11 ms·

>Lol no, a professional sports team is of little "joint benefit to society", at least not of the kind that seriously concerns the government. You may as well ar

>Lol no, a professional sports team is of little "joint benefit to society", at least not of the kind that seriously concerns the government. You may as well argue that the government should be subsidizing new Marvel movies, or Call of Duty, because those are popular forms of entertainment too. Local governments do subsidize movie production with all sorts of funding and grants. In addition to the local population, many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities. >Plenty of high prestige world cities like Tokyo or London or Paris aren't known for their pro sports teams. They seem to suffer little for it. Ever heard of... - London: Arsenal, Chelsea, or Tottenham (Soccer), Wimbledon Championships (Tennis) - Paris: PSG (Soccer), French Open (Tennis) Every major "high prestige world city" as you describe is a hub for multiple sports and various tournaments that invites both local and international crowds.

michaelcampbell 5y ago
> Every major "high prestige world city" as you describe is a hub for multiple sports and various tournaments that invites both local and international crowds. My gut says you have the causal relationship here backwards. The lack of those teams wouldn't ding the city much, if at all.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> Local governments do subsidize movie production with all sorts of funding and grants. Which is dumb, though I don't think the stupidity quite reaches "city spends a billion dollars for one particular team" level. > This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities. Again, the research on this is quite clear: the economic benefits there are meager at best. > Ever heard of... - London: Arsenal, Chelsea, or Tottenham (Soccer), Wimbledon Championships (Tennis) - Paris: PSG (Soccer), French Open (Tennis) I've heard of most of those, I guess I've just never heard of my friends or family going to see them, even though many have visited those cities (and myself as well).
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  > Which is dumb, though I don't think the stupidity quite reaches "city spends a billion dollars for one particular team" level. If you look close enough, any spending that any governmental body does will have detractors. That's what happens when you spend someone else money. From art to sports, to schools, to council housing, to foreign wars. There is always someone against it whose taxes end up supporting what they hate.
  - leetcrew 5y ago
    I mean yeah, I wish the government were a lot more frugal with my money in general. but I don't mind as much when the money is spent on things that directly keep people fed, off the streets, and possibly learning some useful skills to contribute back.
  - jeromegv 5y ago
    Sure, but you can have an argument about how taxes are distributed, that's what democracy is about. The ROI on investing on education is arguably better than the ROI of spending it on a stadium. And more people need to understand that the benefit of stadiums and sports teams is mostly about subsidizing billionaire sports teams owners.
- aiisjustanif 5y ago
  Check football, real football, fan demographics. It’s the most popular sport in the world, just not the US.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > football, real football As opposed to American hand-egg.
iso1631 5y ago
Americans consider sport to be * American Football * Basketball * Baseball * Ice Hockey Of which Ice Hockey is the only one really played outside of America (and I believe even that's mostly Canada which is basically America) And why not city would ever fund a private team's stadium (like PSD or Tottenham), they do sometimes fund national stadiums (like Wembley)
- Loranubi 5y ago
  Baseball is huge in Japan and other Asian countries and has been for a long time.
  - toyg 5y ago
    Also Cuba.
    - astura 5y ago
      And the Dominican Republic.
- qq66 5y ago
  Basketball is a major sport worldwide, honestly probably #3 after soccer and cricket and ahead of tennis because of its popularity in China. Baseball and ice hockey are region-specific (Japan/DR/Cuba/Venezuela for baseball and Canada/Russia/Scandinavia for ice hockey).
  - toyg 5y ago
    I'd be surprised if cricket was the second sport worldwide, it's not played outside the old British colonies. Granted, one of those ex-colonies is India... Basketball is the second sport in Europe by number of participants, for sure.
    - arethuza 5y ago
      "Basketball is the second sport in Europe by number of participants, for sure." Any references for that?
syshum 5y ago
>>. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities. This has been dis proven TONS of time,including in the parent link. Funding of sports stadiums DOES NOT increase economic activity enough to cover the costs
michaelt 5y ago
> many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities. Sure, but when slg says the financials are settled, presumably they mean stadiums are a bad investment even when all such tangible benefits are taken into account. The question is whether there are other intangible benefits - maybe a city with a sports team is happier; or has lower obesity; or an improved cultural life reduces brain drain; or the city can afford a mass transit system and needs one, but bundling it with a stadium breaks through some political deadlock; or it's just plain that voters support the stadium. A theory of intangible benefits would also be helpful in explaining why cities keep on bidding for the olympics, which is otherwise hard to rationalise.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Quite possible that's the case, but I think it's unlikely that it outweighs the "intangible benefits" you'd get from other, more standard investments, like public transit or libraries.
- sidr 5y ago
  > why cities keep on bidding for the olympics, which is otherwise hard to rationalise. There was one bid for 2028 and one for 2032. Compare with 8+ bids in years past. There are fewer and fewer new cities that have never hosted before putting in bids (ostensibly due to insane construction costs/demands by the IOC). 3 out of 5 cities bidding for 2024 withdrew their bids and the other two got 2024 and 2028. 2032 seems to have gotten only one bid. What's happening is that this "intangible benefits" theory is dying as more and more of the world realizes that there are none. On the other hand the olympics and the world cup does seem like a good venue for authoritarian regimes to create spectacles.
  - patentatt 5y ago
    > On the other hand the olympics and the world cup does seem like a good venue for authoritarian regimes to create spectacles. Off the top of my head: recent Olympic host countries include Russia, China, and Brazil . World Cup hosts includes Russia, Brazil, and Qatar. Yup, checks out. P.S. Ok, Brazil being in this list is debatable, as they are a democracy ... but with Bolsonaro in power I'll lump them in this group. Yes, I realize Bolsonaro wasn't in office for the Olympics or World Cup, or for the bidding process which happened many years earlier, but he's shitty enough that I'll take the editorial liberty of retroactively smearing his stain back in time. P.P.S. Yeah, if you want to do the same with Trump in the US I guess I can't disagree either. But the US hasn't hosted an Olympics for 20 years or a World Cup for even longer.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> Every major "high prestige world city" as you describe is a hub for multiple sports and various tournaments that invites both local and international crowds. Big cities tend to attract big sports, can't deny that, I just don't think the causation really works the other way, at least not strongly. How much would London or Paris suffer if they lost their big sports teams and events?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mahindraeden 5y ago
  [dead]
InitialBP 5y ago
> In addition to the local population, many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. The article directly addressed this point by saying: While counter-intuitive, tourism does not see an increase as the result of a sporting event, as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain. Now this may not be true for concerts or other events held in the stadium, but in general I think the idea is that the study indicates sports events don't generate significant tourism, instead drawing a primarily local crowd. I would also argue that most people would have no issue(or minor issues) with local governments subsidizing _Some_ of the cost of a new stadium and other forms of entertainment. I think the issue comes in when the financial cost is extraordinary (> 1 billion USD).
- aiisjustanif 5y ago
  > The article directly addressed this point by saying.. It addressed this point for the US. It is a US centered article. Check all of the references. The data is US centric. > While counter-intuitive, tourism does not see an increase as the result of a sporting event, as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain. True of the US maybe but not London or Paris. Also, london does not fund a private team's stadium (like PSD or Tottenham), they do sometimes fund national stadiums (like Wembley). Let’s stay on topic this article is about the US.
- fatnoah 5y ago
  > as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain I'm having my trouble getting my head around this. That seems to say that a city WOULD benefit from the stadium because people would spend their money in a different city. I'm clearly not understanding it. For example, I'm thinking of all of the people from Maine and NH that come to Boston to watch the Bruins play hockey. Without the team, they'd most likely not go to Boston, but might go to Manchester NH, or Portland ME instead. That's definitely not zero sum for the city of Boston or state of MA. All that said, I also agree that cities and states shouldn't be providing the majority of funding for these types of facilities.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
> Local governments do subsidize movie production with all sorts of funding and grants. In yet another example of why government intervention in markets is mostly to make them worse: the politicians in charge can’t help but build and spend the citizens’ money on flashy vanity projects. Public expenses, private profits. They’ll talk it up like it’s some big “civic” investment in Prestige with all sorts of abstract benefits, rather than just being a handout to the rich — and if you challenge them, well, they will correctly tell you that everybody does it!!!
fmajid 5y ago
The article cites economic research showing the impact on tourism of new sports facilities is negligible.
ramblenode 5y ago
> In addition to the local population, many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. The article refutes this point.
- Forgeties79 5y ago
  Anecdotally that also doesn’t really check out for me. I can’t name a single time me or anyone I know traveled to see a sports team unless it was something like the national championship or the Super Bowl. Maybe people see a sports team if they’re already visiting a city, but I just don’t associate “travel“ and “vacation“ with going to see a regular season game of any sport as the main objective.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > I just don’t associate “travel“ and “vacation“ with going to see a regular season game of any sport as the main objective. Did it really say "vacation"? I think they meant "travel" as in going to another city (say, in a chartered bus packed full of fans, and which goes back home afterwards) to see your team's away game; at least that kind of travel is what brings most of the out-of-town spectators -- who are what's under discussion here, right? -- to most of the big inter-city sports events I know of. For that kind of "travel", going to see a regular game of some sport is the main objective.
    - Forgeties79 5y ago
      Sure but that’s a pretty narrow use case in the grand scheme of things. I’m not saying NO ONE does it, but compare it to, say, New York City. People go there for specific things not just to see big tall buildings. Certain restaurants, certain landmarks, certain parks, etc. And for the vast majority of people, yankee stadium isn’t really a consideration. Does that make sense?
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Sure, makes sense. But then again, you seem to be as little of a sports fan as I am: If I were to got to NYC, I'd try to take in as much as possible of all of those things... and perhaps some kind of sportsball game while I'm at it. (Never having seen any baseball, I suspect I might try to fit that in, to see what all the hoopla is about.) But I know people who plan trips abroad, for instance from Helsinki (Finland) to Liverpool and Manchester (UK) etc, mainly to see football. Sure, going that far they do other stuff to -- visit team museums, for instance:-) -- but the matches are the backbone the rest of the journey is scheduled around. Maybe there aren't all that much fewer of that kind of people than there are fanatic foodies? I really don't know. But yeah, of course both categories are a drop in the ocean compared to ordinary tourists.
CRConrad 5y ago
> many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities. So what if City X gets some revenue from away-team fans when the City X Team has a home game? That only evens out with the revenue lost when the local fans go spend their money elsewhere on away games.

michaelcampbell 5y ago

> Every major "high prestige world city" as you describe is a hub for multiple sports and various tournaments that invites both local and international crowds. My gut says you have the causal relationship here backwards. The lack of those teams wouldn't ding the city much, if at all.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> Local governments do subsidize movie production with all sorts of funding and grants. Which is dumb, though I don't think the stupidity quite reaches "city spends a billion dollars for one particular team" level. > This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities. Again, the research on this is quite clear: the economic benefits there are meager at best. > Ever heard of... - London: Arsenal, Chelsea, or Tottenham (Soccer), Wimbledon Championships (Tennis) - Paris: PSG (Soccer), French Open (Tennis) I've heard of most of those, I guess I've just never heard of my friends or family going to see them, even though many have visited those cities (and myself as well).

jokethrowaway 5y ago
> Which is dumb, though I don't think the stupidity quite reaches "city spends a billion dollars for one particular team" level. If you look close enough, any spending that any governmental body does will have detractors. That's what happens when you spend someone else money. From art to sports, to schools, to council housing, to foreign wars. There is always someone against it whose taxes end up supporting what they hate.
- leetcrew 5y ago
  I mean yeah, I wish the government were a lot more frugal with my money in general. but I don't mind as much when the money is spent on things that directly keep people fed, off the streets, and possibly learning some useful skills to contribute back.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  Sure, but you can have an argument about how taxes are distributed, that's what democracy is about. The ROI on investing on education is arguably better than the ROI of spending it on a stadium. And more people need to understand that the benefit of stadiums and sports teams is mostly about subsidizing billionaire sports teams owners.
aiisjustanif 5y ago
Check football, real football, fan demographics. It’s the most popular sport in the world, just not the US.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > football, real football As opposed to American hand-egg.

iso1631 5y ago

Americans consider sport to be * American Football * Basketball * Baseball * Ice Hockey Of which Ice Hockey is the only one really played outside of America (and I believe even that's mostly Canada which is basically America) And why not city would ever fund a private team's stadium (like PSD or Tottenham), they do sometimes fund national stadiums (like Wembley)

Loranubi 5y ago
Baseball is huge in Japan and other Asian countries and has been for a long time.
- toyg 5y ago
  Also Cuba.
  - astura 5y ago
    And the Dominican Republic.
qq66 5y ago
Basketball is a major sport worldwide, honestly probably #3 after soccer and cricket and ahead of tennis because of its popularity in China. Baseball and ice hockey are region-specific (Japan/DR/Cuba/Venezuela for baseball and Canada/Russia/Scandinavia for ice hockey).
- toyg 5y ago
  I'd be surprised if cricket was the second sport worldwide, it's not played outside the old British colonies. Granted, one of those ex-colonies is India... Basketball is the second sport in Europe by number of participants, for sure.
  - arethuza 5y ago
    "Basketball is the second sport in Europe by number of participants, for sure." Any references for that?

syshum 5y ago

>>. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities. This has been dis proven TONS of time,including in the parent link. Funding of sports stadiums DOES NOT increase economic activity enough to cover the costs

michaelt 5y ago

> many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities. Sure, but when slg says the financials are settled, presumably they mean stadiums are a bad investment even when all such tangible benefits are taken into account. The question is whether there are other intangible benefits - maybe a city with a sports team is happier; or has lower obesity; or an improved cultural life reduces brain drain; or the city can afford a mass transit system and needs one, but bundling it with a stadium breaks through some political deadlock; or it's just plain that voters support the stadium. A theory of intangible benefits would also be helpful in explaining why cities keep on bidding for the olympics, which is otherwise hard to rationalise.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
Quite possible that's the case, but I think it's unlikely that it outweighs the "intangible benefits" you'd get from other, more standard investments, like public transit or libraries.
sidr 5y ago
> why cities keep on bidding for the olympics, which is otherwise hard to rationalise. There was one bid for 2028 and one for 2032. Compare with 8+ bids in years past. There are fewer and fewer new cities that have never hosted before putting in bids (ostensibly due to insane construction costs/demands by the IOC). 3 out of 5 cities bidding for 2024 withdrew their bids and the other two got 2024 and 2028. 2032 seems to have gotten only one bid. What's happening is that this "intangible benefits" theory is dying as more and more of the world realizes that there are none. On the other hand the olympics and the world cup does seem like a good venue for authoritarian regimes to create spectacles.
- patentatt 5y ago
  > On the other hand the olympics and the world cup does seem like a good venue for authoritarian regimes to create spectacles. Off the top of my head: recent Olympic host countries include Russia, China, and Brazil . World Cup hosts includes Russia, Brazil, and Qatar. Yup, checks out. P.S. Ok, Brazil being in this list is debatable, as they are a democracy ... but with Bolsonaro in power I'll lump them in this group. Yes, I realize Bolsonaro wasn't in office for the Olympics or World Cup, or for the bidding process which happened many years earlier, but he's shitty enough that I'll take the editorial liberty of retroactively smearing his stain back in time. P.P.S. Yeah, if you want to do the same with Trump in the US I guess I can't disagree either. But the US hasn't hosted an Olympics for 20 years or a World Cup for even longer.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> Every major "high prestige world city" as you describe is a hub for multiple sports and various tournaments that invites both local and international crowds. Big cities tend to attract big sports, can't deny that, I just don't think the causation really works the other way, at least not strongly. How much would London or Paris suffer if they lost their big sports teams and events?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mahindraeden 5y ago
[dead]

InitialBP 5y ago

> In addition to the local population, many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. The article directly addressed this point by saying: While counter-intuitive, tourism does not see an increase as the result of a sporting event, as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain. Now this may not be true for concerts or other events held in the stadium, but in general I think the idea is that the study indicates sports events don't generate significant tourism, instead drawing a primarily local crowd. I would also argue that most people would have no issue(or minor issues) with local governments subsidizing _Some_ of the cost of a new stadium and other forms of entertainment. I think the issue comes in when the financial cost is extraordinary (> 1 billion USD).

aiisjustanif 5y ago
> The article directly addressed this point by saying.. It addressed this point for the US. It is a US centered article. Check all of the references. The data is US centric. > While counter-intuitive, tourism does not see an increase as the result of a sporting event, as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain. True of the US maybe but not London or Paris. Also, london does not fund a private team's stadium (like PSD or Tottenham), they do sometimes fund national stadiums (like Wembley). Let’s stay on topic this article is about the US.
fatnoah 5y ago
> as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain I'm having my trouble getting my head around this. That seems to say that a city WOULD benefit from the stadium because people would spend their money in a different city. I'm clearly not understanding it. For example, I'm thinking of all of the people from Maine and NH that come to Boston to watch the Bruins play hockey. Without the team, they'd most likely not go to Boston, but might go to Manchester NH, or Portland ME instead. That's definitely not zero sum for the city of Boston or state of MA. All that said, I also agree that cities and states shouldn't be providing the majority of funding for these types of facilities.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

> Local governments do subsidize movie production with all sorts of funding and grants. In yet another example of why government intervention in markets is mostly to make them worse: the politicians in charge can’t help but build and spend the citizens’ money on flashy vanity projects. Public expenses, private profits. They’ll talk it up like it’s some big “civic” investment in Prestige with all sorts of abstract benefits, rather than just being a handout to the rich — and if you challenge them, well, they will correctly tell you that everybody does it!!!

fmajid 5y ago

The article cites economic research showing the impact on tourism of new sports facilities is negligible.

ramblenode 5y ago

Forgeties79 5y ago
Anecdotally that also doesn’t really check out for me. I can’t name a single time me or anyone I know traveled to see a sports team unless it was something like the national championship or the Super Bowl. Maybe people see a sports team if they’re already visiting a city, but I just don’t associate “travel“ and “vacation“ with going to see a regular season game of any sport as the main objective.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > I just don’t associate “travel“ and “vacation“ with going to see a regular season game of any sport as the main objective. Did it really say "vacation"? I think they meant "travel" as in going to another city (say, in a chartered bus packed full of fans, and which goes back home afterwards) to see your team's away game; at least that kind of travel is what brings most of the out-of-town spectators -- who are what's under discussion here, right? -- to most of the big inter-city sports events I know of. For that kind of "travel", going to see a regular game of some sport is the main objective.
  - Forgeties79 5y ago
    Sure but that’s a pretty narrow use case in the grand scheme of things. I’m not saying NO ONE does it, but compare it to, say, New York City. People go there for specific things not just to see big tall buildings. Certain restaurants, certain landmarks, certain parks, etc. And for the vast majority of people, yankee stadium isn’t really a consideration. Does that make sense?
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Sure, makes sense. But then again, you seem to be as little of a sports fan as I am: If I were to got to NYC, I'd try to take in as much as possible of all of those things... and perhaps some kind of sportsball game while I'm at it. (Never having seen any baseball, I suspect I might try to fit that in, to see what all the hoopla is about.) But I know people who plan trips abroad, for instance from Helsinki (Finland) to Liverpool and Manchester (UK) etc, mainly to see football. Sure, going that far they do other stuff to -- visit team museums, for instance:-) -- but the matches are the backbone the rest of the journey is scheduled around. Maybe there aren't all that much fewer of that kind of people than there are fanatic foodies? I really don't know. But yeah, of course both categories are a drop in the ocean compared to ordinary tourists.

CRConrad 5y ago