Why should tax payers have to pay for sports stadiums and consumers have to pay for sports TV rights?

[thetroof]

Pay for Stadiums - No

Pay for sports packages - Yes

[AlfredB1979]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

I only wish my cable bill was low for this reason, and I watch zero sports (other than horse racing). I read an article last month showing that nationwide, something like 50% of the average cable bill can be attributed to the sports channels, and the deals broadcasters make with teams for TV rights.

Cable companies are terrified of a la carte subscriptions because they know that hordes of people would drop sports channels (amongst others, of course) and subscribe to only what they watch.

Really? I guess ESPN contributes a chunk as would the FSN channels, but I dropped Comcast on my last day off two Tuesdays ago because all I watch is sports channels and I'd still have to upgrade to get Military or NatGeo.

Was tired of paying for chick channels, really. Well, that and Comcast sending me junk trying to add movie channels and Triple Play, when I don't need a landline...

[Badger]

Bravo
OWN
Lifetime
QVC
TV Guide
Telemundo
WGN
My Network
Home shopping
CSPan
Cspan 2
Jewelry
Shop NBC
A&E
Court t.v.
SyFY
GSN
TLC
ABC Family
Cartoon Network
Nickelodeon
TV land
MTV
VHI
CMT
Hallmark
Style

these are channels I have no use for , and that's just expanded Basic cable. The bolded are geared towards women.

plus the cartoons channels for kids.

unless there's a la carte subscription, you'll always be paying for channels you don't use.

[citylove101]

Originally Posted by bresilhac

I've been following that sorry stadium situation in SD for awhile now. And at this point all one can say to Charger fans is good luck keeping the team in town. As far as the Spanos' are concerned they can kick those rocks all the way to Texas. Which would please me a great deal.

As far as getting funds from the public for stadiums, it's been done that way for decades and I don't see the method changing anytime soon. As was mentioned above NFL teams are rare, cherished commodities that are greatly coveted by cities who wouldn't mind paying for a stadium if it meant joining the NFL. Like San Antonio for instance.

You are so so wrong. The appetite for public stadium funding is way down, especially since the recession. Here in metro NYC IIRC public funding has been used for ancillary, infrastructure costs and reduced borrowing rates, while the main costs of the four newest arenas themselves were borne privately. This was the case for the new Yankee Stadium, CitiField, Barclays Center, and MetLife Stadium.

[bresilhac]

Originally Posted by citylove101

You are so so wrong. The appetite for public stadium funding is way down, especially since the recession. Here in metro NYC IIRC public funding has been used for ancillary, infrastructure costs and reduced borrowing rates, while the main costs of the four newest arenas themselves were borne privately. This was the case for the new Yankee Stadium, CitiField, Barclays Center, and MetLife Stadium.

Sounds like a New Yorker's perspective. I was actually referring to the specific situation in San Antonio. The Alamodome was built without any private money at all. Sure it was much cheaper to build Domes back in the early '90's but it still demonstrated the desire and importance San Antonians placed on getting an NFL team. The Dome was built but the NFL teams went to Charlotte and Jacksonville of all places. That sentiment though, that deep desire to want to be in the NFL still exists in and around San Antonio. What I mean to say is that this area's people it's politicians and businessmen are ready, willing and able to contribute to the effort of building a bigger, better Dome for the purposes of obtaining an NFL team for the city. But this time however the team must come first. Then a a new Dome can be built largely funded by the public.

[citylove101]

Originally Posted by bresilhac

Sounds like a New Yorker's perspective. I was actually referring to the specific situation in San Antonio. The Alamodome was built without any private money at all. Sure it was much cheaper to build Domes back in the early '90's but it still demonstrated the desire and importance San Antonians placed on getting an NFL team. The Dome was built but the NFL teams went to Charlotte and Jacksonville of all places. That sentiment though, that deep desire to want to be in the NFL still exists in and around San Antonio. What I mean to say is that this area's people it's politicians and businessmen are ready, willing and able to contribute to the effort of building a bigger, better Dome for the purposes of obtaining an NFL team for the city. But this time however the team must come first. Then a a new Dome can be built largely funded by the public.

This has nothing to do with "a New Yorker's perspective" as you so snidely phrase it. This is a NATIONAL perspective. Study after study has shown the new stadiums (and new convention centers as well, tho that's another story) don't bring in the economic activity hoped for and can leave public authorities on the hook for cost overruns, debt payments, and the like. So despite the prestige of having a major team local authorities are increasingly willing to pass on stadium spending, as they recently have in Seattle for the Supersonics or Los Angeles for the Rams, and let the teams walk. There are certainly some relatively new publicly owned venues, such as US Cellular in Chicago where the White Sox play -- but these are increasingly the exception and not the rule. Remember, the state of NJ is STILL paying off the olds Meadowlands Stadium where the Giants played! Public authorities all over have taken note.

The Alamodome was builit twenty years ago. Wake up an look at other parts of the world beyond Texas. Things have changed a lot since 1993.