Should Major Sports leagues be self funded?

Stadiums are generally owned by the cities themselves. 

Everyone still see building a sports stadium is a good thing for the economy. If a baseball team wants a brand new $400 million stadium, why not require the team or the league to be able to bring up half the the money and the rest is financed by the city, county or state and have to pay it back after 15 years. The baseball team and the league actually paying for their own stadium would boost the local economy the same way as any other method.Jd1680a

.. If a city won't build them a stadium, they can find a city who will.... Leading to a team leaving the said city.. 

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]...you failed to take into account how much money sport events actually bring into an area. Squeets

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?

It's not like teams are going to pack up and move from most cities if they don't get this money.  There may be some struggling teams that have to move if there's no market (and really, stadium subsidization isn't going to make an inhospitable market suddenly hospitable), but the Lakers are not going to move out of LA, the Falcons are not going to move out of Atlanta, etc.  These teams are there because it's an attractive market for them, that's all the incentive they should need.

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]...you failed to take into account how much money sport events actually bring into an area. theone86

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?

It's not like teams are going to pack up and move from most cities if they don't get this money.  There may be some struggling teams that have to move if there's no market (and really, stadium subsidization isn't going to make an inhospitable market suddenly hospitable), but the Lakers are not going to move out of LA, the Falcons are not going to move out of Atlanta, etc.  These teams are there because it's an attractive market for them, that's all the incentive they should need.

A team might not necessarily move away from their market, but they will move out of a particular municipality. The St. Louis Cardinals, for instance, were considering a move across the river to Madison, IL until St. Louis lured them to stay in the downtown area with a loan to help them finance the new stadium. Had that not happened and they had moved they still would have been in the Greater St. Louis market sure, but another city would have benefitted from the team.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

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?

worlock77

It's not like teams are going to pack up and move from most cities if they don't get this money.  There may be some struggling teams that have to move if there's no market (and really, stadium subsidization isn't going to make an inhospitable market suddenly hospitable), but the Lakers are not going to move out of LA, the Falcons are not going to move out of Atlanta, etc.  These teams are there because it's an attractive market for them, that's all the incentive they should need.

A team might not necessarily move away from their market, but they will move out of a particular municipality. The St. Louis Cardinals, for instance, were considering a move across the river to Madison, IL until St. Louis lured them to stay in the downtown area with a loan to help them finance the new stadium. Had that not happened and they had moved they still would have been in the Greater St. Louis market sure, but another city would have benefitted from the team.

For one, cities shouldn't be getting into bidding wars like that, it just enables this irresponsible behavior.  Okay, so hypothetically Madison is now where the team is located, but the next time the Cards want more money for a stadium then Madison is on the ass end of that bargain.  If cities would stop enabling this type of behavior it would stop happening.

Two, if it does come down to that then TS for the city.  If the city has the budget room then great, but they shouldn't be doling out these huge sums of money just because these FILTHY rich owners demand it.

Three, this doesn't just happen in places where there's a possibility of a move.  Both the Cubs and the Bears have threatened their districts before just in order to get some money for their projects.  The fact is that every single team across the nation does it because they know they can.  The government is their personal piggy bank, and if they don't get what they want when they want they throw a hissy fit and move their team (or just threaten to).  It's disgusting behavior and governments shouldn't be standing for it, much less enabling it.

This is a lackluster attempt at attacking professional sports. The fact is people get alot of entertainment from these types of events, so people that don't like it can go suck eggs. 

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

It's not like teams are going to pack up and move from most cities if they don't get this money.  There may be some struggling teams that have to move if there's no market (and really, stadium subsidization isn't going to make an inhospitable market suddenly hospitable), but the Lakers are not going to move out of LA, the Falcons are not going to move out of Atlanta, etc.  These teams are there because it's an attractive market for them, that's all the incentive they should need.

theone86

A team might not necessarily move away from their market, but they will move out of a particular municipality. The St. Louis Cardinals, for instance, were considering a move across the river to Madison, IL until St. Louis lured them to stay in the downtown area with a loan to help them finance the new stadium. Had that not happened and they had moved they still would have been in the Greater St. Louis market sure, but another city would have benefitted from the team.

For one, cities shouldn't be getting into bidding wars like that, it just enables this irresponsible behavior.  Okay, so hypothetically Madison is now where the team is located, but the next time the Cards want more money for a stadium then Madison is on the ass end of that bargain.  If cities would stop enabling this type of behavior it would stop happening.

Two, if it does come down to that then TS for the city.  If the city has the budget room then great, but they shouldn't be doling out these huge sums of money just because these FILTHY rich owners demand it.

Three, this doesn't just happen in places where there's a possibility of a move.  Both the Cubs and the Bears have threatened their districts before just in order to get some money for their projects.  The fact is that every single team across the nation does it because they know they can.  The government is their personal piggy bank, and if they don't get what they want when they want they throw a hissy fit and move their team (or just threaten to).  It's disgusting behavior and governments shouldn't be standing for it, much less enabling it.

Do you apply this logic to other business and industry then? Should governments offer no incentives for business to locate or remain in their area?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

A team might not necessarily move away from their market, but they will move out of a particular municipality. The St. Louis Cardinals, for instance, were considering a move across the river to Madison, IL until St. Louis lured them to stay in the downtown area with a loan to help them finance the new stadium. Had that not happened and they had moved they still would have been in the Greater St. Louis market sure, but another city would have benefitted from the team.

worlock77

For one, cities shouldn't be getting into bidding wars like that, it just enables this irresponsible behavior.  Okay, so hypothetically Madison is now where the team is located, but the next time the Cards want more money for a stadium then Madison is on the ass end of that bargain.  If cities would stop enabling this type of behavior it would stop happening.

Two, if it does come down to that then TS for the city.  If the city has the budget room then great, but they shouldn't be doling out these huge sums of money just because these FILTHY rich owners demand it.

Three, this doesn't just happen in places where there's a possibility of a move.  Both the Cubs and the Bears have threatened their districts before just in order to get some money for their projects.  The fact is that every single team across the nation does it because they know they can.  The government is their personal piggy bank, and if they don't get what they want when they want they throw a hissy fit and move their team (or just threaten to).  It's disgusting behavior and governments shouldn't be standing for it, much less enabling it.

Do you apply this logic to other business and industry then? Should governments offer no incentives for business to locate or remain in their area?

Not universally, no.  If the business is small and needs help starting up and the city thinks it's a good investment then fine.  If the city's prospects for the business are marginal and incentives will put them over the top then fine.  Here's it's neither.  Sports teams are neither strapped for cash nor is one location usually far better than another for their business.

A team might not necessarily move away from their market, but they will move out of a particular municipality. The St. Louis Cardinals, for instance, were considering a move across the river to Madison, IL until St. Louis lured them to stay in the downtown area with a loan to help them finance the new stadium. Had that not happened and they had moved they still would have been in the Greater St. Louis market sure, but another city would have benefitted from the team.

worlock77

But that presupposes there being enough of a benefit to justify spending municipal funds on the stadium. Chances are all that happens is Cardinal fans commute out to Madison for games and don't spend an additional cent in the area beyond the odd incedental purchase (which won't be much, considering how short a commute it is relative to downtown St. Louis), while St. Louis gets some shiny new buildings on the old stadium grounds. Not exactly the sort of thing worth throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at. 

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

For one, cities shouldn't be getting into bidding wars like that, it just enables this irresponsible behavior.  Okay, so hypothetically Madison is now where the team is located, but the next time the Cards want more money for a stadium then Madison is on the ass end of that bargain.  If cities would stop enabling this type of behavior it would stop happening.

Two, if it does come down to that then TS for the city.  If the city has the budget room then great, but they shouldn't be doling out these huge sums of money just because these FILTHY rich owners demand it.

Three, this doesn't just happen in places where there's a possibility of a move.  Both the Cubs and the Bears have threatened their districts before just in order to get some money for their projects.  The fact is that every single team across the nation does it because they know they can.  The government is their personal piggy bank, and if they don't get what they want when they want they throw a hissy fit and move their team (or just threaten to).  It's disgusting behavior and governments shouldn't be standing for it, much less enabling it.

theone86

Do you apply this logic to other business and industry then? Should governments offer no incentives for business to locate or remain in their area?

Not universally, no.  If the business is small and needs help starting up and the city thinks it's a good investment then fine.  If the city's prospects for the business are marginal and incentives will put them over the top then fine.  Here's it's neither.  Sports teams are neither strapped for cash nor is one location usually far better than another for their business.

To be honest I can see both sides of the argument. I just feel like arguing this side tonight. I don't disagree with the notion that sports teams ought to pay for their own venues, but on the other hand I can see where a municipality might feel they would benefit financing the stadium then leasing it to the team. I will admit to a bit of personal bias here. I couldn't care less about football or basketball, but if a bit of a tax increase would bring a pro baseball team to my neighborhood - I might be inclined to say "yes".

Why you no like hoops worlock? March Madness is crazy this season, so many upsets!

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

A team might not necessarily move away from their market, but they will move out of a particular municipality. The St. Louis Cardinals, for instance, were considering a move across the river to Madison, IL until St. Louis lured them to stay in the downtown area with a loan to help them finance the new stadium. Had that not happened and they had moved they still would have been in the Greater St. Louis market sure, but another city would have benefitted from the team.

Slow_Show

But that presupposes there being enough of a benefit to justify spending municipal funds on the stadium. Chances are all that happens is Cardinal fans commute out to Madison for games and don't spend an additional cent in the area beyond the odd incedental purchase (which won't be much, considering how short a commute it is), while St. Louis gets some shiny new buildings on the old stadium grounds. Not exactly the sort of thing worth throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at. 

There's probably a bit of, I guess you'd say, city pride there. Afterall, that team's been playing (and had much success) in downtown St. Louis for more than a century now. There's also the idea of the shiny new ballpark spuring new commercial development in the neighborhood. And to be fair, in this particular case the ballpark has been financed mostly with private funds with some funding in the form of a loan from the city to the club, which the club is paying back. So ultimately the entire cost of the park is on the team.

Why you no like hoops worlock? March Madness is crazy this season, so many upsets!

Yusuke420

I like basketball ok, I'm just not crazy about it. I might watch a game every so often, but I can't say I particularly follow the sport to any real degree. I just can't muster the degree of love for it that I have for baseball.