4 ms·
In the US, stadiums are often funded by the taxpayers of the city/county. City governments (although often not the populace) are frequently obsessed with having
by cultus 8y ago
In the US, stadiums are often funded by the taxpayers of the city/county. City governments (although often not the populace) are frequently obsessed with having pro sports teams. It's common to plow hundreds of millions of dollars to build a stadium to either get a new team or convince an existing team to not relocate.
Supporters typically claim that the economic benefit of a sports team offsets this cost, but the benefit is in fact completely negligible or even negative.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- secfirstmd 8y agoSounds a lot like the Olympics and occasionally the World Cup.
- xapata 8y agoCities in the US are a bit smarter now. Atlanta refused to pay for the Braves' new stadium. There was a big rush of stadium-building in the 90s as mayors tried to outdo each other.
- siruncledrew 8y agoIf I was a legislator in a major metropolitan area and a team threatened to leave, I would call bullshit on it. There’s a finite amount of major metro areas in the US (and an even a smaller subset if you remove all the ones that currently have sports teams), so there’s a limit to what’s economically viable if the potential attendance/sales revenue is coming from a dedicated local fanbase. For example, if the NY Jets ever threatened to become the Santa Fe Jets if taxpayers didn’t front a new stadium bill, I would go ahead and let them.
- influx 8y agoAsk Seattle how they like having their NBA team...
- dionidium 8y agoThat's not a great strategy, assuming you actually want to keep the team, because relocations aren't exactly rare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_professional_sports_teams#List_of_relocations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_professional_spo...