Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Title says it all. Why do tax payers have to foot the bill for privately owned teams' stadiums? And why should millions of consumers that have cable have to pay for mega-billion sports TV deals if they don't even watch the sport the TV company made the deal with? Why do sports teams that are privately owned get so many freebie handouts from everyone? Yet another reason to cut cable all together--so I don't have to pay monthly fees to sports teams I don't even watch.
Why do tax payers have to foot the bill for privately owned teams' stadiums?
Supply and demand. There is a limited supply of professional sports franchises and the demand is high among cities hoping to poach a franchise. If you, as a city, tell the owner no, well guess what, that demand from other markets exists and you lose (see sonics, browns, colts, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by fibonacci
And why should millions of consumers that have cable have to pay for mega-billion sports TV deals if they don't even watch the sport the TV company made the deal with? Why do sports teams that are privately owned get so many freebie handouts from everyone?
Simple economics, though, if you have to ask the first question I am not sure you understand economics anyway.
In theory - the tax revenue to build stadiums are an investment into the local economy. They pay for the stadium, but then it brings in jobs, businesses, consumer spending etc. which then increases tax revenue down the road....
As for the consumers spending for something they don't use... well... you do use it indirectly. Or more specifically, you may not watch the sports programming, but the sports programming brings in more consumers/subscribers. Which then allows them to offer the other channels and keep your cable bill low. But ultimately, you do have the choice of not paying if you don't think you are getting the expected value.
Of course, I'm sure there are also some shady reasons for these things to take place as well.
Collectively they don't. It's going on right now in many Cities. The owner of the Chargers is trying to extort a new stadium but the taxpayers learned their lesson with the last deal (Padres). They can go kick rocks.
In theory - the tax revenue to build stadiums are an investment into the local economy. They pay for the stadium, but then it brings in jobs, businesses, consumer spending etc. which then increases tax revenue down the road....
That's mostly the rationale right there. I'm originally from DC; the difference between the area around the Veriozon Center before and after the arena was built (the old arena was outside the city in MD) is like night and day. Before it was run down and crime infested, but now its a chic downtown district, and I can see how the arena could be a big part of it, as it draws hundreds of thousands of people annually.
Not saying you're wrong in questioning it, just offering a perspective.
That's mostly the rationale right there. I'm originally from DC; the difference between the area around the Veriozon Center before and after the arena was built (the old arena was outside the city in MD) is like night and day. Before it was run down and crime infested, but now its a chic downtown district, and I can see how the arena could be a big part of it, as it draws hundreds of thousands of people annually.
Not saying you're wrong in questioning it, just offering a perspective.
Bad example. The Verizon Center was privately funded with the government just kicking in for related infrastructure like they would for any big project. They built it there because it was in their economic interest to do so. The people who bought season tickets lived in Northern Virginia and Montgomery County and didn't like to travel to PG County. The central location made it much easier to sell season tickets, luxury boxes, and sponsorships.
Collectively they don't. It's going on right now in many Cities. The owner of the Chargers is trying to extort a new stadium but the taxpayers learned their lesson with the last deal (Padres). They can go kick rocks.
I agree the economic rationale is weak for a taxpayer funded stadium. However, the leverage the teams have is their ability to move to a new location.
They may be bluffing (as it may be better economically to stay with a poor stadium deal than move to a different city) or not. It is up to the city to call that bluff or not. Some cities really identify with their sports teams, even though they are private enterprises, and are willing to subsidize them to keep them.
That's how they should present it to their citizens vs. this B.S. we'll make all this money from taxes from new development. If it makes sense, most of the development would occur whether there is a sports team located there or not.
Or more specifically, you may not watch the sports programming, but the sports programming brings in more consumers/subscribers. Which then allows them to offer the other channels and keep your cable bill low.
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.
Collectively they don't. It's going on right now in many Cities. The owner of the Chargers is trying to extort a new stadium but the taxpayers learned their lesson with the last deal (Padres). They can go kick rocks.
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 want a tem i your city you pay and keep payig for newer stadiums. You want to watch you pay.its not a charity is paid porfessional sports .If you don't then otehr want that franchise and will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
