Should the public pay for sports stadiums?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Lotta people are feeling really abused by the NFL and sports teams. It now costs a family $7-800 to see a game somewhere, and that stadium in Tx was reporting an average of $50 in food and drink per person. This is all after the taxpayers pay to build the damn stadium. Kind of seems like robbery of the taxpayer to help some rich person get richer.

That uber nice stadium in TX cost the taxpayers 1.2 Billion.

In NJ, they just demolished a stadium they still owe 110 Million on to make parking lot space for the new one.

With about every city in the country in financial trouble, maybe using stadiums to gain revenue rather than as financial drains would be in order. It's not sounding like the city is getting any of the ticket revenue or concessions when there is a game. A 20-25% cut might turn some state budgets around right quick!

discussion?

[Petar]

Almost nothing annoys me more than the idea of spending public dollars on these idiotic mass distraction temples.

[ItsTime]

Has anyone done an analysis on the amount of tax money a sports stadium brings in? I dont agree with the money being spent that way, but I believe in the long run it is a net gain for the tax payer and may keep taxes down. But that is just a gut feeling, I have not read anything on it.

[Koz]

I love watching NFL football, and like going to football and baseball games. It is ridiculous that billionaires are bilking the taxpayers to pay for stadiums that they reap the benefits on. No, taxpayers should not be on the hook for stadiums. Except for the Packers (incidentally which I cannot stand) because the town owns the team.

[axiomata]

There has actually been a lot of research. Google it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=sport+stadium+economics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

[outspoken]

I think it would make more sense to build a church or a mosque with such funds as you might make the case that such a building might make some type of moral contribution to society. Most of these stadiums are built as a pissing contest and the owners take the profits courtesy of the tax payers.... this sounds a lot of like the banks that got TARP funds. Absurd.

[Anti Federalist]

Almost nothing annoys me more than the idea of spending public dollars on these idiotic mass distraction temples.

That ^^^

I find it as abusive and abrasive as many of you would if your tax dollars went directly to build temples, churches and mosques.

[mikem317]

No.

[outspoken]

Has anyone done an analysis on the amount of tax money a sports stadium brings in? I dont agree with the money being spent that way, but I believe in the long run it is a net gain for the tax payer and may keep taxes down. But that is just a gut feeling, I have not read anything on it.

It doesn't matter. Govt has no business gambling with tax payer dollars. It is irrelevant whether they turn a profit, much of which lines the owners pockets anyways. What happens is eventually people take more and more risks because they have govt backing and next thing you know you have billion-dollar stadiums for minor league field hockey in hopes of maybe attracting a pro team.... kinda like what happen with Fannie and Freddie. When govt assumes costs/risks, guess what happens?

And I happen to like football... I can only imagine how it must feel if you are a Lacrosse fan.

[civusamericanus]

USA USA USA... How can we let North Korea have the largest stadium in the world?


http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/pyongyang-stadium.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Arirang1.jpg/800px-Arirang1.jpg

[bkreigh]

Im a huge sports fan. I love my football, basketball, baseball, soccer, racing, and golf. With that being said I dont think tax money should be used to build sports stadiums. Add in the ticket prices, parking, food, drink it ends up being a kick in the nuts. Gotta love hobbies though.

[Kregisen]

Has anyone done an analysis on the amount of tax money a sports stadium brings in? I dont agree with the money being spent that way, but I believe in the long run it is a net gain for the tax payer and may keep taxes down. But that is just a gut feeling, I have not read anything on it.


The statistics that say taxpayers come out on top don't look into opportunity costs. If people don't buy a ticket and snacks at a football game, they will spend their money elsewhere and somebody, whether it be your town or the next, will be getting the tax revenue regardless. In essence, what you're doing is paying a $1 fee to take $10 from someone else. In the end, you gained $9, but total wealth did not increase.

Any city can constitutionally buy a stadium for a football team, but I think it's morally wrong and should never occur.

[Zippyjuan]

It is a business- not a public service. If a group of investors would like to purchase land and build a stadium they should be allowed to do so. A new football stadium is a big issue in San Diego these days- with the Chargers hinting that they will leave town if they don't get a new one. Los Angeles and I think also Las Vegas want to build stadiums in the HOPE they can get a team. Talk about a big financial risk.

When the Padres group wanted a new ballpark, they hired some big guns (top players) in for a couple of years and made it to the World Series for the first time (where they lost to the Yankees) and once the stadium was built, the player payroll was slashed and a more mediocre team was fielded (despite promises that this would not happen). The Petco Park stadium was part of a big boost in downtown construction and investments and its overall impact was pretty large on the area. Would a new football stadium have a similar impact on San Diego? Not nearly as likely. And a baseball stadium gets used a lot more than a football stadium. Including pre-season you probably only have about twelve home games a season while baseball has probably 50. Petco cost $450 million. A football stadium would cost more and at less than 20 events a year will be harder to pay for.

If they want to do it with private funds, I say go ahead. Should the taxpayers be on the hook for a business investment like that? Probably not.

[surf]

they didn't used to be built by anyone but the team owners or someone else. and it didn't used to cost so goddamn much money. i saw a picture of Yankee Stadium being built in 1923 and it was built for $2.4mm in about one year. the new one cost $2.3 billion! owners now ask for and receive porcelain pissers.

i thought Jerry Jones was paying for much of his playpen himself?

probably mentioned earlier in this thread, but the economic impact studies that accompany these stadium proposals are pure crap. they all say the stadium will generate jobs and tax revenue but they ignore how they canablize entertainment dollars... do i take the neighborhood to dinner and the movies or do i go to an NFL game?

[EndDaFed]

I love watching NFL football, and like going to football and baseball games. It is ridiculous that billionaires are bilking the taxpayers to pay for stadiums that they reap the benefits on. No, taxpayers should not be on the hook for stadiums. Except for the Packers (incidentally which I cannot stand) because the town owns the team.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iqLhdInGrk

[american.swan]

Surf is correct. Arlington isn't paying the whole bill for Jerry's World. 50$ or food and drink per person in Jerry's World is to get Jerry his money back. From wiki: "The city of Arlington completes its sale of $297.9 million in bonds to pay for its portion of the construction." The whole thing cost over a billion, so Arlington isn't getting entirely shafted here.

[libertybrewcity]

I don't know why cities do this. If you can afford to own a team, you can probably afford to pay for it and find investors to help build it. I don't know where the politicians get the idea that it is good for the city to help build a stadium. At the same time though, I would rather cities and local communities do these kinds of things rather than the state or federal governments. When congress is voting on whether or not to build a stadium, I think we're screwed.

[dbill27]

Has anyone brought up the point yet that these stadiums don't neccesarily bring in new revenue? Isn't this just broken window fallacy? Maybe people fill stadiums and bring money to citys on game nights, but isn't it an unseen effect that if those stadiums weren't there they would possibly just be spending money on something else in that same city?

[Feeding the Abscess]

It is a business- not a public service. If a group of investors would like to purchase land and build a stadium they should be allowed to do so. A new football stadium is a big issue in San Diego these days- with the Chargers hinting that they will leave town if they don't get a new one. Los Angeles and I think also Las Vegas want to build stadiums in the HOPE they can get a team. Talk about a big financial risk.

When the Padres group wanted a new ballpark, they hired some big guns (top players) in for a couple of years and made it to the World Series for the first time (where they lost to the Yankees) and once the stadium was built, the player payroll was slashed and a more mediocre team was fielded (despite promises that this would not happen). The Petco Park stadium was part of a big boost in downtown construction and investments and its overall impact was pretty large on the area. Would a new football stadium have a similar impact on San Diego? Not nearly as likely. And a baseball stadium gets used a lot more than a football stadium. Including pre-season you probably only have about twelve home games a season while baseball has probably 50. Petco cost $450 million. A football stadium would cost more and at less than 20 events a year will be harder to pay for.

If they want to do it with private funds, I say go ahead. Should the taxpayers be on the hook for a business investment like that? Probably not.

Baseball's got at least 81 home games a year, my friend.

Anywho, I think the SF Giants play in a park that was financed by the owner.

[noxagol]

Um... no

[ItsTime]

Has anyone brought up the point yet that these stadiums don't neccesarily bring in new revenue? Isn't this just broken window fallacy? Maybe people fill stadiums and bring money to citys on game nights, but isn't it an unseen effect that if those stadiums weren't there they would possibly just be spending money on something else in that same city?

No. Take boston as an example. People form all over new england go there just for sporting events. If they were not going to see a game they would stay in their own town and spend money.

[axiomata]

Did anyone google it as I suggested?

http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html

[MN Patriot]

Minnesota is in the midst of stadium talk. The Vikings have one year left on their lease, the Metrodome roof won't be fixed until August after it collapsed last December.
http://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/metrodome-roof-collapse.jpg?w=420

Although many politicians are aware of the opposition to public funding of the stadium, I am afraid they will submit to the pressure and open up the public purse.
There is talk about the Vikings owner taking the team to LA if Minnesota doesn't contribute. Let him, hope he goes broke in bankrupt California.

[fisharmor]

they didn't used to be built by anyone but the team owners or someone else. and it didn't used to cost so goddamn much money. i saw a picture of Yankee Stadium being built in 1923 and it was built for $2.4mm in about one year. the new one cost $2.3 billion! owners now ask for and receive porcelain pissers.

Of course they do. It's a state-run project. Do you expect any less than this?
It's the same reason people buy steak with food stamps. People are not good stewards with other people's money. It's an immutable fact of life.

Let's also not forget that zoning is probably the biggest reason why the state builds stadiums to begin with. You can't drop a stadium wherever you want, regardless of whether the locals enthusiastically support it. The state has to approve.

Since the state already arrogated final say in where it is, what it's made of, how construction progresses, what the workers have to wear, how they're going to be transported to the site, how many hours they're going to work, what's going to happen with the garbage, what unit of currency will be used in all the transactions, how many and what type parking spaces there will be, how the exits to the stadium will work, how the food will be prepared, how many urinals will be installed, and finally and most ridiculously, what will happen to the players when they are caught using performance enhancing drugs.... well, why the hell SHOULDN'T the state pay for it?
The only problem I see is that the state doesn't have its own money. In any other situation, the guy calling all the shots is the one who writes the checks.

[ItsTime]

Did anyone google it as I suggested?

http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html

Their argument falls apart here.


“Second,” they state, “taxes will be collected on ticket sales, concessions, parking, and merchandise sold within the stadium.
It is likely that the District of Columbia residents who purchase food, beverages, and clothing while attending games would have chosen to eat and purchase clothes in the district – and pay taxes on those purchases – in the absence of the stadium and franchise. In other words, revenues generated inside the stadium may not be new revenues, even if they are dedicated specifically to paying for the new stadium.

The last time I went to Boston was to see the Red Sox, I have zero plans to visit Boston again until I wan to see a sports game. 10s of thousands of other people feel the same way.

[erowe1]

Has anyone done an analysis on the amount of tax money a sports stadium brings in? I dont agree with the money being spent that way, but I believe in the long run it is a net gain for the tax payer and may keep taxes down. But that is just a gut feeling, I have not read anything on it.

There is no possible way that could be true.

[TXcarlosTX]

Almost nothing annoys me more than the idea of spending public dollars on these idiotic mass distraction temples.

I voted for a school bond here in san antonio that has some money to fix up an old stadium for possible MLS team. I pretty much will do anything for a pro soccer team. Dont hate.

[erowe1]

I pretty much will do anything for a pro soccer team.

Obviously not. Or you'd be putting up your own money, rather than other people's.

[osan]

discussion?

Nothing to discuss. Public funding of sports stadiums is absurd and immoral. Expropriating funds is theft, making it criminal.

'Nuff said.

[specsaregood]

Jason Lewis had a good show discussing this around superbowl time. He calls it welfare for billionaires, I'm inclined to agree.

Jason Lewis Show 02/07/11-1st Hour
Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:02:05 -0500
After the Packers beat the Steelers in the Super Bowl, Jason talks about the NFL stadium situation and the idea of taxpayer money going to billionaires.

Download (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS020711_1st%20Hr%20NFL%20Stadiums.mp3?CPROG=PC AST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=News_Talk_100.3_FM&PCAST_CAT=Talk_Radio&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis)
To download the podcast, right-click "Download" and select "Save Target As" from the menu.

[juleswin]

Just like the TARP that the so called economist and Washington shill claim made us lots of money, my policy is that if it was profitable, private investors would invest in it. Actually sometimes the tax payers are tricked into financing the profitable projects with the private entity taking all the profit while shifting the public investors.

So I say no forced financing (democratic vote is still force) of any private institution

[VBRonPaulFan]

the reason local/state governments pay for stadiums is the idea of revenue. if they build a good stadium that brings a good team to the area, they'll get tourism money coming in buying tickets/food from the stadium, as well as hotel room rentals/tourist money spent shopping. this is how they justify the proposal. how good the stadium actually does depends on the caliber of the team they get and how well the team does.

that being said, i see no reason why the local/state governments need to do this. it should be private investors that are building stadiums.

also, i think the reason the tickets prices are so absurd now is because of all the idiots who idolize the majority of the athletes that are dumb as a brick, constantly in trouble with the law, with no strong moral or ethical code who happen to be good at throwing/hitting/shooting a ball. they will pay any amount of money to see their idol (there are a few good ones, but not many. i don't actively follow sports anymore though). the athletes/teams have cashed in on this and that is why the athletes are getting ridiculous amounts of money to play. several million bucks to play one season? are you serious? that is really what is driving up the costs. the simple solution to bring down the costs would be to stop paying these assholes so much to play by not buying tickets anymore or not participating in the system. or better yet, play the game with your own and some of the neighborhood kids. probably much more rewarding.

[GBurr]

Smart owners would do it like the Patriots Robert Kraft. Gillette stadium was financed completely with private funds. Kraft as a result has complete control of all stadium revenues. That is how you run a great sports franchise.

[Seraphim]

The only way the public should pay is through VOLUNTARY purchasing of GOVT bonds to finance the project.

[american.swan]

I called the city managers office of Oklahoma City and talked to a Mr. Anderson who was involved with the arrival of the NBA team to OKC. Why don't you call various cities and ask the proper people why they do this? What benefits are there? I got a variety of interesting answers from Mr. Anderson. When I explained the situation I have here in Korea with sports team, he was a bit surprised the cities didn't see the team as an asset. From talking to Mr. Anderson, I think the opinions on this board are a bit ignorant. While I am a libertarian and the citizens should pay for it out of their pocket if they so desire, there are benefits to sports teams. If you can wine and dine a executive in some back ally town, the executive will be pissed off, but if you wine and dine the executive at your nice city with a sports team and other "stuff" like a zoo, maybe he'll relocate or build a job creating distribution center in your town!! Think about it!!

[american.swan]

Jason Lewis had a good show discussing this around superbowl time. He calls it welfare for billionaires, I'm inclined to agree.

Jason Lewis Show 02/07/11-1st Hour
Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:02:05 -0500
After the Packers beat the Steelers in the Super Bowl, Jason talks about the NFL stadium situation and the idea of taxpayer money going to billionaires.

Download (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS020711_1st%20Hr%20NFL%20Stadiums.mp3?CPROG=PC AST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=News_Talk_100.3_FM&PCAST_CAT=Talk_Radio&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis)
To download the podcast, right-click "Download" and select "Save Target As" from the menu.

Good listen!!