3 ms·

> but it seems to be most apparent there Looks more like they are less good at hiding it or don't need to. In the town's around here the cities usually bail ou

by consp 5y ago

> but it seems to be most apparent there Looks more like they are less good at hiding it or don't need to. In the town's around here the cities usually bail out the sport teams after they go bankrupt (and thus don't) or put the stadiums into massive infrastructure plans so it gets murky how much was spent on it with public funds. Fortunately the trend seems to go towards letting the football (original, not the US version) clubs drown in their own mess more and more but it's far from over.

sofixa 5y ago
It's quite different. Outside of the US, football ( the original, not US version) is often a community thing, and clubs are bound to their localities. They won't just move to a more profitable location, they're a part of the community. In some countries stadiums are often municipal ( even in Italy, whose top flight is a top 5 one), so the city gets revenue directly. Also it isn't even in the same ballpark between bailing out a club that's in debt and getting the club in return, and building new a stadium for a billion or more USD, and getting hope in return.
- consp 5y ago
  > so the city gets revenue directly While I understand the community idea, it's still a small minority what you are talking about (at least here, I can't speak for elsewhere like Italy). For the revenue part: most revenue is generated by club sponsoring and not ticket sales. There are a few stadiums which can break even due to renting it out to whomever wants it, againt the will of the clubs from what I precieve. Then again you might be correct it is a common net positive, but I haven't seen any studies comparing it to the cost of not having one and/or provinding other means of entertainment so it might actually be offset if the population "using" it, directly or indirectly, is large enough. Panem et circences is still a thing. Note since bailing out is not actually a good term to describe it: with bailing out the city (almost) never gets the club. It al kinds of messy but generally it's a rent free loan or some other cost negative solution like buying the stadium but renting it out for free... In my opinion sinking money into a bottomless pit is the same if done after or before the fact.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Stadiums in the US are often technically owned by the government. This is a dodge to get them out of paying property taxes on a billion dollar (or now multi-billion dollar) facility. The government then rents the stadium back to the team for a token fee. It also transfers certain liabilities to the government, making operations less expensive for the sports team.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  > football ( the original, not US version) For what it's worth, both association football (from whence, 'assoc' -> 'soccer') and gridiron football (which American and Canadian football are variants of) emerged at about the same time, during the mid-19th century. It would incorrect to refer to soccer as the 'original' for this reason, although they, along with a few other sports such as rugby and Australian football, descend from games that were played in this period in which the rules were still not yet set in stone.

by consp 5y ago

sofixa 5y ago

It's quite different. Outside of the US, football ( the original, not US version) is often a community thing, and clubs are bound to their localities. They won't just move to a more profitable location, they're a part of the community. In some countries stadiums are often municipal ( even in Italy, whose top flight is a top 5 one), so the city gets revenue directly. Also it isn't even in the same ballpark between bailing out a club that's in debt and getting the club in return, and building new a stadium for a billion or more USD, and getting hope in return.

consp 5y ago
> so the city gets revenue directly While I understand the community idea, it's still a small minority what you are talking about (at least here, I can't speak for elsewhere like Italy). For the revenue part: most revenue is generated by club sponsoring and not ticket sales. There are a few stadiums which can break even due to renting it out to whomever wants it, againt the will of the clubs from what I precieve. Then again you might be correct it is a common net positive, but I haven't seen any studies comparing it to the cost of not having one and/or provinding other means of entertainment so it might actually be offset if the population "using" it, directly or indirectly, is large enough. Panem et circences is still a thing. Note since bailing out is not actually a good term to describe it: with bailing out the city (almost) never gets the club. It al kinds of messy but generally it's a rent free loan or some other cost negative solution like buying the stadium but renting it out for free... In my opinion sinking money into a bottomless pit is the same if done after or before the fact.
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Stadiums in the US are often technically owned by the government. This is a dodge to get them out of paying property taxes on a billion dollar (or now multi-billion dollar) facility. The government then rents the stadium back to the team for a token fee. It also transfers certain liabilities to the government, making operations less expensive for the sports team.
mannerheim 5y ago
> football ( the original, not US version) For what it's worth, both association football (from whence, 'assoc' -> 'soccer') and gridiron football (which American and Canadian football are variants of) emerged at about the same time, during the mid-19th century. It would incorrect to refer to soccer as the 'original' for this reason, although they, along with a few other sports such as rugby and Australian football, descend from games that were played in this period in which the rules were still not yet set in stone.