47 ms·

You can’t quantify love or sentiment unless you accept brand loyalty and subjective measures. It seems like a silly thing to request but perhaps that is your po

You can’t quantify love or sentiment unless you accept brand loyalty and subjective measures. It seems like a silly thing to request but perhaps that is your point. If these were ballot initiatives for funding similar to public transport you would see a bit more rejections from anyone outside of the city centers. If we go by popular vote you will likely see most cities vote to keep their teams because we’ve all been raised to think of them as ours despite owning nothing.

logifail 8y ago
>> If we go by popular vote you will likely see most cities vote to keep their teams Source? >> because we’ve all been raised to think of them as ours despite owning nothing. Not sure why there should be a connection between public funding for teams and teams staying in any particular city. If all cities stopped public funding for privately-owned sports teams, the teams would still need a place to call "home". The owners would just be slightly less rich.
- cmorgan31 8y ago
  I’m not implicitly agreeing that a connection should exist, but I’m also not going to pretend it doesn’t. Sports are a huge part of American culture and is one of the least contentious elements. I don’t have a source which empirically states “most cities would vote for the team” other than brand loyalty statistics which don’t correlate perfectly to this conversation. I’m attempting to discuss the less tangible aspect of this arrangement and why it is a bit of a radical variable in anyone trying to address this lopsided agreement. If you discount sentiment you aren’t even attempting to see why sports teams appeal to people and why they haven’t revolted at the thought of subsidizing them. I am not speaking in favor of subsidizing them or maintaining a status quo but instead I am trying to help quantify a city’s love of a team. I won’t even broach the topic of college stadiums and athletic fees but it might be one area that does have research on this topic.

logifail 8y ago

>> If we go by popular vote you will likely see most cities vote to keep their teams Source? >> because we’ve all been raised to think of them as ours despite owning nothing. Not sure why there should be a connection between public funding for teams and teams staying in any particular city. If all cities stopped public funding for privately-owned sports teams, the teams would still need a place to call "home". The owners would just be slightly less rich.

cmorgan31 8y ago
I’m not implicitly agreeing that a connection should exist, but I’m also not going to pretend it doesn’t. Sports are a huge part of American culture and is one of the least contentious elements. I don’t have a source which empirically states “most cities would vote for the team” other than brand loyalty statistics which don’t correlate perfectly to this conversation. I’m attempting to discuss the less tangible aspect of this arrangement and why it is a bit of a radical variable in anyone trying to address this lopsided agreement. If you discount sentiment you aren’t even attempting to see why sports teams appeal to people and why they haven’t revolted at the thought of subsidizing them. I am not speaking in favor of subsidizing them or maintaining a status quo but instead I am trying to help quantify a city’s love of a team. I won’t even broach the topic of college stadiums and athletic fees but it might be one area that does have research on this topic.