Article on Eliminating "Sports Welfare"
 

This is starting to make the rounds online, and figured it would make for good discussion here. Long but worth the read.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/40595178/

Sickening.

But we will continue to be told that the poor and elderly are drags on society, while these people pocket billions.

More privatizing profits and socializing losses. Hooray.

SI

Agree completely. Cities should not be paying for stadiums, and the NFL in particular is absurd about this.

One of the many reasons I like the SFGiants is that they paid for their own park - no public money.

As did Robert Kraft for the Patriots team that everyone loves to hate...

While complaining about tax increases out of one side of their mouth, the Georgia legislature has approved a plan to increase hotel tax to raise $300 million to fund a new stadium for the Falcons. It's a joke.

Just so Arthur Blank can make more money on the concessions and parking. The Georgia Dome is perfectly fine. It makes me fucking crazy.

The worst part about building NFL stadiums is that it makes very little difference to the fans.

The way NFL revenue sharing works, owners keep their luxury box revenue and their seat licenses. Most attendance revenue is shared.

NFL games sell out, for the most part. So when an owner advocates a new stadium, what he's really doing is asking the public to pay for his mechanism for generating additional revenue.

What soured me on this issue was Paul Allen's campaign to get Washington voters to pay for the new Seahawks stadium. This was about 15 years ago. Here we have a multi-billionaire asking the public for half a billion dollars so that he can extract a few million extra every year in suite revenue.

So he ran all these commercials advocating the new tax, saying construction would provide lots of jobs and revitalize Seattle. But all the independent economists agree that stadium construction does little for an economy, and a sports team is less valuable to a city than a decent department store in terms of money.

Prestige is worth something, but, then again, so is the prestige of actually owning an NFL team.

Looking at this issue back in 1997 (and before that, with the new Mariners stadium, which now draws less than half of what it did when it was new) has had a profound effect on how I view sports team ownership.

Great article! I wish that localities would rise up and say no to billionaire owners looking for a handout.

But the state kicked in tens of millions in infrastructure improvements near the stadium.

Better than hundreds of millions though, right?

And the infrastructure that was there beforehand was a nightmare and needed upgrading anyways.

And he built a snazzy high-end retail complex around the stadium that is contributing $$ and jobs to the local economy year-round.

I dig the cranberry bog too.

Don't forget the seat licenses that Mr. Blank is going to sell to help pay for his portion of the project.

can't read it. i get too angry. i stopped reading matt taibbi articles for the same reason

When the Bengals wanted a new stadium, they county commissioner was the one really pitching the idea to the public. It ended up being the worst stadium deal for taxpayers, and by far the best for ownership. Guess who that county commissioner works for now? You got it..........Mike Brown, the Bengals owner.
It's a joke.

At least most cities have an owner to vilify. Our CFL club is owned by 'the community', so when the new stadium is finally finished it will just be a (mostly) faceless group of local high-rollers laughing about all the money they greased out of the province.

But hey, we'll have a shiny new building on the outskirts of the city to freeze our asses off in a few times a year while we watch the Bombers stink it up because they can't afford to spend money on operations when they are up to their ears in debt for the next 50 years.

To say AT&T Park is completely privately funded is a bit of a reach. They got very nice deals. Free city-owned land in a very prime spot, and around $80 million from the taxpayers in infrastructure spending.

MPR: In San Francisco, the Giants went private for their stadium

It's all about the anti-trust protections some of these sports have. If you could take the NFL or MLB to court and say that they were unfairly extorting local governments because they were the only game in town, a few judgments would put an end to the practice.

I remember reading Howard Cosell's book from thirty years ago. It's a shame that we still haven't fixed this.

And every 15(?) years in FOF2, i'd soak the taxpayers/communities for another new stadium!
:)

We don't hate the team, just Belichick and the obnoxious fans (not all the fans!) . . . and Tom Brady (just a little bit).

That's fair - mea culpa. Though that land was pretty worthless at the time - it's become a destination spot because of the SF Giants (all the development around SOMA) - ironically, they've raised property values. Still a gift though.

I realize that since moving, Winnipeg (along with Regina and Minneapolis) is the closest place to watch football. I'd join you for a Bombers game next season!

One more to add in 2012:

The Bills Blackmailed New York Taxpayers Into Covering 84 Percent Of Stadium Renovations

Name a "major league" city that doesn't have 1-2 major league teams.

The impact of imaging should not be underestimated, although tbh it might not be truly quantifiable either.

Absolutely. But let's not pretend that there are any other real benefits. None of these cities and none of these billionaires ever market the concept as what it really is: imaging. Because honesty and economics are not compatible concepts in government.

And you know I'm not a "soak the rich" person politically. I just feel if you run a billion-dollar business, and you see a market opportunity (seat licenses, luxury boxes), you should pay for the vehicle that provides that additional revenue.

Adding: top 40 MSAs with no NFL or MLB teams where there isn't a team in the CSA.

2. Los Angeles (MLB only)
23. Portland
24. San Antonio
25. Sacramento
26. Orlando
30. Las Vegas
32. Columbus
33. Charlotte (NFL only)
34. Austin
35. Indianapolis (NFL only)
36. Virginia Beach
37. Nashville (NFL only)
39. Milwaukee (MLB only - see below)
40. Jacksonville (NFL only)

Non-top 40 MSAs with NFL or MLB teams, excluding those in CSAs with teams:

46. New Orleans (NFL)
49. Buffalo (NFL)
152. Green Bay (NFL) - emotionally connected to Milwaukee

I wonder, as a trivia question, how many people know Portland has 2.2 million people in its MSA while Jacksonville has just 1.3 million.

I think what the list kinda illustrates is perhaps the point I was making but in maybe the opposite way. Having one (or more) teams doesn't guarantee a city "major league" status, but not having one makes it awfully difficult.

Of the "withouts", L.A. is a pretty unique animal. Vegas is a particularly unique animal. Orlando is fairly unique but I don't believe fully reaches "major league" status in terms of image. The rest? Only Charlotte seems to be anywhere near that conversation and honestly everyone else doesn't perceive it the same way it perceives itself (notoriously overpriced media market with oodles & oodles of attitude).


I did (give or take) ... but I ain't exactly normal because of my line of work
(Let's just allow that to take the blame, m'kay? ;))

I had a pub trivia question once which asked what was the biggest city without an NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL team. I waffled between some shitty city and Austin. I chose wrong -- Austin was the right answer, but my guess was #2.

I'm always torn on what having a major sports team does for a city. Winnipeg could be a fairly good case study in that we had the Jets, then lost them for 16 years, and now have them back.

Obviously there was a tonne of gnashing of teeth when the Jets left, but for the most part the sky was still blue the next day. The city seems to have progressed reasonably well in the time they were gone, at least for Winnipeg, and I think you could argue that losing the NHL had no real impact.

On the flip side, there was no denying that the city felt re-invigorated by their return last year; that most of us had a bit more jump in our step and a more positive outlook on the city and it's prospects. There was a bit more swagger and I think people even felt a bit more emboldened to spend money and take chances. And I'm certain the city itself received publicity and name-recognition that had been missing for almost 2 decades. But how do you put a value on that? It has to be worth a little bit, but how much? I don't know.

Hmm, when I clicked on this thread I thought it was going to be about supplementing women's pro and college sports.

But this sucks too.

Deadspin has had some great articles. The deal that Arlington voters approved for the Rangers was another incredible waste.

It's ridiculous and cities just fall over themselves to get these teams free money.

If the major cities stopped, some lower level ones would happily step in for the chance at the big time, sadly. But now the politicians are hip to the game, stop voting from happening and nobody wants to really consider the costs.

I'm picturing some shirtless wonder with Cheetos chips all over his face and chest writing that article! Hahahaha! That's one angry typist!

Our governor-elect has shut down St. Louis' attempt to get public financing for a MLS soccer stadium, citing corporate welfare.

They were trying to ram it through before the new governor took office. When that came out they canceled the meeting.

It's probably a bad deal, but it sounds like the practice facility is a small part of a large mixed-use development? $100 million high school football stadiums are crazy, but every rich Dallas suburb is building one, and the $30 million Frisco ISD is throwing in is hald of what Allen & McKinney spent... The actual numbers in that Deadspin article ($1.5b cost, $90-$110m paid by the town) really don't seem bad at all when you consider there's that much retail, a hotel, a country club, and medical facilities.

Yeah, that practice facility area looks like it's part of creating real jobs that will actually pay back into the tax base. There's plenty to not like about how stadiums are done, but I'm not seeing a real problem with the Frisco deal.