic departments are using TV money from those two sports to help subsidize everything else.
 
Link was jacked..fixed it. I've had some of those uneducated idiots in my classes, even had the dean's dancing around saying pass them no matter what. It's bull****
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom