5 ms·

It's not an unreasonable position for a municipality to chose lose money on a stadium. They typically lose money on symphony orchestras, ballets and performing

by JackFr 11y ago

It's not an unreasonable position for a municipality to chose lose money on a stadium. They typically lose money on symphony orchestras, ballets and performing arts centers. That one is considered low culture and the other considered high culture is not relevant is we assume that the people are being ably represented. But what seems to infuriate people is that orchestras and ballets are typically not owned by billionaires, and they are not part of a league with a multi-billion dollar budget.

jpindar 11y ago
Don't forget the "stupid jocks picked on me in school so fuck them" factor.
- pyre 11y ago
  I really think it has more to do with the examples that we are discussing. Cities throwing money at teams with no strings attached, and then the teams leave and the cities are still paying off the debt. It's ridiculous that they didn't at least make sure that the team couldn't take such an action. There's also the fact that the cities are basically footing the bill for some rich people to make more money.
aidenn0 11y ago
> But what seems to infuriate people is that orchestras and ballets are typically not owned by billionaires, and they are not part of a league with a multi-billion dollar budget. Naturally; orchestras and ballets would struggle to exist without taxpayer money. Sports teams do not have this issue, which is why people complain; essentially every dollar spent by the taxpayers on a stadium is another dollar in the pocket of the team owner. I don't know about football, but no owner in the history of baseball has lost money on their team; even those operating at a negative cash-flow have seen net increases due to the increasing value of their team.
gozur88 11y ago
What infuriates people is these deals are always sold to the public as some sort of net-positive redevelopment, instead of what's really happening, which is a transfer of tax money to team owners. With orchestras and ballets and performing arts centers everybody knows up front you have an ongoing financial liability. And the numbers are smaller.
- adventured 11y ago
  > which is a transfer of tax money to team owners It's primarily a transfer of money to players. In the next ten years players will earn around $50 to $55 billion in income. That's drastically beyond anything owners will either earn via operations or extract through capital gains via a sale. Take the Houston Texans for example. They're stated as the 7th most valuable NFL franchise per Forbes, generating $114m in operating income (not net income) annually - the salary cap is $143m. Green Bay? Tenth most valuable, they only generate $63m in profit - every 10 to 12 years, the Green Bay players earn more total than the entire franchise is worth. The bottom 20 teams? Forget about it. Most leagues are the same, the players overwhelmingly extract the value. The top 450 NBA players are set (with the new TV rights money) to earn more than all of the Fortune 500 CEOs combined in terms of salary (~$17 trillion in market cap of the companies those CEOs operate).
  - cmurf 11y ago
    That makes me feel better, actually. It's obscene money, and I don't agree with the subsidy. But, the players get beat up, and CET. Some commit suicide. Fans paying high ticket prices, parking, meh whatever, make them pay more instead of begging from taxpayers though.
    - douche 11y ago
      The rank-and-file football player, arguably, is underpaid, particularly in comparison to their colleagues in MLB or the NBA. I think the median salary for non-rookie deal NBA players is north of $5 million/year now. Baseball is similarly outrageous for veterans that reach free agency (the Red Flops were handing out $10 million deals like candy the last couple of years). Not to mention that those deals are guaranteed, unlike the NFL, where players are routinely cut when injured or just before they reach thresholds where bonuses kick in. s
  - jacalata 11y ago
    Somehow, the valuation of the team increased by $600 million in that year. The teams are capturing plenty of the money going around. I'd be willing to bet that the players pay more tax than the owners per dollar extracted, too.
Ensorceled 11y ago
Symphony orchestras, ballets and performing arts centers also tend to be not-for-profit entities. I'm happy to see my tax dollars go to schools, parks, community arenas and playfields, and, yes, performing arts centers. For profit, successful (or at least extremely valuable) sports franchises ... not so much.
tw04 11y ago
The things you listed that typically lose money are funded BECAUSE they can't be profitable on their own. Not IN SPITE of it. Professional sports can more than afford to fund their own stadiums, they just CHOOSE not to.
briandh 11y ago
> It's not an unreasonable position for a municipality to chose lose money on a stadium. They typically lose money on symphony orchestras, ballets and performing arts centers. That one is considered low culture and the other considered high culture is not relevant is we assume that the people are being ably represented. This rests on the premise that is is reasonable for taxpayer money to fund any cultural activities at all, "high" or "low". In any case, even accepting this premise, the difference is that the examples of "high" culture you cite are, unlike professional sports stadiums, generally not promoted on the basis of claims that they will contribute to the economic development of their communities; rather, they are generally promoted on the basis of unfalsifiable claims that they will have a positive cultural and educational impact.
skewart 11y ago
Except for the fact that those "high culuture" institutions tend to stick around a lot longer instead of bolting town as soon as the owners spot a more profitable deal. Also, I doubt there are as many concert halls where the public has sunk anything near the kind of money that frequently gets sunk into NFL stadiums. The Disney Concert Hall in LA, which I think was one of the most expensive ones recently built, bad a total budget of less than $300 million. (The county paid $110 to cover parking construction, getting revenues in return, the rest was covered by private donors, primarily the Disney family and Eli Broad.)
- CaptainZapp 11y ago
  Also, I doubt there are as many concert halls where the public has sunk anything near the kind of money that frequently gets sunk into NFL stadiums The Elbe Philharmonie in Hamburg comes to mind. Budgeted originally at EUR 241M. They're now at 789 Million and counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall
- roel_v 11y ago
  "The county paid $110 to cover parking construction" That doesn't seem too bad for an entire parking lot (ducks)

by JackFr 11y ago

jpindar 11y ago

Don't forget the "stupid jocks picked on me in school so fuck them" factor.

pyre 11y ago
I really think it has more to do with the examples that we are discussing. Cities throwing money at teams with no strings attached, and then the teams leave and the cities are still paying off the debt. It's ridiculous that they didn't at least make sure that the team couldn't take such an action. There's also the fact that the cities are basically footing the bill for some rich people to make more money.

aidenn0 11y ago

> But what seems to infuriate people is that orchestras and ballets are typically not owned by billionaires, and they are not part of a league with a multi-billion dollar budget. Naturally; orchestras and ballets would struggle to exist without taxpayer money. Sports teams do not have this issue, which is why people complain; essentially every dollar spent by the taxpayers on a stadium is another dollar in the pocket of the team owner. I don't know about football, but no owner in the history of baseball has lost money on their team; even those operating at a negative cash-flow have seen net increases due to the increasing value of their team.

gozur88 11y ago

What infuriates people is these deals are always sold to the public as some sort of net-positive redevelopment, instead of what's really happening, which is a transfer of tax money to team owners. With orchestras and ballets and performing arts centers everybody knows up front you have an ongoing financial liability. And the numbers are smaller.

adventured 11y ago
> which is a transfer of tax money to team owners It's primarily a transfer of money to players. In the next ten years players will earn around $50 to $55 billion in income. That's drastically beyond anything owners will either earn via operations or extract through capital gains via a sale. Take the Houston Texans for example. They're stated as the 7th most valuable NFL franchise per Forbes, generating $114m in operating income (not net income) annually - the salary cap is $143m. Green Bay? Tenth most valuable, they only generate $63m in profit - every 10 to 12 years, the Green Bay players earn more total than the entire franchise is worth. The bottom 20 teams? Forget about it. Most leagues are the same, the players overwhelmingly extract the value. The top 450 NBA players are set (with the new TV rights money) to earn more than all of the Fortune 500 CEOs combined in terms of salary (~$17 trillion in market cap of the companies those CEOs operate).
- cmurf 11y ago
  That makes me feel better, actually. It's obscene money, and I don't agree with the subsidy. But, the players get beat up, and CET. Some commit suicide. Fans paying high ticket prices, parking, meh whatever, make them pay more instead of begging from taxpayers though.
  - douche 11y ago
    The rank-and-file football player, arguably, is underpaid, particularly in comparison to their colleagues in MLB or the NBA. I think the median salary for non-rookie deal NBA players is north of $5 million/year now. Baseball is similarly outrageous for veterans that reach free agency (the Red Flops were handing out $10 million deals like candy the last couple of years). Not to mention that those deals are guaranteed, unlike the NFL, where players are routinely cut when injured or just before they reach thresholds where bonuses kick in. s
- jacalata 11y ago
  Somehow, the valuation of the team increased by $600 million in that year. The teams are capturing plenty of the money going around. I'd be willing to bet that the players pay more tax than the owners per dollar extracted, too.

Ensorceled 11y ago

Symphony orchestras, ballets and performing arts centers also tend to be not-for-profit entities. I'm happy to see my tax dollars go to schools, parks, community arenas and playfields, and, yes, performing arts centers. For profit, successful (or at least extremely valuable) sports franchises ... not so much.

tw04 11y ago

The things you listed that typically lose money are funded BECAUSE they can't be profitable on their own. Not IN SPITE of it. Professional sports can more than afford to fund their own stadiums, they just CHOOSE not to.

briandh 11y ago

> It's not an unreasonable position for a municipality to chose lose money on a stadium. They typically lose money on symphony orchestras, ballets and performing arts centers. That one is considered low culture and the other considered high culture is not relevant is we assume that the people are being ably represented. This rests on the premise that is is reasonable for taxpayer money to fund any cultural activities at all, "high" or "low". In any case, even accepting this premise, the difference is that the examples of "high" culture you cite are, unlike professional sports stadiums, generally not promoted on the basis of claims that they will contribute to the economic development of their communities; rather, they are generally promoted on the basis of unfalsifiable claims that they will have a positive cultural and educational impact.

skewart 11y ago

Except for the fact that those "high culuture" institutions tend to stick around a lot longer instead of bolting town as soon as the owners spot a more profitable deal. Also, I doubt there are as many concert halls where the public has sunk anything near the kind of money that frequently gets sunk into NFL stadiums. The Disney Concert Hall in LA, which I think was one of the most expensive ones recently built, bad a total budget of less than $300 million. (The county paid $110 to cover parking construction, getting revenues in return, the rest was covered by private donors, primarily the Disney family and Eli Broad.)

CaptainZapp 11y ago
Also, I doubt there are as many concert halls where the public has sunk anything near the kind of money that frequently gets sunk into NFL stadiums The Elbe Philharmonie in Hamburg comes to mind. Budgeted originally at EUR 241M. They're now at 789 Million and counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall
roel_v 11y ago
"The county paid $110 to cover parking construction" That doesn't seem too bad for an entire parking lot (ducks)