4 ms·

No, that's not why. Cities shouldn't do it because sports are not a public concern.

rmxt 11y ago
Sports are a form of entertainment....entertainment can and does drive spending.... and spending can contribute to more jobs and more tax revenue. Seems fair that sports are, in turn, a public concern. That isn't to say that building a stadium or hosting the Olympics is inherently a profitable affair.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  I'd be ok with this argument only if the leagues were nationalized.
  - noxToken 11y ago
    What is the need for nationalization before a city should foot the bill? This isn't to say that cities should pay for a stadium, but there are definitely dynasty franchises that are guaranteed to generate income for many years. Would I build a stadium for the Rams? Not likely. Would I build a stadium for the Patriots? Immediately.
    - yourapostasy 11y ago
      Generate the lion's share of income for who? If a city's citizens are ponying up tax revenue to support a team, then the city should do it right, and be a shareholder in the team, and capture a proportional share of the lion's share of the income that flows to the team's owners. Forbes has a good breakdown of the profitability of the teams to their owners [1]. PBS Marketplace has a good overview of how much of that profitability makes it to the city [2]. You can read many papers examining the economic impact of letting a sports team walk, here is one [3] such paper. Given the level of profitability to owners, the statistically insignificant economic impact of teams on cities, and the accumulated data to date continuing to support these conclusions drawn so far, city managers giving away valuable consideration as if they're supporting charity cases are simply using taxpayers to purchase extremely expensive political points. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2015/09/14/the-most-valuable-teams-in-the-nfl/#57e6c731326f http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2015/09/14/the-most-... [2] http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sport... [3] http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=mpampp_etds http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&c...
- draw_down 11y ago
  Except, whoops, the bucks only ever go to sports teams.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    What of all the employees of the stadium? Of all the travel to and from the stadium? Of the merchandising deals? And any other numerous subsequent results... what does the money that goes to the employees or third-parties count as? They don't get paid in company scrip. That's akin to saying that the money for any government funded project only go to the party directly responsible for building/supporting it, and all of the consequences from the initial project are inherently zero.
  - dionidium 11y ago
    As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, public money funds all sorts of entertainment and cultural endeavors, from operas to art museums to 5K fun runs and so on and so on.
- lotyrin 11y ago
  Last I was aware, there was no evidence that this investment provided any return. Not that it matters because that still wouldn't justify a huge investment by the public into a private entity without any ownership stake. If the idea was really to create something resembling a grant to private organizations to create business that stimulates the economy, you would rationally have some kind of process around for screening candidates based on merit and be more diversified in your awards. I'd like to believe it's anything other than a kind of blackmail where these organizations use their media power (== public opinion) with impunity to bully municipalities into providing them the tax revenue of citizens, wasting money that could otherwise be used for individual or public good, but that's all I can make out of it.
noxToken 11y ago
Sports aren't an inherent public concern, but the idea is that there will be a future return. I don't claim that building a stadium/arena for a professional sports team will generate profit for the city. It's supposed to be an investment. The city foots the bill for the stadium. The team generates revenue over X years to cover the costs, and it also provides jobs for the city's residents. It's an idealistic win-win. Again - this doesn't always work as intended.
CamperBob2 11y ago
The explanation I heard is that professional sports are a key element of "urban pacification." It makes sense to some extent, in a panem et circenses kind of way.
bmelton 11y ago
And yet cities and states are often in the business of luring large employers to their area, and tax advantage is almost always the bait. Everybody complains about sweetheart deals that so often go along with the seduction of an employer into their area, but almost nobody complains about the jobs. Perhaps in San Francisco the situation is reversed, but almost anywhere else is happy to accept your runoff, even if profitability isn't in the short term agenda. More jobs means more people employed which in turn drives up employee competition, and hence wages, which equate to increased tax revenues and better quality of living. I think that the stadium deals tend to be overboard, but not only is it not a net negative, it is at least more straight-forward plot than the backroom deals done as enticement for businesses.
- digikata 11y ago
  The economic effects of stadiums are often put forward as positive during the 'deal' phase of placing them, but many studies have reported only a small positive or negative effect on economic activity. http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sport...
- st3v3r 11y ago
  "Everybody complains about sweetheart deals that so often go along with the seduction of an employer into their area, but almost nobody complains about the jobs" Probably because, in most cases, the amount that those jobs cost has not been worth it.
- draw_down 11y ago
  So, did this defunct stadium inflate the job numbers in St Louis somehow, or am I misreading your comment?
tremon 11y ago
Sports definitely are a public concern. Exercise improves health (well maybe this doesn't apply to football ;). A better question would be whether these grand spectacles actually increase sport participation in the general population, and if that same effect can't be attained in a cheaper way.

rmxt 11y ago

Sports are a form of entertainment....entertainment can and does drive spending.... and spending can contribute to more jobs and more tax revenue. Seems fair that sports are, in turn, a public concern. That isn't to say that building a stadium or hosting the Olympics is inherently a profitable affair.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
I'd be ok with this argument only if the leagues were nationalized.
- noxToken 11y ago
  What is the need for nationalization before a city should foot the bill? This isn't to say that cities should pay for a stadium, but there are definitely dynasty franchises that are guaranteed to generate income for many years. Would I build a stadium for the Rams? Not likely. Would I build a stadium for the Patriots? Immediately.
  - yourapostasy 11y ago
    Generate the lion's share of income for who? If a city's citizens are ponying up tax revenue to support a team, then the city should do it right, and be a shareholder in the team, and capture a proportional share of the lion's share of the income that flows to the team's owners. Forbes has a good breakdown of the profitability of the teams to their owners [1]. PBS Marketplace has a good overview of how much of that profitability makes it to the city [2]. You can read many papers examining the economic impact of letting a sports team walk, here is one [3] such paper. Given the level of profitability to owners, the statistically insignificant economic impact of teams on cities, and the accumulated data to date continuing to support these conclusions drawn so far, city managers giving away valuable consideration as if they're supporting charity cases are simply using taxpayers to purchase extremely expensive political points. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2015/09/14/the-most-valuable-teams-in-the-nfl/#57e6c731326f http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2015/09/14/the-most-... [2] http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sport... [3] http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=mpampp_etds http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&c...
draw_down 11y ago
Except, whoops, the bucks only ever go to sports teams.
- rmxt 11y ago
  What of all the employees of the stadium? Of all the travel to and from the stadium? Of the merchandising deals? And any other numerous subsequent results... what does the money that goes to the employees or third-parties count as? They don't get paid in company scrip. That's akin to saying that the money for any government funded project only go to the party directly responsible for building/supporting it, and all of the consequences from the initial project are inherently zero.
- dionidium 11y ago
  As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, public money funds all sorts of entertainment and cultural endeavors, from operas to art museums to 5K fun runs and so on and so on.
lotyrin 11y ago
Last I was aware, there was no evidence that this investment provided any return. Not that it matters because that still wouldn't justify a huge investment by the public into a private entity without any ownership stake. If the idea was really to create something resembling a grant to private organizations to create business that stimulates the economy, you would rationally have some kind of process around for screening candidates based on merit and be more diversified in your awards. I'd like to believe it's anything other than a kind of blackmail where these organizations use their media power (== public opinion) with impunity to bully municipalities into providing them the tax revenue of citizens, wasting money that could otherwise be used for individual or public good, but that's all I can make out of it.

noxToken 11y ago

Sports aren't an inherent public concern, but the idea is that there will be a future return. I don't claim that building a stadium/arena for a professional sports team will generate profit for the city. It's supposed to be an investment. The city foots the bill for the stadium. The team generates revenue over X years to cover the costs, and it also provides jobs for the city's residents. It's an idealistic win-win. Again - this doesn't always work as intended.

CamperBob2 11y ago

The explanation I heard is that professional sports are a key element of "urban pacification." It makes sense to some extent, in a panem et circenses kind of way.

bmelton 11y ago

And yet cities and states are often in the business of luring large employers to their area, and tax advantage is almost always the bait. Everybody complains about sweetheart deals that so often go along with the seduction of an employer into their area, but almost nobody complains about the jobs. Perhaps in San Francisco the situation is reversed, but almost anywhere else is happy to accept your runoff, even if profitability isn't in the short term agenda. More jobs means more people employed which in turn drives up employee competition, and hence wages, which equate to increased tax revenues and better quality of living. I think that the stadium deals tend to be overboard, but not only is it not a net negative, it is at least more straight-forward plot than the backroom deals done as enticement for businesses.

digikata 11y ago
The economic effects of stadiums are often put forward as positive during the 'deal' phase of placing them, but many studies have reported only a small positive or negative effect on economic activity. http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sport...
st3v3r 11y ago
"Everybody complains about sweetheart deals that so often go along with the seduction of an employer into their area, but almost nobody complains about the jobs" Probably because, in most cases, the amount that those jobs cost has not been worth it.
draw_down 11y ago
So, did this defunct stadium inflate the job numbers in St Louis somehow, or am I misreading your comment?

tremon 11y ago

Sports definitely are a public concern. Exercise improves health (well maybe this doesn't apply to football ;). A better question would be whether these grand spectacles actually increase sport participation in the general population, and if that same effect can't be attained in a cheaper way.