3 ms·
Your argument appears to be that you, personally, don't care much for the sports being played in those cities (and neither do your friends), and therefore those
by skrebbel 5y ago
Your argument appears to be that you, personally, don't care much for the sports being played in those cities (and neither do your friends), and therefore those cities are making a mistake supporting said sports financially. Can you really not see the flaw in that?
I think you're undermining the rest of your argument (which I personally think is pretty decent) by defending the "sports in London/Paris/etc doesn't matter" angle so hard across multiple subthreads.
- cycomanic 5y agoWell the argument was actually in the article we are discussing here, which says it is a bad financial investment. I actually believe that even on a back of the envelope calculation it's hard to imagine how one can come up with this being a net positive. Let's argue that a stadium brings in 1M visitors a year (which is a high number) . If a stadium costs 1B then the city (through taxes etc) needs to make around 100 per person for it to be a good investment (10% return). And we haven't even considered the costs of externalities, like large traffic jams during games, cleanup etc.. I find it difficult to imagine that this works.
- skrebbel 5y agoYes but I'm not responding to the article but to a particular comment in a subthread about benefits that can't be expressed in terms of money.
- vel0city 5y ago> bad financial investment > needs to make around 100 per person for it to be a good investment (10% return) The goal of a government isn't to make a profit.