15 ms·

Reminds me of US cities funding oligarch owned sport team new stadium fiascos that occur every few years. Oligarch organization gets massive tax breaks and subs

Reminds me of US cities funding oligarch owned sport team new stadium fiascos that occur every few years. Oligarch organization gets massive tax breaks and subsidies then holds city to ransom threatening to move the team to another city that is dangling incentives. The premise is usually jobs, local pride and prestige...and it usually ends really badly for the locals...

swsieber 8y ago
Except for the Green Bay Packers - the city owns the Packers, and it seems to be doing well(?). I'm not sure, but there at least isn't uncertainty about whether they'll stick around or not.
- olivermarks 8y ago
  GBP are a wonderful exception and the only credible way for a city to have a team imo
  - swsieber 8y ago
    Sadly, from what I know, other teams can't become like them because of team ownership restrictions (well, in the NFL). (Please correct me if wrong). I think the only reason the Packers have this setup is because it was around before the new ownership restrictions. I think they are the only town team to survive the transition to the NFL.
- xxpor 8y ago
  It's not the city that owns them, it's the fans themselves. The NFL has specifically banned that form of ownership since.
  - retbull 8y ago
    Why did they ban it?
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      It is a private club. Every small private club wants to limit new members. The concept of hoards of fans weighing in on decisions doesn't sit well with a klatch of billionaires used to operating independently.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - raldi 8y ago
        Specifically, the Packers representative will have the fans' interests at heart. The other representatives will be focused on the owners' interests, usually financial.
        sandworm101 8y ago
        I think it is more than simple money. For the new crop of billionaires, sports teams are a fashion item. A really fancy yacht can cost hundreds of millions but they are a pain to get to/from and are generally a private affair. A sports team lets you flaunt your wealth in front of thousands on a daily basis. You get to play host to athletes that everyone wants to know. So owners take public intrusion into their clubs more personally than they do any other simple business.
        jandrese 8y ago
        Also, it means they can't move the team around to court more lucrative tax incentives. It's a bad deal all around for billionaires looking to siphon as much money from the fans as possible.
      - aalleavitch 8y ago
        Makes me wonder if we could somehow crowdfund an NFL competitor where every team was owned by the fans. Probably not feasible, but I find the idea romantic.
        lgregg 8y ago
  - astura 8y ago
    (Admittedly, I'm only familiar with American teams.) The only two professional sports teams that I know of that are owned by the community/fans are the Green Bay Packers and the Rochester Red Wings. Does anyone know of any others? Edit: Did a small bit of research and it looks like the Toledo Mud Hens are community owned and the Syracuse Chiefs were community owned until this year when they sold to the Mets. Edit: Oh, of course there's a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams
    - gsnedders 8y ago
      AFC Wimbledon in the English Football League (currently in League One).
    - kcorbitt 8y ago
      FC Barcelona (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Barcelona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Barcelona). Seems to work well for them.
    - walshemj 8y ago
      A lot of European teams have this model
- ataturk 8y ago
  Minnesota Twins, Minnesota Vikings. It's great to have local pride, but that pride came at huge cost. Although MN did host the coldest Superbowl in history.
briffle 8y ago
A really great example is the stadium in St. Louis that the city helped pay for to keep the Rams in town.. The Rams left a few years later for LA, and the city is stuck with 144M debt bill to pay on an empty stadium. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight/with-nfl-rams-gone-st-louis-still-stuck-with-stadium-debt-idUSKCN0VC0EP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insig...
- microcolonel 8y ago
  It baffles me why anyone lets their municipal and county governments even touch the building of stadiums in the first place. It seems to me that this is entirely not the concern of the authorities.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > this is entirely not the concern of the authorities Sports fans are religious. Teams, for better or worse, have the power to rally voters in a way that makes them politically powerful.
    - rhcom2 8y ago
      Also being known as the politician who "let" their team go is a political death sentence.
      - chiefalchemist 8y ago
        Put another way...Being the politician who does the right thing for her / his constituents is a political death sentence.
      - drb91 8y ago
        Not everywhere; even the raiders fans in Oakland appear to be OK with letting the team move to LV because of how shitty the team has treated the city.
cat199 8y ago
hey now, only russia has oligarchs, we have free enterprise
slg 8y ago
You are missing part of the point of the article. Don't blame the tech company or the sports owner for getting these concessions. Business owners are always going to act in their own best interest. Individual people do the same thing. Lots of people who live along the Washington/Oregon border make all their big purchases in Oregon because of the lack of state sales tax. I don't see anything morally wrong with doing that. They are just responding to economic incentives. Instead blame the politicians for setting up this perverse game of incentives in the first place. This article is trying to educate politicians (and the general population) of a better way to accomplish the same goals.
- Avshalom 8y ago
  Those Business Owners are ALSO the ones setting up this perverse game of incentive.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  While I understand the gist of your post, the people residing in WA are violating their state's tax law by not paying sales tax on their purchased in OR, whereas subsidies offered to businesses are legal(ized).
  - slg 8y ago
    That is fair and actually goes to further support my point. I would bet almost everyone reading this has at some point failed to pay sales tax on a purchase in which the retailer didn't collect the tax. We were all committing a crime to save a few dollars here and there. That was the whole motivation behind the fight to get internet retailers to start collecting taxes. Don't blame business for responding to economic incentives the same way you personally would.
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      > Don't blame business for responding to economic incentives the same way you personally would. On the other hand, the modal business has much more economic power and leverage than the modal individual. There's a reasonable argument that they should be held to a higher standard of responsibility and compliance because their contribution to the problem is magnified.
kodablah 8y ago
> it usually ends really badly for the locals At least it's usually subject to a vote. And it's hard to say it usually ends up bad for the locals unless you can quantify leisure. Some do, sure, but I wouldn't say usually and I definitely wouldn't say "really badly" compared to many other financial policies. By the same measures, tax funding of other arts like museums end up bad for the locals too.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
And at some point they preach about the benefits of the free market.
tajen 8y ago
Sounds also eerily similar to Trump tactic to raise money from cities to build casinos and towers, notably in NYC.
mc32 8y ago
The surprising thing is this can happen in "Progressive" cities as well. Oakland was trying to do as much as it could to keep The Raiders team in OAK. I really don't get the fascination with subsidizing sports teams which via legal monopolization make money hand over fist.

swsieber 8y ago

Except for the Green Bay Packers - the city owns the Packers, and it seems to be doing well(?). I'm not sure, but there at least isn't uncertainty about whether they'll stick around or not.

olivermarks 8y ago
GBP are a wonderful exception and the only credible way for a city to have a team imo
- swsieber 8y ago
  Sadly, from what I know, other teams can't become like them because of team ownership restrictions (well, in the NFL). (Please correct me if wrong). I think the only reason the Packers have this setup is because it was around before the new ownership restrictions. I think they are the only town team to survive the transition to the NFL.
xxpor 8y ago
It's not the city that owns them, it's the fans themselves. The NFL has specifically banned that form of ownership since.
- retbull 8y ago
  Why did they ban it?
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    It is a private club. Every small private club wants to limit new members. The concept of hoards of fans weighing in on decisions doesn't sit well with a klatch of billionaires used to operating independently.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - raldi 8y ago
      Specifically, the Packers representative will have the fans' interests at heart. The other representatives will be focused on the owners' interests, usually financial.
      - sandworm101 8y ago
        I think it is more than simple money. For the new crop of billionaires, sports teams are a fashion item. A really fancy yacht can cost hundreds of millions but they are a pain to get to/from and are generally a private affair. A sports team lets you flaunt your wealth in front of thousands on a daily basis. You get to play host to athletes that everyone wants to know. So owners take public intrusion into their clubs more personally than they do any other simple business.
      - jandrese 8y ago
        Also, it means they can't move the team around to court more lucrative tax incentives. It's a bad deal all around for billionaires looking to siphon as much money from the fans as possible.
    - aalleavitch 8y ago
      Makes me wonder if we could somehow crowdfund an NFL competitor where every team was owned by the fans. Probably not feasible, but I find the idea romantic.
      - lgregg 8y ago
- astura 8y ago
  (Admittedly, I'm only familiar with American teams.) The only two professional sports teams that I know of that are owned by the community/fans are the Green Bay Packers and the Rochester Red Wings. Does anyone know of any others? Edit: Did a small bit of research and it looks like the Toledo Mud Hens are community owned and the Syracuse Chiefs were community owned until this year when they sold to the Mets. Edit: Oh, of course there's a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams
  - gsnedders 8y ago
    AFC Wimbledon in the English Football League (currently in League One).
  - kcorbitt 8y ago
    FC Barcelona (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Barcelona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Barcelona). Seems to work well for them.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    A lot of European teams have this model
ataturk 8y ago
Minnesota Twins, Minnesota Vikings. It's great to have local pride, but that pride came at huge cost. Although MN did host the coldest Superbowl in history.

briffle 8y ago

A really great example is the stadium in St. Louis that the city helped pay for to keep the Rams in town.. The Rams left a few years later for LA, and the city is stuck with 144M debt bill to pay on an empty stadium. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight/with-nfl-rams-gone-st-louis-still-stuck-with-stadium-debt-idUSKCN0VC0EP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insig...

microcolonel 8y ago
It baffles me why anyone lets their municipal and county governments even touch the building of stadiums in the first place. It seems to me that this is entirely not the concern of the authorities.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > this is entirely not the concern of the authorities Sports fans are religious. Teams, for better or worse, have the power to rally voters in a way that makes them politically powerful.
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    Also being known as the politician who "let" their team go is a political death sentence.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Put another way...Being the politician who does the right thing for her / his constituents is a political death sentence.
    - drb91 8y ago
      Not everywhere; even the raiders fans in Oakland appear to be OK with letting the team move to LV because of how shitty the team has treated the city.

cat199 8y ago

hey now, only russia has oligarchs, we have free enterprise

slg 8y ago

You are missing part of the point of the article. Don't blame the tech company or the sports owner for getting these concessions. Business owners are always going to act in their own best interest. Individual people do the same thing. Lots of people who live along the Washington/Oregon border make all their big purchases in Oregon because of the lack of state sales tax. I don't see anything morally wrong with doing that. They are just responding to economic incentives. Instead blame the politicians for setting up this perverse game of incentives in the first place. This article is trying to educate politicians (and the general population) of a better way to accomplish the same goals.

Avshalom 8y ago
Those Business Owners are ALSO the ones setting up this perverse game of incentive.
lotsofpulp 8y ago
While I understand the gist of your post, the people residing in WA are violating their state's tax law by not paying sales tax on their purchased in OR, whereas subsidies offered to businesses are legal(ized).
- slg 8y ago
  That is fair and actually goes to further support my point. I would bet almost everyone reading this has at some point failed to pay sales tax on a purchase in which the retailer didn't collect the tax. We were all committing a crime to save a few dollars here and there. That was the whole motivation behind the fight to get internet retailers to start collecting taxes. Don't blame business for responding to economic incentives the same way you personally would.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    > Don't blame business for responding to economic incentives the same way you personally would. On the other hand, the modal business has much more economic power and leverage than the modal individual. There's a reasonable argument that they should be held to a higher standard of responsibility and compliance because their contribution to the problem is magnified.

kodablah 8y ago

> it usually ends really badly for the locals At least it's usually subject to a vote. And it's hard to say it usually ends up bad for the locals unless you can quantify leisure. Some do, sure, but I wouldn't say usually and I definitely wouldn't say "really badly" compared to many other financial policies. By the same measures, tax funding of other arts like museums end up bad for the locals too.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

And at some point they preach about the benefits of the free market.

tajen 8y ago

Sounds also eerily similar to Trump tactic to raise money from cities to build casinos and towers, notably in NYC.

mc32 8y ago

The surprising thing is this can happen in "Progressive" cities as well. Oakland was trying to do as much as it could to keep The Raiders team in OAK. I really don't get the fascination with subsidizing sports teams which via legal monopolization make money hand over fist.