4 ms·
The stadiums are rarely profitable. If there is no public funding, then stadiums would exist only in very few places. As far as I know majority of the stadiums
by tlogan 5y ago
The stadiums are rarely profitable. If there is no public funding, then stadiums would exist only in very few places. As far as I know majority of the stadiums in Europe are also own by municipalities.
Also are cities really investing in something better?
Oakland lost both Raiders and Warriors. It seems like Oakland spend that money on pension benefits of city employees. And they started laying off teachers. If you ask me: if you cannot spend money on schools (or anything useful) build a stadium.
But this is politic: stadiums are easy target but do know that city will probably mismanage the money any way.
- mannerheim 5y agoIf you can't spend the money on anything useful, let the taxpayer keep their money.
- tlogan 5y agoSure - but as a taxpayer of Oakland what one can do? I was with them when they said “no money for Raiders”. They mismanaged the money anyhow and one cannot elect anybody else because they need to be democrats. I’m just explaining how dynamic goes here: the cities will be still be funding stadiums because electorate will not trust them when they say “we will spend on x”.
- robbick 5y agoIn the UK very few stadiums are publicly funded. This can be done. I'd prefer my city mismanage my money into nurses hands than into a stadium.