Should Major Sports leagues be self funded?

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Jd1680a (5921 posts) -

The city of Philadelphia recently spent $1 billion in tax payers money in building a baseball and football stadium. Sports seems to be the only business that the government directly funds its infrastructure. Does the city of Philadelpha pay for new Wal mart stores, mall centers or a Taco Bell restraurant? Most of the time when cities end up funding stadiums they would end up rising property or sales taxes to help pay for the them after 20 or so years.

Should every major sports league be self funded? If the NBA want to sell a basketball team in a city and they want to a place to play, then they have to get their own funding to pay for a $200 million arena. The basketball league if they get money from the city or state, they would be required to pay it back after 15 years. The NBA would also have to fund high school and college basketball programs to help recruit new players, so you dont have tax payers paying for replacements for someone elses business.

Our society needs engineers, mechanics, plumbers, doctors, etc. Does our society really need people coming out of high school playing basketball? If tax payers money is spent sports programs, how exactly is that an investment toward the future?

#2 Posted by JML897 (33120 posts) -
Publicly funded stadiums are basically a huge scam.
#3 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26036 posts) -
...you failed to take into account how much money sport events actually bring into an area.
#4 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

In most cases where the local municipality funds the construction of a new stadium/arena the municipality owns that stadium/arena. The argument is that it brings jobs and revenue to the local economy. I have yet to hear of taxpayers funding the teams themselves or their players however (which the TCs post seems to imply).

#5 Posted by punkpunker (3321 posts) -

that much for 2 stadiums? i see no more that 3/4 of the money goes to the actual cost of building and i smell shady business is going on.

#6 Posted by byof_america (1346 posts) -

I would say no. I think, idealy, you want to have funding come from private sources who would be benefitting from the introduction of a stadium or the upgrading of an existing one.

The only example I can think of off the top of my head is a proposed plan to build a 60k seat stadium on the campus of UNLV. Most of the funding is coming from private businesses because the stadium will be used not only for Rebel football games, but a slew of other major events that would bring thousands more tourists into Vegas. Because of the mutual benefit the stadium would bring to both the school, which is a public, state funded school, and the private businesses and casinos surrounding it, it is being funded by them

. If no benefits exist or businesses don't see them being that great to put forth the $$$ than I guess it's up to the people to front the bill. If that's the case then maybe it should be put to a vote.

#7 Posted by ferrari2001 (16808 posts) -
Do you know how much money the government makes off of tax revenue from sport events. It's well worth government to spend money on stadiums and infrastructure.
#8 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

that much for 2 stadiums? i see no more that 3/4 of the money goes to the actual cost of building and i smell shady business is going on.

punkpunker

The current Busch Stadium in St. Louis cost something like $380,000,000. That was funded through a combination of private money raised by team owners, bank loans, and a loan from the County of St. Louis which the team is obligated to pay back. So yeah, modern sports venues can get pricey.

#9 Posted by roulettethedog (10947 posts) -

Local area business get to help build the stadiums, benefit for outside tourists who frequent the stadium ,and taxes on every fan who visits these stadiums. I have no problem using public money to build stadiums even for the sports I do not follow.

#10 Posted by XaosII (16556 posts) -

That answer depends on an analysis of how much the area and government makes through tourism.

#11 Posted by The_Lipscomb (2187 posts) -
...you failed to take into account how much money sport events actually bring into an area. SaintLeonidas
What's your sig from?
#12 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

Also most stadiums sever as venues for other events (coventions. concerts, rodeos, etc) so the city is just investing in itself to provide a landmark location to attract more fans and events to the area. 

#13 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4165 posts) -
Do you know how much money the government makes off of tax revenue from sport events. It's well worth government to spend money on stadiums and infrastructure. ferrari2001
Not to mention that stadium is usually owned by the city as well. I live in Detroit and when they demolished Tiger Stadium to construct Comerica park, that money was not being put up for a private owner. The stadium is owned by the city itself. Not the Tigers or Major League Baseball. It was also costing them a lot more to maintain an almost hundred year old stadium than it did to construct and maintain a new one. They also received a fortune by allowing Comerica bank to put their name on it as well as a reason to increase ticket prices as well as create a boost in actual ticket sales. People are under the assumption that the teams own the stadiums which is usually not the case.
#14 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26036 posts) -

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]...you failed to take into account how much money sport events actually bring into an area. The_Lipscomb
What's your sig from?

Cosmos .

#15 Posted by Lonelynight (30039 posts) -
If they sports team help bring in money for the city, I don't see the problem.
#16 Posted by lostrib (34290 posts) -

The teams themselves are self funded, but the stadium is owned by the city.  

#17 Posted by Namgis (3572 posts) -

In a perfect world sure. What would happen if they weren't? We'd have owners of franchises picking up shop and fleeing to 'greener' pastures. Take the Vikings for example, the owners were open about their willingness to move the team if they didn't get help with a sorely needed stadium. Where would that have left the city/state? Since the Twins received public funding to have their stadium built, how could they justify not giving it to the Vikings. The two franchises are vital to their city/state.

-

Here's a nice article about the impact of the Minnesota Vikings to the state of Minnesota.2010.

Players paid $10 million in taxes.

Coaches paid $1.5 million.

Visiting players paid $1 million

-

The playoff game held there generated $1.5mil on restaurants, $1.4 on hotels, $1.2 on retail as well as over $1.5 on entertainment/transportation/parking. All that just from visitors to the state for 1 game.

#18 Posted by MrPraline (21308 posts) -
Yes. And they should pay for their own silly stadium as well.
#19 Posted by Mochyc (4421 posts) -
If it will lead to higher and worthwhile tax receipts, then they should go ahead and do it.
#20 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -
1st of all, American sports are the ones publicly funded, in Europe, its all private businesses secondly....
Publicly funded stadiums are basically a huge scam. JML897
^^^This It has been proven that the idea that teams bring in money into the area they play in has been proven false
#21 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

1st of all, American sports are the ones publicly funded, in Europe, its all private businesses secondly.... [QUOTE="JML897"]Publicly funded stadiums are basically a huge scam. TwoFace-BS
^^^This It has been proven that the idea that teams bring in money into the area they play in has been proven false

The city of arlington brought in 500 million dollar during super bowl XLV, and that was during an inclement weather episode. 

#22 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -

[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"]1st of all, American sports are the ones publicly funded, in Europe, its all private businesses secondly.... [QUOTE="JML897"]Publicly funded stadiums are basically a huge scam. Yusuke420

^^^This It has been proven that the idea that teams bring in money into the area they play in has been proven false

The city of arlington brought in 500 million dollar during super bowl XLV, and that was during an inclement weather episode. 

Then compare it with all the expenses involved and how much they take in the same amount of time. Its a fact that has been agreed on by most economists that holding these sports events does not benefit an areas economy.
#23 Posted by Mochyc (4421 posts) -
[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"] ^^^This It has been proven that the idea that teams bring in money into the area they play in has been proven falseTwoFace-BS

The city of arlington brought in 500 million dollar during super bowl XLV, and that was during an inclement weather episode. 

Then compare it with all the expenses involved and how much they take in the same amount of time. Its a fact that has been agreed on by most economists that holding these sports events does not benefit an areas economy.

As an economist, I am skeptical simply because you said it has been agreed upon by most economists :P (an Olympian feat by itself). But it does beg the question, any proof?
#24 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

Link

This disagrees, do you have some citation of your own?

#25 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -
[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"] The city of arlington brought in 500 million dollar during super bowl XLV, and that was during an inclement weather episode. Mochyc
Then compare it with all the expenses involved and how much they take in the same amount of time. Its a fact that has been agreed on by most economists that holding these sports events does not benefit an areas economy.

As an economist, I am skeptical simply because you said it has been agreed upon by most economists :P (an Olympian feat by itself). But it does beg the question, any proof?

I said 'most economists' as it was said in the place where I learned this from. A book called Soccernomics (by both a journalist and a economist) that used these stadiums as a example for explaining how its the same thing for the Football World Cup
#26 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -

Link

This disagrees, do you have some citation of your own?

Yusuke420
Put my source in my last post, and I wonder how mush of those resources are still gonna be used without the superbowl,and the total cost of it to be built, and how much it actually took in.
#27 Posted by Slow_Show (2153 posts) -

...you failed to take into account how much money sport events actually bring into an area. SaintLeonidas

Not much. People have fixed entertainment budgets, so if they can't spend it on the local sports franchise they'll just find another way to spend it in the community. Then on top of that sports franchises don't bring in much in the way of tourists either -- people may say they're going to New York to see the Yankees or whatever, but at the end of the day very few people actually base an entire vacation around a sporting event. The only exception is the SuperBowl, and even then its benefits are exaggerated.

Plus you have to consider the opportunity cost of tying up millions upon millions of dollars on something of fringe benefit like a stadium when that money could just as easily be spent in areas that are of real and significant benefit to the community. Even if a stadium does end up being a net benefit, you're sure as hell not getting the same bang for you buck as you would with increased education funding, infrastructure improvements, healthcare spending etc.

#28 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4165 posts) -
Yet when regular season games are bringing in 35000 people into the city of Detroit every game, that's a lot of money being made. Especially when the city owns the stadium and is making money from every ticket sold. Economists can say that they would have spent the money elsewhere in the same community however they seem to ignore the fact that many major cities with sporting events are complete ghettos outside the general area of the stadiums and other things that bring people to the city that exist in the same general area. Without the stadiums and businesses that thrive from these events, these areas would be ghettos just like the rest of the city. These people would not be spending their money in the same community since there would be no reason to leave the suburbs. You say this money could be spent on education instead. Here is the problem with that. Money spent on these schools would only work if these kids actually attended school. It's pretty sad that the city of Detroit had to bribe students with Nike shoes just to get their parents to send them on count day which decides how much funding they get from the state. Then when you see a news story about a school renovation project, you see another story a few weeks later about the thugs who stole all the copper pipes and wiring. And what really happens when cities don't fund or own stadium projects? Another city is more than happy to and the money and business goes there instead. If you want to see what happens to a community when they lose their sports and concert money, look up the city of Pontiac Michigan. The Pontiac Silverdome used to be home to both the Pistons and Lions. After it closed as well as the surrounding businesses, the city became an instant ghetto. Meanwhile the lions moved to Detroit and the Pistons went to Auburn Hills which saw an economic boom following the completion of the arena.
#29 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -
Yet when regular season games are bringing in 35000 people into the city of Detroit every game, that's a lot of money being made. Murderstyle75
Not if they only spend their money on the game itself which a lot of people usually do
#30 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Link

This disagrees, do you have some citation of your own?

TwoFace-BS

Put my source in my last post, and I wonder how mush of those resources are still gonna be used without the superbowl,and the total cost of it to be built, and how much it actually took in.

You do realize that the Super Bowl is played in existing stadiums that already host NFL teams right? The cities aren't building new stadiums just to host one Super Bowl.

#31 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -

[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Link

This disagrees, do you have some citation of your own?

worlock77

Put my source in my last post, and I wonder how mush of those resources are still gonna be used without the superbowl,and the total cost of it to be built, and how much it actually took in.

You do realize that the Super Bowl is played in existing stadiums that already host NFL teams right? The cities aren't building new stadiums just to host one Super Bowl.

Yeah,but the link itself said that there were new Hotels. Both the Airport and Superdome were redone Just because there wasnt a new stadium, didnt mean it cost nothing to host it
#32 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4165 posts) -
That's false and when the Lions and Pistons moved to other cities, all the surrounding businesses closed right along with it. About the only thing you can buy there anymore is crack cocaine. It got so bad that even their police force has now closed. And if people were only spending their money at the game, you wouldn't see do many area bars offering free parking, free shuttle and discounted food and beverages with your ticket stub. And like I said. Since Detroit owns the stadiums, they profit off of practically everything sold there including the tickets.
#33 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"] Put my source in my last post, and I wonder how mush of those resources are still gonna be used without the superbowl,and the total cost of it to be built, and how much it actually took in.TwoFace-BS

You do realize that the Super Bowl is played in existing stadiums that already host NFL teams right? The cities aren't building new stadiums just to host one Super Bowl.

Yeah,but the link itself said that there were new Hotels. Both the Airport and Superdome were redone Just because there wasnt a new stadium, didnt mean it cost nothing to host it

Those weren't done just for the Super Bowl. I know the Superdome had to be majorly repaired/renovated after Katrina. I'm pretty sure the airport had to be repaired after both Katrina and a tornado that struck there a year later.

#34 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
Absolutely. I have no desire to be forced to subsidize the wants of a bunch of plebs whose identity rests largely on what a bunch of 25 year old multimillionaires do. Hardcore sports fandom is one of the most pathetic things in human existence.
#35 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -

[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

You do realize that the Super Bowl is played in existing stadiums that already host NFL teams right? The cities aren't building new stadiums just to host one Super Bowl.

worlock77

Yeah,but the link itself said that there were new Hotels. Both the Airport and Superdome were redone Just because there wasnt a new stadium, didnt mean it cost nothing to host it

Those weren't done just for the Super Bowl. I know the Superdome had to be majorly repaired/renovated after Katrina. I'm pretty sure the airport had to be repaired after both Katrina and a tornado that struck there a year later.

But how much of that money was brought in as a result of the Superbowl itself?
#36 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"] Yeah,but the link itself said that there were new Hotels. Both the Airport and Superdome were redone Just because there wasnt a new stadium, didnt mean it cost nothing to host itTwoFace-BS

Those weren't done just for the Super Bowl. I know the Superdome had to be majorly repaired/renovated after Katrina. I'm pretty sure the airport had to be repaired after both Katrina and a tornado that struck there a year later.

But how much of that money was brought in as a result of the Superbowl itself?

How is that relevant to repairs that were done to those places before the Super Bowl was even scheduled there?

#37 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -
[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] And if people were only spending their money at the game, you wouldn't see do many area bars offering free parking, free shuttle and discounted food and beverages with your ticket stub.

Yes you would...that would happen either way as the places try to get as many customers as possible, whether its that successful or not
#38 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -

[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Those weren't done just for the Super Bowl. I know the Superdome had to be majorly repaired/renovated after Katrina. I'm pretty sure the airport had to be repaired after both Katrina and a tornado that struck there a year later.

worlock77

But how much of that money was brought in as a result of the Superbowl itself?

How is that relevant to repairs that were done to those places before the Super Bowl was even scheduled there?

Because the reason these things arent deemed that beneficial for the economy itself like I am saying is because of the costs that have to go with it meaning the usual small increase in revenue is generally not worth it. Those costs probably had to be made for the superbowl. And besides the stadium damaged, would happen to every other host city to cope
#39 Posted by guynamedbilly (12952 posts) -

I don't think the biggest sports event in North America, which can only be held in one city at a time, is the best way to sing praises of what public stadiums can do to the local economy. There's 32 teams in the NFL and only one Super Bowl a year. 31 teams' cities are not receiving the benefits of that event.

 

I haven't really seen a good analysis of the actual effects, probably because that would be such a huge thing to try to calculate, but it doesn't seem to have done well for Nashville, based purely on anecdotal observation. There's so many things crammed into one spot around the Nashville Arena that you can't even get around to see what is all there if you just show up for a game.

 

It also seems to me that if businesses are all springing up around an arena, that it's providing an unfair disadvantage to the less crowded area. I wonder how much better the wealth would be evenly distributed in the city mentioned above if the stadium wasn't a money vacuum, hopefully preventing ghetto development on the outskirts. No, I don't think government should be involved in business.

#40 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"] But how much of that money was brought in as a result of the Superbowl itself?TwoFace-BS

How is that relevant to repairs that were done to those places before the Super Bowl was even scheduled there?

Because the reason these things arent deemed that beneficial for the economy itself like I am saying is because of the costs that have to go with it meaning the usual small increase in revenue is generally not worth it. Those costs probably had to be made for the superbowl. And besides the stadium damaged, would happen to every other host city to cope

I don't think you're understanding. Those repairs were made regardless of the Super Bowl being hosted there this year. Those repairs were made years ago in the aftermath of Katrina.

#41 Posted by TwoFace-BS (10395 posts) -

[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

How is that relevant to repairs that were done to those places before the Super Bowl was even scheduled there?

worlock77

Because the reason these things arent deemed that beneficial for the economy itself like I am saying is because of the costs that have to go with it meaning the usual small increase in revenue is generally not worth it. Those costs probably had to be made for the superbowl. And besides the stadium damaged, would happen to every other host city to cope

I don't think you're understanding. Those repairs were made regardless of the Super Bowl being hosted there this year. Those repairs were made years ago in the aftermath of Katrina.

Yeah, I beginning to realise that Ive read that sentence in the article wrong TBH
#42 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -

That answer depends on an analysis of how much the area and government makes through tourism.

XaosII
thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis i love you
#43 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4165 posts) -
[QUOTE="TwoFace-BS"][QUOTE="Murderstyle75"] And if people were only spending their money at the game, you wouldn't see do many area bars offering free parking, free shuttle and discounted food and beverages with your ticket stub.

Yes you would...that would happen either way as the places try to get as many customers as possible, whether its that successful or not

No because these businesses wouldn't even open up shop in said location without crowds of people to serve. I don't think Chris Chelios would put his Chili Bar right across the street from Joe Louis Arena if the Red Wings didnt play there.. I go to plenty of baseball games during the summer and when I go, I make a day out of it. Yet by your logic, I'm not surrounded by crowds of people all wearing their tigers jerseys before and after the games. Where in the hell are all these white people coming from when the city itself is only 7.8% white.
#44 Posted by mems_1224 (46499 posts) -
Why should they? Sports bring in a ton of money and business to the city.
#45 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

I do not believe city governments should be "buying" into private business interests. Arthur Blank, founder of Home Depot and owner of the Atlanta Falcons, is wanting the city to put up $200,000,000 towards a new $1 billion stadium. That money will be made up for with higher taxes for those visiting Atlanta and staying in hotels and motels supposedly. In this case, a private business entity (the Falcons) is wanting city money to help fund the stadium. The ruse to get said money was that the Falcons would move if they couldn't get a new stadium.

As noted, the area around the Georgia Dome is a blighted area and the only places that offer any sort of extra curricular activities are part of the stadium and close before the end of a game. You have to travel to other parts of Atlanta if you want to party after a game. Same around Turner Field. It too is in a blighted area and again, after the game is over, there is nowhere to hang out unless you go elsewhere. Maybe moving the stadium would be better for fans, but Arthur Blank should be paying everything for a new stadium if he really wants one that bad.

#46 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -
...you failed to take into account how much money sport events actually bring into an area. SaintLeonidas
#47 Posted by dave123321 (33756 posts) -
uhh. Umm costs .....benefits,,,,uhh......yeah.....mhm
#48 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

Why should they? Sports bring in a ton of money and business to the city. mems_1224

Regardless, there are a few factors to take into account:

1. These teams aren't starving for money, they're not taking a loss to be in these cities.  They make a buttload of money by being close to large population clusters, so it's not they like get absolutely nothing out of it and need the government to even turn a profit.  They're multi-billion dollar industries for Christ's sake, and they're asking cities and states with strained budgets to drop huge money on their pet projects.  Talk about an entitlement mentality.

2. The governments they're asking for money have limited budgets.  Sometimes they're broke, sometimes they're just getting by, but diverting these funds puts a strain on other services that need funding.  Okay, so it pumps some money into the economy, but does that all get back to the taxpayer?  How much money is it taking from, say, a community college budget and how much goes back to that budget from revenues.  It might be an easy thing to do in good economic times, but when everything on a government budget sheet is competing for limited funds why is it right to cut services that people benefit from and use every day just to subsidize these giant businesses that clearly aren't hurting for cash?

3. These teams are capable of working around a lack of city and state funding in their budgets.  They can lower the cost of the stadium, they can lower their operating expenses, and if they absolutely can't do either of those then they can lower their executive salaries.  Why should the government be subsidizing industries like this?  It's just incentivizing executives to act more carelessly with their money because they know they can always turn to government funding to pick up the slack.

#49 Posted by Nengo_Flow (9494 posts) -
Publicly funded stadiums are basically a huge scam. JML897
yup, the Miami Marlins stadium was a bunch of bullsh*t
#50 Posted by Squeets (8184 posts) -

...you failed to take into account how much money sport events actually bring into an area. SaintLeonidas

People fail to see that these are solid investments for cities.

They are going to generate tax revenue on everything that sports venue sells for the next half century if not longer.

Where do tens of thousands of people go when they leave a game in the afternoon on a weekend? Oh yeah to buy food in the area, more tax revenue.  Most cities have toll booths, thousands of people passing multiple toll booths multiple times...

They may shop in the area while in for a game...

Really people... Common sense... Would you rather your city raise your taxes and/or cut your services or devise means such as this to increase revenue?