130 replies to this topic

[Stitch01]

And frankly, the lack of public funds on that project have contributed to the FUBAR situation of Route 1/traffic. Which is why I have brought up, repeatedly, the related infrastructure improvements that provide ancillary economic benefits.

MA put $70MM into infrastructure improvements, just didnt help fund the stadium itself FWIW.

[soxfan121]

MA put $70MM into infrastructure improvements, just didnt help fund the stadium itself FWIW.

Why am I not surprised the State of MA was able to spend $70M on road improvements and still leave a clusterfuck of epic proportions. ;-)

[SumnerH]

Think about it this way: it's only valid to use public funds if the private sector has no ability to finance these projects themselves. That is patently false. The NFL is a massive profit machine and I highly doubt that there are any franchises that would be unprofitable if they had to deal with stadium debt service (see: New England Patriots). These subsidies are bald-faced money giveaways from the public to the NFL team owners. That's why the NFL owners try to leverage one city against another, to get the best deal possible for their own bottom line.

I agree with the larger point that public subsidies aren't worth it, but I don't like this line of argument. Even if these projects could finance themselves, they might still be worth publicly funding if the alternative is that they pack up and move. In an alternate world where a team brings a big profit to town, if your options are either a) fund us; or b) we're going to Wyoming then (a) might make sense even if the team could easily afford the stadium on its own.

Just like it's sometimes worth giving concessions to get Wal-Mart to open up in your town rather than just outside the border, even though they'd be profitable without those concessions.

[Rough Carrigan]

I agree with the larger point that public subsidies aren't worth it, but I don't like this line of argument. Even if these projects could finance themselves, they might still be worth publicly funding if the alternative is that they pack up and move. In an alternate world where a team brings a big profit to town, if your options are either a) fund us; or b) we're going to Wyoming then (a) might make sense even if the team could easily afford the stadium on its own.

Just like it's sometimes worth giving concessions to get Wal-Mart to open up in your town rather than just outside the border, even though they'd be profitable without those concessions.

No. It doesn't make sense. There have been many many studies of this. Nattysez linked to some on the previous page. The idea that it does make sense is based, in part, on the idea that somehow that money disappears if it doesn't buy a new stadium for a billionaire owner. That money still exists.

[Rocco Graziosa]

Asking for a new stadium on the public dime is chicken shit. Asking for it in this economic climate is being a total fucking asshole.

Fair point. Although if they ask and get told to go pound sand, you can't blame them if the decide to go someplace where someone will.

Funny how Seattle tried this same tactic with the Sonics, got burned, and now are more than willing to build a new arena to get a team to come back.

[SumnerH]

No. It doesn't make sense. There have been many many studies of this. Nattysez linked to some on the previous page. The idea that it does make sense is based, in part, on the idea that somehow that money disappears if it doesn't buy a new stadium for a billionaire owner. That money still exists.

You're misreading my post.

EDIT for clarity: I agree completely that in the real world funding a stadium doesn't make economic sense. But Manny's seemed to beg the question to me, hence the hypothetical "In an alternate world where a team brings a big profit to town". As I said in the first sentence, I agree with the overall point but I don't think that particular argument helps demonstrate it.

Edited by SumnerH, 20 April 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[ZP1]

It was obvious to anyone who knows Minnesota history that the Vikings stadium drama would reach this point. I mean just for reference on Minnesota history:


We're the State that lost the Lakers and didn't get basketball back decades later. (People forget that before they were the LA Lakers, they were the Minneapolis Lakers).

We're also the State that arguably has the biggest love of hockey in the nation (probably tied with Massachusetts), and yet we managed to lose our NHL team (Northstars) - in the one of the only places an NHL team actually makes sense. It took an act of god to get the legislation passed that would eventually bring hockey back here in the form of the Wild.

If other cities actually wanted a baseball team back when the Twins needed a stadium (a saga that lasted over a decade), we almost certainly would have lost the Twins. Things got so bad that contraction was actually on the table for a long time. And the bulk of this drama happened with the relatively recent memory of two World Series wins.

Essentially, Minnesota politicians on both sides of the aisle have a long track record of playing games of chicken with their sports teams and stadiums. Pushing things out to the last minute, and often times not getting things done in the end. That the Vikings might be leaving town or coming incredibly close to doing so should not be a surprise to anyone.

[ZP1]

By the way, all the people who are mincing and mashing economic numbers together to try to get a "value" of a State building a stadium are missing the point. All the arguments about, "WHY SPEND THE MONEY HERE WHEN YOU COULD SPEND IT ON THE CHILDRENNNN" are literally bullshit. 100% bullshit.

Why?

Because you're not looking at the value of a sports team in the right way. The most critical value a sports team has (regardless of whether or not it's slightly unprofitable for a state or slightly profitable), is that it's essentially a shared luxury that people within the State as a whole share. It might be on a larger scale, but it's really no different than a State maintaining things like public parks and beaches. Sure in theory that land could be commercialized to provide a "greater" economic benefit, but on some level the people influence the State into thinking it's a good thing to provide those things for everyone to enjoy.

Sure not everyone gives a shit about the local sports teams - just like there's tons of people that could give two shits less about public parks and beaches. But there's enough of a public interest in it that the State can justify sustaining it. Living in this state, I can concretely tell you that there is a massive fanbase for the Vikings, and it's easily the #1 team in this town (even surpassing the Wild). There's going to be an untold amount of people who will be devastated if the Vikings leave the state, and making economic arguments saying "but now that money can go to the children!" is not going to heal that wound.

My overall point?

NFL teams are a luxury that an entire metro area can collectively enjoy. They are a luxury that is actively competed for by other states, and cannot be reasonably evaluated in terms of economic value to a State. There's far more that goes into it, even if what goes in to it is harder to measure and quantify in terms of value to the people as a whole.

[Rocco Graziosa]

By the way, all the people who are mincing and mashing economic numbers together to try to get a "value" of a State building a stadium are missing the point. All the arguments about, "WHY SPEND THE MONEY HERE WHEN YOU COULD SPEND IT ON THE CHILDRENNNN" are literally bullshit. 100% bullshit.

Why?

Because you're not looking at the value of a sports team in the right way. The most critical value a sports team has (regardless of whether or not it's slightly unprofitable for a state or slightly profitable), is that it's essentially a shared luxury that people within the State as a whole share. It might be on a larger scale, but it's really no different than a State maintaining things like public parks and beaches. Sure in theory that land could be commercialized to provide a "greater" economic benefit, but on some level the people influence the State into thinking it's a good thing to provide those things for everyone to enjoy.

Sure not everyone gives a shit about the local sports teams - just like there's tons of people that could give two shits less about public parks and beaches. But there's enough of a public interest in it that the State can justify sustaining it. Living in this state, I can concretely tell you that there is a massive fanbase for the Vikings, and it's easily the #1 team in this town (even surpassing the Wild). There's going to be an untold amount of people who will be devastated if the Vikings leave the state, and making economic arguments saying "but now that money can go to the children!" is not going to heal that wound.

My overall point?

NFL teams are a luxury that an entire metro area can collectively enjoy. They are a luxury that is actively competed for by other states, and cannot be reasonably evaluated in terms of economic value to a State. There's far more that goes into it, even if what goes in to it is harder to measure and quantify in terms of value to the people as a whole.

Great post.

Seattle learned this the hard way.

[lithos2003]

By the way, all the people who are mincing and mashing economic numbers together to try to get a "value" of a State building a stadium are missing the point. All the arguments about, "WHY SPEND THE MONEY HERE WHEN YOU COULD SPEND IT ON THE CHILDRENNNN" are literally bullshit. 100% bullshit.

Why?

Because you're not looking at the value of a sports team in the right way. The most critical value a sports team has (regardless of whether or not it's slightly unprofitable for a state or slightly profitable), is that it's essentially a shared luxury that people within the State as a whole share. It might be on a larger scale, but it's really no different than a State maintaining things like public parks and beaches. Sure in theory that land could be commercialized to provide a "greater" economic benefit, but on some level the people influence the State into thinking it's a good thing to provide those things for everyone to enjoy.

Sure not everyone gives a shit about the local sports teams - just like there's tons of people that could give two shits less about public parks and beaches. But there's enough of a public interest in it that the State can justify sustaining it. Living in this state, I can concretely tell you that there is a massive fanbase for the Vikings, and it's easily the #1 team in this town (even surpassing the Wild). There's going to be an untold amount of people who will be devastated if the Vikings leave the state, and making economic arguments saying "but now that money can go to the children!" is not going to heal that wound.

My overall point?

NFL teams are a luxury that an entire metro area can collectively enjoy. They are a luxury that is actively competed for by other states, and cannot be reasonably evaluated in terms of economic value to a State. There's far more that goes into it, even if what goes in to it is harder to measure and quantify in terms of value to the people as a whole.

I agree... you can't look at this as "Does it make financial sense for a state to put money towards a stadium for a team that will remain local no matter what?", but more as "Will the money lost by the team leaving outweigh the amount asked for by the team to stay and help build a new stadium?". I mean, if the state charges income tax, the loss of players salaries there alone year in and out can be pretty staggering, nevermind the effect on the other parts of the state's economy. I agree that if the team is going to stay no matter what, then it probably doesn't make any sense for the state to contribute much of anything. If there is the very real possibility that a team could leave, however, the state needs to look at the revenue that the team brings in as well.

Edited by lithos2003, 20 April 2012 - 09:21 PM.

[ZP1]

I agree... you can't look at this as "Does it make financial sense for a state to put money towards a stadium for a team that will remain local no matter what?", but more as "Will the money lost by the team leaving outweigh the amount asked for by the team to stay and help build a new stadium?". I mean, if the state charges income tax, the loss of players salaries there alone year in and out can be pretty staggering, nevermind the effect on the other parts of the state's economy. I agree that if the team is going to stay no matter what, then it probably doesn't make any sense for the state to contribute much of anything. If there is the very real possibility that a team could leave, however, the state needs to look at the revenue that the team brings in as well.

Er. My post really had nothing to do with the financial point at any level. My main point is that cities shouldn't look at teams based solely upon revenue put in/revenue taken out calculations, for the same reason that you don't apply that criteria to maintaining things like public parks/recreation centers. There is value to the people of the state as a whole to simply have a football team to rally around and support.

If you were to shutdown all public parks and natural areas that a state maintains in the interests of allocating revenue to more "important" interests, you would have a large amount of very discontented people on your hands - because a large amount of people enjoy those areas. On the very same note, if you let your state's major football team leave (when it was fully preventable), you're going to have a large amount of very discontented people on your hands.

Just to illustrate this point. Lets say there's a hypothetical scenario (based on fantasy numbers) in where the state of Massachusetts stands to gain 750 million dollars a year in additional state revenue by forcing the Red Sox out of town (lets say Bill Gates wants to pay the state this because he really wants to see the Washington Red Sox or something). That revenue would then be used for roads, schools, and development for children.

Would the city of Boston or New England as a whole be happy with that development? Fuck no. Because the existence of the Red Sox represents something far deeper in terms of people's personal enjoyment/Boston's culture than what can be expressed in mere monetary value. The extra money the state would be getting would be utterly meaningless compared to the hole felt by millions of people that love the Red Sox.

Sports teams are fully capable of transcending monetary value for the people who support those teams. Losing a sports team, (at least a well supported/loved team) is an issue that hits at people in a way that general monetary/financial matters do not. Which is why the backlash is so significant when a well loved team leaves an area (Supersonics, Browns, etc). It's absolutely brutal to the people that support the team.

Edited by ZP1, 20 April 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[axx]

Rog is going to have to kick in some bribes to get this done. That's probably what the holdup is.

[Tony C]

By the way, all the people who are mincing and mashing economic numbers together to try to get a "value" of a State building a stadium are missing the point. All the arguments about, "WHY SPEND THE MONEY HERE WHEN YOU COULD SPEND IT ON THE CHILDRENNNN" are literally bullshit. 100% bullshit.

Why?

Because you're not looking at the value of a sports team in the right way. The most critical value a sports team has (regardless of whether or not it's slightly unprofitable for a state or slightly profitable), is that it's essentially a shared luxury that people within the State as a whole share. It might be on a larger scale, but it's really no different than a State maintaining things like public parks and beaches. Sure in theory that land could be commercialized to provide a "greater" economic benefit, but on some level the people influence the State into thinking it's a good thing to provide those things for everyone to enjoy.

Sure not everyone gives a shit about the local sports teams - just like there's tons of people that could give two shits less about public parks and beaches. But there's enough of a public interest in it that the State can justify sustaining it. Living in this state, I can concretely tell you that there is a massive fanbase for the Vikings, and it's easily the #1 team in this town (even surpassing the Wild). There's going to be an untold amount of people who will be devastated if the Vikings leave the state, and making economic arguments saying "but now that money can go to the children!" is not going to heal that wound.

My overall point?

NFL teams are a luxury that an entire metro area can collectively enjoy. They are a luxury that is actively competed for by other states, and cannot be reasonably evaluated in terms of economic value to a State. There's far more that goes into it, even if what goes in to it is harder to measure and quantify in terms of value to the people as a whole.

Well thought out post. I'm in L.A. and would love a team here, but have to admit it'd suck to steal the Vikes.

Now the Chargers...the Chargers I could see....

[soxfan121]

Now the Chargers...the Chargers I could see....

Tony C is Ron Burgandy: Go fuck yourself, San Diego.

[collings94]

This is one of the worst things about sports. In theory, 10% of the people in Los Angeles could care about the Vikings (or whatever the name is going to be) and they would still generate a greater revenue then if 75% of the people in Minnesota cared. LA is a shitty sports town that let not one, but TWO NFL teams leave. I really hope this doesn't become a reality.

[collings94]

Tony C is Ron Burgandy: Go fuck yourself, San Diego.

Nobody says that about my city! Tony C, your ass is grass!!

[drleather2001]

This is one of the worst things about sports. In theory, 10% of the people in Los Angeles could care about the Vikings (or whatever the name is going to be) and they would still generate a greater revenue then if 75% of the people in Minnesota cared. LA is a shitty sports town that let not one, but TWO NFL teams leave. I really hope this doesn't become a reality.

Well, not really. Minneapolis has about 3MM people in its media market, more than Denver, St. Louis, Cleveland, Tampa, Indy, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Cincinnati (among others). It's a not a small market. Obviously it's small compared to LA (about 11MM), but aside from NYC and perhaps Chicago, so is every US city.

The Vikings had the fifth best TV ratings in the NFL last year, despite being lousy. It's highly questionable that LA would give them a comparable level of support.

[Super Nomario]

Er. My post really had nothing to do with the financial point at any level. My main point is that cities shouldn't look at teams based solely upon revenue put in/revenue taken out calculations, for the same reason that you don't apply that criteria to maintaining things like public parks/recreation centers. There is value to the people of the state as a whole to simply have a football team to rally around and support.

If you were to shutdown all public parks and natural areas that a state maintains in the interests of allocating revenue to more "important" interests, you would have a large amount of very discontented people on your hands - because a large amount of people enjoy those areas. On the very same note, if you let your state's major football team leave (when it was fully preventable), you're going to have a large amount of very discontented people on your hands.

Just to illustrate this point. Lets say there's a hypothetical scenario (based on fantasy numbers) in where the state of Massachusetts stands to gain 750 million dollars a year in additional state revenue by forcing the Red Sox out of town (lets say Bill Gates wants to pay the state this because he really wants to see the Washington Red Sox or something). That revenue would then be used for roads, schools, and development for children.

Would the city of Boston or New England as a whole be happy with that development? Fuck no. Because the existence of the Red Sox represents something far deeper in terms of people's personal enjoyment/Boston's culture than what can be expressed in mere monetary value. The extra money the state would be getting would be utterly meaningless compared to the hole felt by millions of people that love the Red Sox.

Sports teams are fully capable of transcending monetary value for the people who support those teams. Losing a sports team, (at least a well supported/loved team) is an issue that hits at people in a way that general monetary/financial matters do not. Which is why the backlash is so significant when a well loved team leaves an area (Supersonics, Browns, etc). It's absolutely brutal to the people that support the team.

I understand what you are saying here, but I think you are wrong. You have to put a dollar sign on this stuff, because at the end of the day it does cost money. The Red Sox aren't going anywhere because they have the support you are talking about here; Sox fans are willing to fork over lots of their income to see them, so it wouldn't make sense for the team to go anywhere else.

A sports team can raise revenue for a new stadium by taking money from its fans (in the form of higher ticket prices or indirectly through TV deals and such) or taking money from the government. One method gets the money from people who actually care about the team, and the other gets the money from a lot of people who don't give a shit about the team. If they can't raise enough money from their fans ... well, doesn't it make sense for everybody for them to go where they can raise money from fans rather than take the money from non-fans? A sports team is not a public good. Public funding for sports stadiums is just people who don't like sports subsidizing people who do. I love sports and hope I always live near professional sports teams, but I think it's a rotten deal for non-sports-fans to see their tax dollars go to new stadiums they could care less about.

(With respect to the Vikings specifically, the NFL with its revenue sharing complicates the picture. The main reason we have not had an NFL team in LA in years is because despite the larger media market an LA team wouldn't make more money than a Minnesota team because the revenue is shared anyway, so teams don't have a lot of incentive to move to larger TV markets, particularly once you factor in the higher costs in a lot of the big markets. The NFL should have a built a new stadium in LA years ago.)

[Rocco Graziosa]

I understand what you are saying here, but I think you are wrong. You have to put a dollar sign on this stuff, because at the end of the day it does cost money. The Red Sox aren't going anywhere because they have the support you are talking about here; Sox fans are willing to fork over lots of their income to see them, so it wouldn't make sense for the team to go anywhere else.

A sports team can raise revenue for a new stadium by taking money from its fans (in the form of higher ticket prices or indirectly through TV deals and such) or taking money from the government. One method gets the money from people who actually care about the team, and the other gets the money from a lot of people who don't give a shit about the team. If they can't raise enough money from their fans ... well, doesn't it make sense for everybody for them to go where they can raise money from fans rather than take the money from non-fans? A sports team is not a public good. Public funding for sports stadiums is just people who don't like sports subsidizing people who do. I love sports and hope I always live near professional sports teams, but I think it's a rotten deal for non-sports-fans to see their tax dollars go to new stadiums they could care less about.

(With respect to the Vikings specifically, the NFL with its revenue sharing complicates the picture. The main reason we have not had an NFL team in LA in years is because despite the larger media market an LA team wouldn't make more money than a Minnesota team because the revenue is shared anyway, so teams don't have a lot of incentive to move to larger TV markets, particularly once you factor in the higher costs in a lot of the big markets. The NFL should have a built a new stadium in LA years ago.)

How do you respond to this:

Because you're not looking at the value of a sports team in the right way. The most critical value a sports team has (regardless of whether or not it's slightly unprofitable for a state or slightly profitable), is that it's essentially a shared luxury that people within the State as a whole share. It might be on a larger scale, but it's really no different than a State maintaining things like public parks and beaches. Sure in theory that land could be commercialized to provide a "greater" economic benefit, but on some level the people influence the State into thinking it's a good thing to provide those things for everyone to enjoy.

Isn't that essentially the same thing as people funding stadiums that don't like sports for people who do? What percent of the population of Minnesota enjoy parks and beaches? Is it significantly more than those that enjoy the Minnesota Vikings? I doubt it, but I don't know for sure.

Edit: And look at a city like Seattle. They took the "hard line" stance with regards to funding a new stadium and ended up regretting it. In Seattle's case they are now telling the NBA they will fund a stadium if a team was to come to their city.

Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 21 April 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[Super Nomario]

Isn't that essentially the same thing as people funding stadiums that don't like sports for people who do? What percent of the population of Minnesota enjoy parks and beaches? Is it significantly more than those that enjoy the Minnesota Vikings? I doubt it, but I don't know for sure.

In general, I would err on the side of having things paid for by the people who use them if possible. But I'm not sure I'm sanguine about privatizing all parks and beaches. With natural resources, there's a preservation element; if you lose them, you might not be able to get them back. Some national and local parks do charge admission (or charge for camping, parking, etc.), but I'm not sure how much of their operating costs they re-coup.

Isn't tha
Edit: And look at a city like Seattle. They took the "hard line" stance with regards to funding a new stadium and ended up regretting it. In Seattle's case they are now telling the NBA they will fund a stadium if a team was to come to their city.

Seattle lost the Sonics because they were bought by a dude who was from OKC. He used the lack of public funding as an excuse to leave.

Hey, if I owned a team I would try to get the taxpayers to fund my stadium too. I don't have to pay for it but I still get to own it? How does it get any better than that? But as public policy I think it's lousy.

[soxfan121]

To be fair, the reason the Sonics were sold to a "dude from OKC" was that the locals refused to authorize a new arena and no local buyers could make the team profitable.

David Stern is absolutely a Grade-A scumbag for how he managed that whole process but Seattle (the city/"State") chose to play hardball and got what they asked for. And now they are crawling through a proverbial mile of broken glass to get an NBA team back in Seattle.

[dbn]

It's a little late and I haven't not been drinking so I hope this is as clear in the reading as it is in my head.

1) Building a new stadium of course creates jobs. Taking money from MN taxpayers to give to MN workers to build a stadium which creates wealth for owners does not, overall, benefit MNians (other than the owners).

2) I love ZP1's post, but kind of like the way I like Ayn Rand novels -- they seem to make a lot of sense and make me think a lot, but in the end the reasoning is flawed. I'm 100% in favor of public funding of parks and beaches, etc. The comparison to major sports franchises is misguided, however. A person who owns an NFL team will make a whole massive crazy lot of money, and can easily build a new stadium without public funds and still make a crazy massive profit. The state owns the beaches and parks which depend on tax money for upkeep, because they produce no profit.

Football teams and state beaches are both treasures to the public. One has no need to take money from the taxpayers to remain successful and financially buoyant, the other does. This is a very important distinction.

3) If every city agreed to ban public funding of stadiums, the NFL would be just as healthy. The owners would have to finance any new stadium, and thus each franchise would be slightly less valuable, but still a great investment (if you are fabulously rich and can afford such an investment). That non-NFL cities have the possibility to offer public funds to lure teams gives the owners the ability to extract public funds. I don't blame them; they'd be stupid not to use this advantage. I only wish US cities were wise enough to ban public funding of stadiums. [edit: ...unless they get something in return. An example: guaranteed low-cost seats for low-income fans who, after all, paid for the stadium even though they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford tickets.]

Edited by dbn, 23 April 2012 - 02:44 AM.

[MannysDestination]

There are two primary reasons it is poor public policy to subsidize stadiums for viable professional sports franchises:

1) Public financing is a direct subsidy to the profit margins of the stadium owner. Stadiums tend to generate more than enough cash flow to be self-sufficient business investments (IIRC that is true for every current NFL stadium). Instead, team owners essentially blackmail legislatures to increase their Return on Investment. I do see a material difference between demanding public infrastructure investment to support a new stadium vs. direct financing of the stadium itself. In the first instance, the infrastructure is part of the public domain, can be used by all to the exclusion of none and is quite properly funded by the public. In the second instance, the public monies are distributed to fund a private enterprise for the use of the few where the upside is not returned to the public. Another justifiable public expenditure would be to obtain ownership rights and priviledges for the public in return for the financing (e.g. accelerate loan repayment based on profits), but this kind of equitable arrangement rarely occurs.

The justification for public financing would come into play if a market is too small to otherwise support the stadium.

2) The existence of public subsidies for stadiums create market distortions similar to what dbn described. Sure, one state or city might be better off, but the U.S. economy in the aggregate is a big loser. For instance, using the Vikings as an example, will more net jobs be created today for the entire economy if the franchise stays where it is today vs. if it were moved to LA? I haven't run the numbers, but due to the difference in scale of the two markets I feel comfortable saying that LA would win by a landslide.

At the end of the day the Vikings staying in Minnesota would quite clearly create more economic activity for the area than if they left. However, that does not justify the use of public money for the project. I don't mean to bring partisanship into the discussion, so please allow me this analogy without devolving into partisan politics, but a similar line of justification was used for the stimulus bill a couple years ago - "jobs created or saved!" From an optics standpoint it sounds great, but in an of itself economic activity being created from the public spending of money is not a valid or smart justification. The magnitude of economic activity being created relative to the amount public spending required, and when weighed against other potential uses of those funds (as state governments do not have infinite resources), is a more appropriate paradigm to evaluate these projects.

Edited by MannysDestination, 23 April 2012 - 08:05 AM.

[Royal Reader]

2) I love ZP1's post, but kind of like the way I like Ayn Rand novels -- they seem to make a lot of sense and make me think a lot, but in the end the reasoning is flawed. I'm 100% in favor of public funding of parks and beaches, etc. The comparison to major sports franchises is misguided, however. A person who owns an NFL team will make a whole massive crazy lot of money, and can easily build a new stadium without public funds and still make a crazy massive profit. The state owns the beaches and parks which depend on tax money for upkeep, because they produce no profit.

Football teams and state beaches are both treasures to the public. One has no need to take money from the taxpayers to remain successful and financially buoyant, the other does. This is a very important distinction.

3) If every city agreed to ban public funding of stadiums, the NFL would be just as healthy. The owners would have to finance any new stadium, and thus each franchise would be slightly less valuable, but still a great investment (if you are fabulously rich and can afford such an investment).

As long as American cities do not all come together and agree not to publicly fund stadium projects, the comparison holds in spite of the differences in terms of the NFL's ability to make money anyway. It would be mutually beneficial to the various state and local governments of the US to come to the kind of agreement you outlined in point three: However, the benefits would be concentrated in those markets which already have NFL football at the expense of those that don't, and bigger markets at the expense of smaller ones. And for a market which doesn't have NFL football but could support a team, or has one but risks losing it, there is a level of public funding at which that specific municipality is better off: you either spend the money, or there's no NFL team in your city, which is quite analogous to paying for the upkeep of public parks.

The world would be better off if no-one had to pay the costs of maintaining armed forces: that doesn't mean that having an army is a bad move for an individual nation. Coughing up for a new stadium is only a clearly bad move if you believe, in the thought experiment where every Minnesotan accurately puts a dollar value on what the Vikings mean to them, the total would come out less than the subsidy (I'd hazard a guess that it would come out much higher) or where the NFL is clearly bluffing, which isn't true in this case because a team in LA has the potential to be enormously profitable.

[Rocco Graziosa]

It's a little late and I haven't not been drinking so I hope this is as clear in the reading as it is in my head.

1) Building a new stadium of course creates jobs. Taking money from MN taxpayers to give to MN workers to build a stadium which creates wealth for owners does not, overall, benefit MNians (other than the owners).

2) I love ZP1's post, but kind of like the way I like Ayn Rand novels -- they seem to make a lot of sense and make me think a lot, but in the end the reasoning is flawed. I'm 100% in favor of public funding of parks and beaches, etc. The comparison to major sports franchises is misguided, however. A person who owns an NFL team will make a whole massive crazy lot of money, and can easily build a new stadium without public funds and still make a crazy massive profit. The state owns the beaches and parks which depend on tax money for upkeep, because they produce no profit.

Football teams and state beaches are both treasures to the public. One has no need to take money from the taxpayers to remain successful and financially buoyant, the other does. This is a very important distinction.

Important distinction indeed. However football teams can be moved, and like any other private industry, if they don't find the economic climate pallatoble, they can go to some place that is. Everyone is of their own free will here and no one is being blackmailed. If Minnesota doesn't want to fund a new football stadium they don't have to. But then the Minnesota Vikings don't have to play football in Minnesota.

I ask again, do more people enjoy parks and beaches in Minnesota than the Vikings? I'm gonna guess not. And if thats the case your gonna give an epic nutpunch to a massive number of citizens in your state. And like Seattle, in three years your probably going to go back to the NFL on your hands and knees and beg them to come back with a promise of a brand new shiny stadium.

[MannysDestination]

Important distinction indeed. However football teams can be moved, and like any other private industry, if they don't find the economic climate pallatoble, they can go to some place that is. Everyone is of their own free will here and no one is being blackmailed. If Minnesota doesn't want to fund a new football stadium they don't have to. But then the Minnesota Vikings don't have to play football in Minnesota. I ask again, do more people enjoy parks and beaches in Minnesota than the Vikings? I'm gonna guess not. And if thats the case your gonna give an epic nutpunch to a massive number of citizens in your state. And like Seattle, in three years your probably going to go back to the NFL on your hands and knees and beg them to come back with a promise of a brand new shiny stadium.

If there's a justification to be made for this practice, it has to be done on these grounds. "This does not make financial sense but because so many of us love the Vikings so much, we're willing to give your tax money away as profits to a private citizen for the priviledge of them not moving their business elsewhere!"

It should be noted that the same practice would be illegal if it was struck between two private actors.

[ZP1]

I think people get too caught up in idealism. Yes, there's no doubt that sports teams make quite a bit of money and are fully capable of funding most/all of a new stadium cost themselves. I don't dispute that in my luxury argument. The problem is that if you try to stand for your ideals and say, "No, this team can support itself. We should not give it money", that team is going to throw reality in your face and go to a city that will give them what they want. Which essentially brings things down to the idea of, "Does your State want to pay for this luxury or not?"

As Rocco points out, Seattle learned this the hard way in this in recent memory. The politicians in Seattle stood on a platform of idealism - and ended up getting burned at the altar of reality. It'd be great if some day the 50 states could get together and fashion legislation that protects themselves from being played against each other. However, that's not likely to happen anytime soon. Standing for what would be the ideal situation in the present will not only fail to change the status quo, but will lose you a beloved sports franchise as well.

Yes, it sucks on many levels. But if you're in a position of leadership and dealing with a stadium dispute (like Minnesota politicians are now), the lesser of the two evils is dealing with the reality of the situation and accepting a deal that might not be the greatest. Because if you don't, you're going to go through years (sometimes decades) of misery and end up accepting a much worse deal to get things back to the way they were originally.

Edited by ZP1, 23 April 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[MannysDestination]

I think people get too caught up in idealism. Yes, there's no doubt that sports teams make quite a bit of money and are fully capable of funding most/all of a new stadium cost themselves. I don't dispute that in my luxury argument. The problem is that if you try to stand for your ideals and say, "No, this team can support itself. We should not give it money", that team is going to throw reality in your face and go to a city that will give them what they want. Which essentially brings things down to the idea of, "Does your State want to pay for this luxury or not?"

As Rocco points out, Seattle learned this the hard way in this in recent memory. The politicians in Seattle stood on a platform of idealism - and ended up getting burned at the altar of reality. It'd be great if some day the 50 states could get together and fashion legislation that protects themselves from being played against each other. However, that's not likely to happen anytime soon. Standing for what would be the ideal situation in the present will not only fail to change the status quo, but will lose you a beloved sports franchise as well.

Yes, it sucks on many levels. But if you're in a position of leadership and dealing with a stadium dispute (like Minnesota politicians are now), the lesser of the two evils is dealing with the reality of the situation and accepting a deal that might not be the greatest. Because if you don't, you're going to go through years (sometimes decades) of misery and end up accepting a much worse deal to get things back to the way they were originally.

In a world where people can't find jobs, can't afford to feed and house their own families, government coffers are more than bare, and where they look to their government as a last line of support, I find your argument to be entirely vacuous. Lack of local professional sports teams do not create misery. If we can't implement correct public policy on a pure luxury, how can we expect to implement correct public policy on matters of true importance and substance?

Governments cannot solve everything. Governments have finite resources.

Edited by MannysDestination, 23 April 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[stevman17]

By the way, all the people who are mincing and mashing economic numbers together to try to get a "value" of a State building a stadium are missing the point. All the arguments about, "WHY SPEND THE MONEY HERE WHEN YOU COULD SPEND IT ON THE CHILDRENNNN" are literally bullshit. 100% bullshit.


NFL teams are a luxury that an entire metro area can collectively enjoy. They are a luxury that is actively competed for by other states, and cannot be reasonably evaluated in terms of economic value to a State. There's far more that goes into it, even if what goes in to it is harder to measure and quantify in terms of value to the people as a whole.

There is a big difference between the public funding a privately owned and profited stadium, and the public funding a public beach or park. If Minnesota was considering investing in ownership of an NFL franchise, I think your point would be a lot stronger.

To be honest, I don't think most fanbases know just how much taxpayer money is being forked over for these stadiums, nor the consequences of doing so. Take the Phillies for instance, only because I have had the pleasure of pouring over their lease. Their total payment to the city for Citizens' Bank Park over the 30 year life of their original lease is less than $35 million dollars. This includes taxes. (They make yearly payment in lieu of taxes in the amount of $1,000,000). The stadium cost the city around $500 million, and who knows how much in interest from the bonds. Philadelphia is currently cutting funding for schools and considering privatizing the public transportation after starving it of funds. The Phillies are owned (or at least in my opinion he is the true owner) by a billionaire in John S. Middleton.

How many news articles can you find describing how much money the city paid for Citizens' Bank Park? I can't find a single one. It wasn't discussed in the media. I think that if the people of Philadelphia were aware that the city footed the bill for the stadium, while making cuts to necessary services for the working class, they would be none too pleased.The fact that one can be ridiculed in the US for wanting to spend money on children is a whole other can of worms.

A great book on this discussion: Uncovering the Dome.

Edited by stevman17, 23 April 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[Royal Reader]

In a world where people can't find jobs, can't afford to feed and house their own families, government coffers are more than bare, and where they look to their government as a last line of support, I find your argument to be entirely vacuous. Lack of local professional sports teams do not create misery. If we can't implement correct public policy on a pure luxury, how can we expect to implement correct public policy on matters of true importance and substance?

The bolded is absolutely untrue. Or rather, at least, misleading. The lack of an NFL team (think Portland) may not cause misery: the loss of one absolutely does (Baltimore, Cleveland). And the presence of one may mitigate it. I am not miserable because I don't live in a mansion: If I'd spent most of my life in a specific mansion, seen my kids grow up there, etc, to no longer be able to afford to maintain it would be a cause of misery to me. Similarly, thousands of Minnesotans have devoted hours of their lives and large amounts of emotional energy on supporting the Vikings.

Also: politicians want to get re-elected.

[Rocco Graziosa]

In a world where people can't find jobs, can't afford to feed and house their own families, government coffers are more than bare, and where they look to their government as a last line of support, I find your argument to be entirely vacuous. Lack of local professional sports teams do not create misery. If we can't implement correct public policy on a pure luxury, how can we expect to implement correct public policy on matters of true importance and substance?

Governments cannot solve everything. Governments have finite resources.

Then why is Seattle on its hand and knees begging the NBA to come back, now promising to fund a new stadium? Could it be that polititions lost their jobs over playing chicken with the NBA and there were so many Sonic fans that it was determined that the quality of life, in general for the people of Seattle, was lessoned when they moved? I would say so.

Ask some Red Sox fans, especially season ticket holders and those that watch ever pitch, what they think of the Red Sox moving to LA.

[ZP1]

In a world where people can't find jobs, can't afford to feed and house their own families, government coffers are more than bare, and where they look to their government as a last line of support, I find your argument to be entirely vacuous. Lack of local professional sports teams do not create misery. If we can't implement correct public policy on a pure luxury, how can we expect to implement correct public policy on matters of true importance and substance?

Governments cannot solve everything. Governments have finite resources.

There is a big difference between the public funding a privately owned and profited stadium, and the public funding a public beach or park. If Minnesota was considering investing in ownership of an NFL franchise, I think your point would be a lot stronger.

To be honest, I don't think most fanbases know just how much taxpayer money is being forked over for these stadiums, nor the consequences of doing so. Take the Phillies for instance, only because I have had the pleasure of pouring over their lease. Their total payment to the city for Citizens' Bank Park over the 30 year life of their original lease is less than $35 million dollars. This includes taxes. (They make yearly payment in lieu of taxes in the amount of $1,000,000). The stadium cost the city around $500 million, and who knows how much in interest from the bonds. Philadelphia is currently cutting funding for schools and considering privatizing the public transportation after starving it of funds. The Phillies are owned (or at least in my opinion he is the true owner) by a billionaire in John S. Middleton.

How many news articles can you find describing how much money the city paid for Citizens' Bank Park? I can't find a single one. It wasn't discussed in the media. I think that if the people of Philadelphia were aware that the city footed the bill for the stadium, while making cuts to necessary services for the working class, they would be none too pleased.The fact that one can be ridiculed in the US for wanting to spend money on children is a whole other can of worms.

A great book on this discussion: Uncovering the Dome.

So again to throw out a hypothetical argument here (and I'll even inflate the numbers just for the theory/thought experiment). Lets say the State of Wyoming really loves the Red Sox. Lets also say that the State of Wyoming is fabulously rich, whereas the State of Massachusetts is as it is today.

Wyoming (being the fabulously rich and suave State it is), offers Massachusetts a deal in where it'll pay the State two billion dollars a year for ten years. All it has to do is let the Red Sox leave town in a peaceful fashion and become the Wyoming Corn Ruckers (also as part of the deal, Boston can never name a team "Red Sox" again). Massachusetts could then use that money to help families in need, help the children, and create tens of thousands of jobs within the state.

Would Massachusetts as a whole be happy with that scenario? Significant amounts of money would be going towards very vital and important causes. Surely people's lives would be elevated in the process, and a great deal of public good for those less fortunate than most on this board would be had. No problems right? Bullshit. The State as a whole and in particular the city of Boston would be in a complete uproar - children be damned. You would see enormous turnover in the entire Massachusetts legislature, and people decades after the fact would be lamenting the massive loss of what is essentially a cultural institution for the city of Boston.

My point in laying out this hypothetical argument/thought experiment? The issue is no where near as cut and dry as, "BUT OTHER THINGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT!" Just because certain elements of our society take a very high priority (jobs, kids, education, etc), does not mean that society as a whole is improved by prioritizing those things to such a high degree that you start removing/stop supporting essential elements of it's culture. And whether you can bring yourself to admit or not, professional sports teams constitute a huge part of the identity/culture of many prominent cities and areas.

Edited by ZP1, 23 April 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[MannysDestination]

The bolded is absolutely untrue. Or rather, at least, misleading. The lack of an NFL team (think Portland) may not cause misery: the loss of one absolutely does (Baltimore, Cleveland). And the presence of one may mitigate it. I am not miserable because I don't live in a mansion: If I'd spent most of my life in a specific mansion, seen my kids grow up there, etc, to no longer be able to afford to maintain it would be a cause of misery to me. Similarly, thousands of Minnesotans have devoted hours of their lives and large amounts of emotional energy on supporting the Vikings.

Also: politicians want to get re-elected.

Misery is dying of starvation, or seeing your children turn to a life of crime because of no alternatives.

Boredom is lack of a professional football team.

So again to throw out a hypothetical argument here (and I'll even inflate the numbers just for the theory/thought experiment). Lets say the State of Wyoming really loves the Red Sox. Lets also say that the State of Wyoming is fabulously rich, whereas the State of Massachusetts is as it is today.

Wyoming (being the fabulously rich and suave State it is), offers Massachusetts a deal in where it'll pay the State two billion dollars a year for ten years. All it has to do is let the Red Sox leave town in a peaceful fashion and become the Wyoming Corn Ruckers (also as part of the deal, Boston can never name a team "Red Sox" again). Massachusetts could then use that money to help families in need, help the children, and create tens of thousands of jobs within the state.

Would Massachusetts as a whole be happy with that scenario? Significant amounts of money would be going towards very vital and important causes. Surely people's lives would be elevated in the process, and a great deal of public good for those less fortunate than most on this board would be had. No problems right? Bullshit. The State as a whole and in particular the city of Boston would be in a complete uproar - children be damned. You would see enormous turnover in the entire Massachusetts legislature, and people decades after the fact would be lamenting the massive loss of what is essentially a cultural institution for the city of Boston.

My point in laying out this hypothetical argument/thought experiment? The issue is no where near as cut and dry as, "BUT OTHER THINGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT!" Just because certain elements of our society take a very high priority (jobs, kids, education, etc), does not mean that society as a whole is improved by prioritizing those things to such a high degree that you start removing/stop supporting essential elements of it's culture. And whether you can bring yourself to admit or not, professional sports teams constitute a huge part of the identity/culture of many prominent cities and areas.

Well, your example is stupid, so I can't use that for a piece of evaluation. You can't assume away reality. It also belies your understanding of the issue. Do you know how fucking enormous $2 billion is to a state or local government? Total state and local government spending for Massachusetts in 2009 (last reported) was $26 billion of GDP. Minnesota was about the same, $23 billion of GDP generated by state and local government spending in 2009.

So, to control for scale, the amount of money being requested of MN govt to keep the Vikings ($300M) is a little more than 1% of total government expenditures for the entire state. To put this in perspective with other categories of Minnesota spending, total spending on police protection by the state during 2009 was $281 million.

But, for the sake of argument (however abysmally weak that argument might be), you're making my point. I could see some politicians being voted out of office for doing this, maybe, but over the long run the impact would be quiet small.

Let me put this differently: How many people choose where they live based off the local professional sports franchise? As an enormous portion of this board can attest to, people move based off their career prospects, not their fanaticism over a particular franchise.

Professional sports are just not that important. I say this as an enormous, avid sports fan.

Edited by MannysDestination, 23 April 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[ZP1]

Misery is dying of starvation, or seeing your children turn to a life of crime because of no alternatives.

Boredom is lack of a professional football team.



Well, your example is stupid, so I can't use that for a piece of evaluation. You can't assume away reality. It also belies your understanding of the issue. Do you know how fucking enormous $2 billion is to a state or local government? Total state and local government spending for Massachusetts in 2009 (last reported) was $26 billion of GDP. Minnesota was about the same, $23 billion of GDP generated by state and local government spending in 2009.

So, to control for scale, the amount of money being requested of MN govt to keep the Vikings ($300M) is about 1% of total government expenditures for the entire state.

But, for the sake of argument (however abysmally weak that argument might be), you're making my point. I could see some politicians being voted out of office for doing this, maybe, but over the long run the impact would be quiet small.

Let me put this differently: How many people choose where they live based off the local professional sports franchise? As an enormous portion of this board can attest to, people move based off their career prospects, not their fanaticism over a particular franchise.

Professional sports are just not that important. I say this as an enormous, avid sports fan.

I'm well aware of how much money 2 billion is. That's why I worded my hypothetical scenario/thought experiment in the terms I did (seriously, i called Wyoming fabulously wealthy) .

My point was that even for such an outrageous sum, you would still have the State of Massachusetts in a complete state of uproar - with people's emotional spectrum ranging from extremely depressed, to near (or at) riot levels of rage. Because there's something about the Red Sox in Boston that's so integral to the identity of the city, that losing the team (no matter how good of a deal it is to lose them) would be a devastating blow to the millions that grew up with and love the team.

That's my point. The point that you keep missing in favor of the standard economic arguments. I specifically worded my example to show that there's a very large element at play when it comes to sports teams that does not reasonably consider the financial aspect at all. As in, the financial element is completely and utterly secondary to what the sports team is actually providing to the area in many respects. Which is why you can't just evaluate these things on a pure profit/not profit basis.

Edited by ZP1, 23 April 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[ZP1]

Also, just adding on to my previous post. In addition to all the other points in regards to cultural identity/things mattering more than money. The other part that really plays into it as well, is that when an area loses a team, the vast, vast majority of people have no way of visibly seeing their lives "improved" by having that stadium money (300 million in the Vikings case) go to other places. If the Vikings leave, that 300 million will end up dispersed to various different government functions.

Joe Average Minnesotan is not going to see his life appreciably change as a result of that stadium money going to other causes. What Joe Average Minnesotan is going to notice is that he no longer can crack open a beer and root for the Vikings on Sunday. Instead, he'll get to see the Green Bay Packers every week, which would probably be the ultimate salt in the wound for most Vikings fans. It's equivalent to if the Red Sox moved out of Boston and suddenly the Yankees became the marquee team on NESN. It's that bad. Really.

Joe Average Minnesotan is not going to notice that a thousand teachers kept their jobs, and that several great projects for the arts were advanced (or the other ways that 300 million gets spent). He has no way of appreciably digesting the few upsides to losing the Vikings as a result of a budget battle. All he's going to notice are the direct downsides, and the loss of something that he and many of his friends rallied around - in good times and bad. In short, Joe Average Minnesotan on some level takes a quality of life hit that he directly notices. And gains benefits that he has no way of perceiving in the least.

(Side Musing/Joke: Technically that 300 million could go to road construction projects. Which would have the ill side effect of actually enraging Joe Average even more. Because in the 3 years + it'd take to complete those projects, he would potentially have greatly increased commuting times. Giving him more time to listen to KFAN and rage about losing the Vikings in the mornings during Football season.)

[MannysDestination]

I'm well aware of how much money 2 billion is. That's why I worded my hypothetical scenario/thought experiment in the terms I did (seriously, i called Wyoming fabulously wealthy) .

My point was that even for such an outrageous sum, you would still have the State of Massachusetts in a complete state of uproar - with people's emotional spectrum ranging from extremely depressed, to near (or at) riot levels of rage. Because there's something about the Red Sox in Boston that's so integral to the identity of the city, that losing the team (no matter how good of a deal it is to lose them) would be a devastating blow to the millions that grew up with and love the team.

That's my point. The point that you keep missing in favor of the standard economic arguments. I specifically worded my example to show that there's a very large element at play when it comes to sports teams that does not reasonably consider the financial aspect at all. As in, the financial element is completely and utterly secondary to what the sports team is actually providing to the area in many respects. Which is why you can't just evaluate these things on a pure profit/not profit basis.

Your argument shows me why we do not have a direct democracy where popular opinion drives every single policy decision. It does not tell me that state subsidies of private enterprises are valid.

Essentially you're making a student council election argument. If offered the choice between the Vikings and no Vikings, everyone would clearly choose to keep the Vikings, just like everyone would choose to have an extra period of recess. However, that doesn't mean it's actually in everyone's best interest to keep the Vikings or to have more of the school day occupied with socializing. It just shows the most popular decision.

[wutang112878]

That's my point. The point that you keep missing in favor of the standard economic arguments. I specifically worded my example to show that there's a very large element at play when it comes to sports teams that does not reasonably consider the financial aspect at all. As in, the financial element is completely and utterly secondary to what the sports team is actually providing to the area in many respects. Which is why you can't just evaluate these things on a pure profit/not profit basis.

Here is the problem, most voters are very willing and able to criticize politicians if they allow government inefficiency. For example, if we see a few state workers fixing a road and not working as hard as we expect, or see an example of a fireman collecting a pension and working elsewhere. Which is fine because its part of the charter of politicians to have our government work as efficiently as possible. But then when it comes to a sports franchise, a franchise that is making a significant profit, then the economic benefit analysis isnt valid or to be considered? Thats what I dont understand. I would have hated to lost the Patriots, or to lost the RedSox , but I would have also been frustrated if the state provided subsidies to pad Kraft's or John Henry's pockets.

[Royal Reader]

Misery is dying of starvation, or seeing your children turn to a life of crime because of no alternatives.

Boredom is lack of a professional football team.

Nope. Misery is whatever makes you unhappy. People in LA were openly weeping in the stands when the Raiders returned to Oakland. This might not be on the scale of actual starvation (which, if that's your standard, means that pretty much no government spending whatsoever in America is actually necessary to 'alleviate misery' so long as the Food Stamps program is funded) but real people were seriously pissed off about this, and they weren't by any means all white collar types. I know plenty of people who would be more pissed off if their soccer club folded than if their taxes went up by ten percent.

[wutang112878]

Also, just adding on to my previous post. In addition to all the other points in regards to cultural identity/things mattering more than money. The other part that really plays into it as well, is that when an area loses a team, the vast, vast majority of people have no way of visibly seeing their lives "improved" by having that stadium money (300 million in the Vikings case) go to other places. If the Vikings leave, that 300 million will end up dispersed to various different government functions.

What about property value? What if the state used $300M to improve our education system, or clean up ugly areas of towns, or make new roads that attracted new businesses. If done and managed correctly, chances are that the total value received by average Joes would receive more economic benefit via increases in property values than the 'value' the total value for all average Joes that we would receive by simply keeping a team. Thats should be the intent of public projects, to manage the total economic benefit of the population, while also balancing ethical issues. For example, the cost/benefit analysis for providing public funds to medical insurance for those >65 only benefits a small population of folks, but ethically I dont think a lot of citizens would say its ethical not to do that. But I really cant make an ethical argument to have all taxpayers pay to keep a sports franchise.

[Rocco Graziosa]

Your argument shows me why we do not have a direct democracy where popular opinion drives every single policy decision. It does not tell me that state subsidies of private enterprises are valid.

Essentially you're making a student council election argument. If offered the choice between the Vikings and no Vikings, everyone would clearly choose to keep the Vikings, just like everyone would choose to have an extra period of recess. However, that doesn't mean it's actually in everyone's best interest to keep the Vikings or to have more of the school day occupied with socializing. It just shows the most popular decision.

While true, these people making these unpopular decision will soon find themselves out of a job. Again, see Washington, Seattle for reference on how taking such a stand against these teams can work out not so good for the community. Just to hammer home the point one more time, they are on hands and knees begging the NBA to come back with the promise of a shiny new area built on taxpayer dime.

Edit: And on the flip side, take a poll of the people of Oklahoma and what they think of their decision to build a stadium to get the Thunder. I'd wager its pretty popular.

Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 23 April 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[Royal Reader]

Not to mention, Kansas City voters approved the funding of the Sprint Center without even having a team lined up to play there.

'The people don't know what's good for them' seems like a dangerous argument to start making. Again, it's hard to quantify the pride and enjoyment citizens take from being an NFL city.

[MannysDestination]

While true, these people making these unpopular decision will soon find themselves out of a job. Again, see Washington, Seattle for reference on how taking such a stand against these teams can work out not so good for the community. Just to hammer home the point one more time, they are on hands and knees begging the NBA to come back with the promise of a shiny new area built on taxpayer dime.

Edit: And on the flip side, take a poll of the people of Oklahoma and what they think of their decision to build a stadium to get the Thunder. I'd wager its pretty popular.

Like I said before, you're welcome to make the argument based on popular opinion or perceived utility all you want. It's the only possibly valid justification for the expense. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with economics.

How many legislators in Seattle actually lost their jobs? How much money is Seattle going to be spending on the new stadium? What kind of ownership rights do they retain? You're describing the myopic obsession of politicians to do the most popular thing to get reelected rather than the best decision for the long-term well being of the people they represent. That's a hollow justification to spend tax revenues.

[ZP1]

What about property value? What if the state used $300M to improve our education system, or clean up ugly areas of towns, or make new roads that attracted new businesses. If done and managed correctly, chances are that the total value received by average Joes would receive more economic benefit via increases in property values than the 'value' the total value for all average Joes that we would receive by simply keeping a team. Thats should be the intent of public projects, to manage the total economic benefit of the population, while also balancing ethical issues. For example, the cost/benefit analysis for providing public funds to medical insurance for those >65 only benefits a small population of folks, but ethically I dont think a lot of citizens would say its ethical not to do that. But I really cant make an ethical argument to have all taxpayers pay to keep a sports franchise.

Good luck somehow communicating the point that the extra money for infrastructure investment (and again, making the point that it wouldnt have happened without the extra money), caused all of those changes. Good luck actually trying to convince Joe Average that those improvements were worth losing a team he's supported since he was in Kindergarden.

So I've tried to get people to look at this beyond just the numbers aspect, but apparently people are absolutely determined to keep arguing the net point that a sports stadium is not worth the cost when that money could be spent on X Y and Z things of higher priority. Let me extend your logic to a more base point - should states, communities, or people as a whole spend money period on professional sports teams?

Professional sports teams make a lot of money. But regardless of whether or not the State makes profit or not, all of the money that goes into pro sports teams comes from the people themselves (and by-products of the people, ie: advertising revenue). Should we just make a collective decision as a society, and decide to ban all professional sports because they're a waste of money that fuels something that at its heart only provides entertainment value? Is it proper that people spend so much money watching doing things like watching Tom Brady play, when instead they could be donating out of their hearts so that kids have better teachers?

We could come together as a society, ban all professional sports, and institute a tax that directly takes from people (on average) what they would have spent in their pursuits of something that's simply a luxury. Naturally this tax would also evaluate how much corporations would have spent on advertising and directly tax them as well. It'd provide billions of dollars for developing society. In these hard economic times when people don't have jobs, shouldn't we all sacrifice our luxuries in order to help everyone out? Why should Tom Brady make millions a year when there are children who struggle to survive in poor neighborhoods? It doesn't matter if the people would prefer to have their pro sports teams - that's why we don't have a direct democracy. Sometimes it's better to tell people exactly how things should and will be!

Obviously, the preceding paragraphs are certifiably insane, and very few people would agree to things of such an extent. But it's also the exact logic that's being used in this thread in regards to why the public should never fund a stadium, even realizing the fact that you'll lose your team and in many cases something that a huge amount of people enjoy. Society is not so black and white as to say that high priority items must drown out everything that's a lesser priority. Even in hard economic times, there's still enough room to provide for a collective luxury that everyone can enjoy (despite arguments to the contrary).

Edited by ZP1, 23 April 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[wutang112878]

Good luck somehow communicating the point that the extra money for infrastructure investment (and again, making the point that it wouldnt have happened without the extra money), caused all of those changes. Good luck actually trying to convince Joe Average that those improvements were worth losing a team he's supported since he was in Kindergarden.

This is a fair point, because typically the majority of voters do not care to understand all the economic issues in play when making decisions.

So I've tried to get people to look at this beyond just the numbers aspect, but apparently people are absolutely determined to keep arguing the net point that a sports stadium is not worth the cost when that money could be spent on X Y and Z things of higher priority. Let me extend your logic to a more base point - should states, communities, or people as a whole spend money period on professional sports teams?

Just my opinion, but I dont think states and communities should provide any funding for profitable private enterprises unless there is going to be a net positive economic value to the community as a whole. For example, when RhodeIsland was willing to give 38Studios a huge loan I did not have a problem with Mass not providing a similar package because the net economic benefit would not be a positive for MA or RI, it seemed like a waste of money. If people individually decide to support teams with their disposable income, I think thats perfectly fine, and its because all the 4 major sports in this market make money with just individuals providing them their revenue I dont feel the state should provide them any assistance.

Professional sports teams make a lot of money. But regardless of whether or not the State makes profit or not, all of the money that goes into pro sports teams comes from the people themselves (and by-products of the people, ie: advertising revenue). Should we just make a collective decision as a society, and decide to ban all professional sports because they're a waste of money that fuels something that at its heart only provides entertainment value? Is it proper that people spend so much money watching doing things like watching Tom Brady play, when instead they could be donating out of their hearts so that kids have better teachers?

To bring this example a little further, I really like a local sub shop and a lot of folks in town like it as well, it seems to me to be a net benefit to the town. But if the sub shop was no longer making money, I wouldnt support an increase in my real estate taxes to subsidize the sub shop to keep them in business. I am not suggesting that we do anything to restrict how people use their disposable income, but I do think its a little much, considering there is no economical value created by funding stadiums, for governments to help fund new stadiums for franchises that are already profitable.

Obviously, the preceding paragraphs are certifiably insane, and very few people would agree to things of such an extent. But it's also the exact logic that's being used in this thread in regards to why the public should never fund a stadium, even realizing the fact that you'll lose your team and in many cases something that a huge amount of people enjoy. Society is not so black and white as to say that high priority items must drown out everything that's a lesser priority. Even in hard economic times, there's still enough room to provide for a collective luxury that everyone can enjoy (despite arguments to the contrary).

Sorry, I dont understand this analogy. I think the economic logic as for why a state should never provide funding for a stadium is because the net actual economic value for those paying for the project as a whole is not positive for such projects. Furthermore, the business owners requesting the funding are indeed making money and thus providing them funding is essentially having the general taxpaying public provide subsidies for people who are already very rich and who own very profitable businesses.

For example, look at the Celtics. They dont own the stadium, dont get any revenue for the advertising in the stadium and also dont get any revenue for concessions. But, they have been in the top 5 spenders in terms of salaries in the Big3 era. Even if everyone in the state really enjoyed having the Celtics play here, and I absolutely love the Celtics, I would have some ethical/government efficiency problems if the state were to provide funding so Wyc could build a new stadium for the Celtics because clearly without any subsidy assistance they found it to be economical beneficial to run their private company with a very high payroll.

Edited by wutang112878, 23 April 2012 - 11:58 AM.

[lithos2003]

What about property value? What if the state used $300M to improve our education system, or clean up ugly areas of towns, or make new roads that attracted new businesses. If done and managed correctly, chances are that the total value received by average Joes would receive more economic benefit via increases in property values than the 'value' the total value for all average Joes that we would receive by simply keeping a team. Thats should be the intent of public projects, to manage the total economic benefit of the population, while also balancing ethical issues. For example, the cost/benefit analysis for providing public funds to medical insurance for those >65 only benefits a small population of folks, but ethically I dont think a lot of citizens would say its ethical not to do that. But I really cant make an ethical argument to have all taxpayers pay to keep a sports franchise.

I still get hung up on this type of argument. Would that entire $300M that you want to reinvest in other higher priority areas exist if the team were to leave? If so, you're saying that having a professional sports franchise provides no economic benefit to the state whatsoever. If, however, it does not exist, or is less than $300M, then the decision is a bit more complicated than you're making it out to be.

[MannysDestination]

Obviously, the preceding paragraphs are certifiably insane, and very few people would agree to things of such an extent. But it's also the exact logic that's being used in this thread in regards to why the public should never fund a stadium, even realizing the fact that you'll lose your team and in many cases something that a huge amount of people enjoy. Society is not so black and white as to say that high priority items must drown out everything that's a lesser priority. Even in hard economic times, there's still enough room to provide for a collective luxury that everyone can enjoy (despite arguments to the contrary).

Incorrect, your argument is actually taking the exact opposite of the logic that's being employed in this thread.

Quite simply: Pro sports are supported by the revenues of willing fans. These people freely and independently choose to spend their money on following sports, as is their right.

Public financing of pro sports teams are supported by the revenues of all, regardless of whether they are fans of the team or not. It is my contention that a huge portion of citizens in most cities could not care less about a given sport, never mind the hometown team. SoSH members are a self-selecting group of sports fanatics, so this is a wildly minority view for people reading this post, but it doesn't change the point's veracity.

Therefore, advocating for public support of stadium financing is, at its heart, asking for the all to support the intangible desires of the few vis a vis the reelection desires of the very few. In other words, the exact opposite of the logic vein you introduced. It is the very heavy-handed action of government that you're obliquely deriding.

[MannysDestination]

I still get hung up on this type of argument. Would that entire $300M that you want to reinvest in other higher priority areas exist if the team were to leave? If so, you're saying that having a professional sports franchise provides no economic benefit to the state whatsoever. If, however, it does not exist, or is less than $300M, then the decision is a bit more complicated than you're making it out to be.

No, it's more complicated than you're making it out to be because the stadium can be constructed and completed and still be profitable without any public involvement whatsoever. The practice of leveraging one municipality against another is the practice of extracting economic rents from the public coffers for the benefit of a sports franchise owner's profits.

Edited by MannysDestination, 23 April 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[MannysDestination]

I think the economic logic as for why a state should never provide funding for a stadium is because the net actual economic value for those paying for the project as a whole is not positive for such projects. Furthermore, the business owners requesting the funding are indeed making money and thus providing them funding is essentially having the general taxpaying public provide subsidies for people who are already very rich and who own very profitable businesses.

I completely agree, and the bolded section is the crux of the issue.

[wutang112878]

I still get hung up on this type of argument. Would that entire $300M that you want to reinvest in other higher priority areas exist if the team were to leave? If so, you're saying that having a professional sports franchise provides no economic benefit to the state whatsoever. If, however, it does not exist, or is less than $300M, then the decision is a bit more complicated than you're making it out to be.

If the RedSox or Patriots were to leave I dont think there would be a large decrease in the MA population. So, I believe using the $300M for projects that would increase property value would probably still create more economic value than providing the same funding for a stadium. I am not suggesting that a sports franchise does not provide economic activity to the state, but that in the case of most of the stadium funding requests the economic benefit that could be lost that is provided by the franchise is not greater than the funding request, and therefore tax dollars are being spent on a project that does not provide economic or ethical value.

[Rocco Graziosa]

Like I said before, you're welcome to make the argument based on popular opinion or perceived utility all you want. It's the only possibly valid justification for the expense. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with economics.

How many legislators in Seattle actually lost their jobs? How much money is Seattle going to be spending on the new stadium? What kind of ownership rights do they retain? You're describing the myopic obsession of politicians to do the most popular thing to get reelected rather than the best decision for the long-term well being of the people they represent. That's a hollow justification to spend tax revenues.

If the majority of the people think spending public funds to keep professional sports in their towns, and vote out polititions who don't support their ideas for other pols who presumably will act on their wishes, isn't that was a democracy is all about??

Why the change of heart in Seattle? The only conclusion I can draw is that the majority of the people realized that having a professional basketball team in their city IS important to their quality of life and the identity of their city. The people of Celveland always knew this.

Amazingly, on a professional sports message board, I think some here are incredibly underestimating the depth of which these sports teams are woven into the fabric of our society. And how important that can be to mindboggling number of people.