4 ms·

It's nice that we need to write scholarly articles on why the public shouldn't buy billionaires new toys when they tire of their old ones. This is part of why

It's nice that we need to write scholarly articles on why the public shouldn't buy billionaires new toys when they tire of their old ones. This is part of why I stepped away from sports couldn't be happier.

Chris2048 5y ago
- ianai 5y ago
  Stadiums aren’t infrastructure.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Says who? Definition of infrastructure 1: the system of public works of a country, state, or region also : the resources (such as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity
    - MAGZine 5y ago
      stadiums aren't public property generally, and not sure why they'd be considered "public works" like a road or a water system would be.
      - Chris2048 5y ago
        > also: the resources (such as personnel, buildings Just b/c a road is infrastructure, doesn't mean all infrastructure is like roads
    - michaelcampbell 5y ago
      > public works Correct, you answered your own question. Stadiums are not this.
      - Chris2048 5y ago
        read the next line
- geoduck14 5y ago
  They shouldn't exist. They cost money, they don't generate the revenue to recoup that cost, they don't drive economic activity to recoup the cost. No one should pay for them- except the people who directly enjoy using them
- jeffwask 5y ago
  Why do we not buy Microsoft office space? Why do we not buy Delta planes? Why do we not buy factories for Ford?
  - jeffwask 5y ago
    The exception here would be if teams wanted to sign their rights over to the local municipality and be community owned like the Green Bay Packers.
    - mbg721 5y ago
      The leagues explicitly forbid it now; the Packers were grandfathered in.
      - jeffwask 5y ago
        Of course they do... smh. Capitalists must capitalist
      - bombcar 5y ago
        The city can't own a sports team but Nintendo can own the Mariners. https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/that-time-when-nintendo-bought-a-baseball-team/ https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/that-time-when-... The Green Bay Packers ownership style should be encouraged, not forbidden.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Didn't know MS built office spaces. But AFAIK we do fund airports and industrial parks.
  - JeremyNT 5y ago
    It's best thought of as the city providing a huge subsidy to lure the team (or keep the team from leaving). In this vein it's akin to the tax credits and other kickbacks that companies like Microsoft or Ford get when they move to "lower tier" cities. The exact nature of the transaction is different, but the net result is that it's part of the "package" that cities use to lure in a sports team in the same way they lure in businesses. I'd never argue for my tax money being spent on such frivolous things, but if you think about this from an "up and coming" city perspective - especially in a place where professional sports are popular with the locals - you can understand why they might be willing to accept a loss leader on the hopes of some kind of nebulous "real city" cred that comes with having a team in town.
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  Because the sports team needs the infrastructure in order to operate. IE, you can't build a stadium without upgrading the roads (and rail) to allow people to get there. Don't forget about parking if the stadium is going into a densely-populated area! The stadium also needs water, sewer, electricity, and maybe gas. That being said, I suspect that a city helping with infrastructure, and the team paying for the stadium, is probably a good compromise.
  - jeffwask 5y ago
    I'm not opposed to this. Robert Kraft financed Gillette Stadium privately and the state/city contributed to fund infrastructure upgrades. So as an example... While Gillette Stadium accepted $72 million in public funding for construction, or 17 percent of the project’s total cost, Heinz Field, the Steelers’ home, cost taxpayers $171.6 million, or 61 percent of the project’s total cost. ...the problem lies in most instances the teams blackmail local government into excessive funding for stadium only project. They are not asking to just have roads, sewers and other infra covered by the tax payers. Another things about Gillete is they built a multi-use commercial park around the stadium to actually drive more of that revenue and growth these deals typically promise but don't deliver.

Chris2048 5y ago

ianai 5y ago
Stadiums aren’t infrastructure.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Says who? Definition of infrastructure 1: the system of public works of a country, state, or region also : the resources (such as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity
  - MAGZine 5y ago
    stadiums aren't public property generally, and not sure why they'd be considered "public works" like a road or a water system would be.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      > also: the resources (such as personnel, buildings Just b/c a road is infrastructure, doesn't mean all infrastructure is like roads
  - michaelcampbell 5y ago
    > public works Correct, you answered your own question. Stadiums are not this.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      read the next line
geoduck14 5y ago
They shouldn't exist. They cost money, they don't generate the revenue to recoup that cost, they don't drive economic activity to recoup the cost. No one should pay for them- except the people who directly enjoy using them
jeffwask 5y ago
Why do we not buy Microsoft office space? Why do we not buy Delta planes? Why do we not buy factories for Ford?
- jeffwask 5y ago
  The exception here would be if teams wanted to sign their rights over to the local municipality and be community owned like the Green Bay Packers.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    The leagues explicitly forbid it now; the Packers were grandfathered in.
    - jeffwask 5y ago
      Of course they do... smh. Capitalists must capitalist
    - bombcar 5y ago
      The city can't own a sports team but Nintendo can own the Mariners. https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/that-time-when-nintendo-bought-a-baseball-team/ https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/that-time-when-... The Green Bay Packers ownership style should be encouraged, not forbidden.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Didn't know MS built office spaces. But AFAIK we do fund airports and industrial parks.
- JeremyNT 5y ago
  It's best thought of as the city providing a huge subsidy to lure the team (or keep the team from leaving). In this vein it's akin to the tax credits and other kickbacks that companies like Microsoft or Ford get when they move to "lower tier" cities. The exact nature of the transaction is different, but the net result is that it's part of the "package" that cities use to lure in a sports team in the same way they lure in businesses. I'd never argue for my tax money being spent on such frivolous things, but if you think about this from an "up and coming" city perspective - especially in a place where professional sports are popular with the locals - you can understand why they might be willing to accept a loss leader on the hopes of some kind of nebulous "real city" cred that comes with having a team in town.
gwbas1c 5y ago
Because the sports team needs the infrastructure in order to operate. IE, you can't build a stadium without upgrading the roads (and rail) to allow people to get there. Don't forget about parking if the stadium is going into a densely-populated area! The stadium also needs water, sewer, electricity, and maybe gas. That being said, I suspect that a city helping with infrastructure, and the team paying for the stadium, is probably a good compromise.
- jeffwask 5y ago
  I'm not opposed to this. Robert Kraft financed Gillette Stadium privately and the state/city contributed to fund infrastructure upgrades. So as an example... While Gillette Stadium accepted $72 million in public funding for construction, or 17 percent of the project’s total cost, Heinz Field, the Steelers’ home, cost taxpayers $171.6 million, or 61 percent of the project’s total cost. ...the problem lies in most instances the teams blackmail local government into excessive funding for stadium only project. They are not asking to just have roads, sewers and other infra covered by the tax payers. Another things about Gillete is they built a multi-use commercial park around the stadium to actually drive more of that revenue and growth these deals typically promise but don't deliver.