Taxpayer subsidized sports stadiums

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/17/us-nfl-forbes-salaries-idUSTRE77G6L320110817

$90 million for 5 years, for 1 man.  To play a game.


Put into the context of a 30 year mortgage, that's $540 million for an equivalent man for 30 years of a sports team's tenure in a location.


Football and baseball stadiums (~60k capacity) today cost anywhere from $600 million to 1 billion to construct, depending on how overboard the specs are.  Hockey and basketball stadiums (~12k capacity) cost considerably less.

These corporations needs to fund their own stadiums.  I think the NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL need to buy the stadiums under their central corporate authority and accept the risk of failure in a given market. 

We in PHX just built two new stadiums over in Glendale, way over on the west side of town.  One for the Coyotes hockey club, and the other for the Cardinals football team.  Giant mega-complex between the two stadiums, right next to each other.  Surrounded by farm fields and tracts of relatively new cookie-cutter neighborhoods. 

The coyotes went bankrupt a year or two ago and it took a lawsuit on the part of (Arizona? Glendale?  One or the other) to keep them in town and the NHL operating them.  The cardinals...suck.  People go to cards games to see other teams (frankly, same with the coyotes too). 

[Monkeyleg]

I can honestly say that I've never been to a professional sporting event in my life, except for car races.  I'm not a fan of anything played with a ball or a stick.

It's frustrating to see stadiums being subsidized with tax dollars, but the stadiums usually return more than their cost in additional business to the community. The presence of major league teams also helps burnish a city's image, and helps attract businesses.

Would I rather it not be done? Sure. But when other cities are doing it, it's almost a necessity.

[makattak]

I can honestly say that I've never been to a professional sporting event in my life, except for car races.  I'm not a fan of anything played with a ball or a stick.

It's frustrating to see stadiums being subsidized with tax dollars, but the stadiums usually return more than their cost in additional business to the community. The presence of major league teams also helps burnish a city's image, and helps attract businesses.

Would I rather it not be done? Sure. But when other cities are doing it, it's almost a necessity.

Baade’s findings suggest that for most cities, Salt Lake included, the tangible economic benefits of hosting a professional sports team and/or constructing a new venue are not the highest and best use of public funds. Very little tangible economic activity is generated from them, unlike road construction or other public works.

http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000623460.cfm?x=b11,0,w

[longeyes]

When I see a substantial monthly dividend check for my "investment" I'll be interested.  Not before.

Our pols just approved a big deal to bring pro football back to L.A.  I'll bet a lot of bank accounts in various places got swollen.

[AZRedhawk44]

I can honestly say that I've never been to a professional sporting event in my life, except for car races.  I'm not a fan of anything played with a ball or a stick.

It's frustrating to see stadiums being subsidized with tax dollars, but the stadiums usually return more than their cost in additional business to the community. The presence of major league teams also helps burnish a city's image, and helps attract businesses.

Would I rather it not be done? Sure. But when other cities are doing it, it's almost a necessity.

But what about when you build a stadium and 2-3 years later the team wants to declare bankrupty, fold, and re-locate to a new market?

Stadiums are worthless to the "tax base" without a team in them.

Case in point:  When the coyotes were having their troubles, or when other pro sports have their strikes and lockouts, people don't go to the businesses near the stadiums because there's no games to watch.  Those businesses are put into financial troubles, because they invested in the team being reliable.  When pro sports aren't a reliable draw due to their own behaviors (strikes, lockouts, moving away from a market) they hurt the businesses and "tax base" that counted on them being a part of the community for decades to come.

There's a huge shopping complex over by the cardinals/coyotes stadium complex, called Westgate.  Westgate is still a ghost town.  Lots of unrented shops.  Not much going on at the restaurant scene there on friday/saturday unless there are games at the stadiums.  Big empty hotels, unless there are games.

If those teams fold and the stadiums sit empty, then Westgate will fold too.  Good bye, tax base.

I'm glad the NHL was compelled by civil court procedings to keep the coyotes in town and operating.  

I'm just so sick of these sports corps browbeating cities and states into giving them billion dollar stadiums on the backs of taxpayers.  And this can't be fixed at the municipal or state level, because the teams will just pick up and move from a hostile state.  

I almost think a Federal legal intervention is needed, but I hate going Big Brother on private business typically.  Something that prohibits preferential tax packages or infrastructure bribery being used as leverage to get sports teams into cities.

[makattak]

It doesn't matter if they stay. Cities do not benefit (economically) from the presence of a sports team.

All you have is a chance of losing. There is no gain to be had from a sports team.

[wmenorr67]

While not a sports team and can attest that Kansas City, Kansas has benifited from the speedway that was built there.  Granted taxpayers money didn't pay for all of it but the company that owns the track is getting huge tax breaks for about 30 years.  For years KCK and Wyandotte county was bleeding business and population, however, the area around the track has seen a large influx of business to include Great Wolf Lodge, Cabelas, Nebraska Furniture Mart, a large shopping area that has several restraunts and stores and Schliterbahn waterpark.  All there because of the speedway.

[makattak]

While not a sports team and can attest that Kansas City, Kansas has benifited from the speedway that was built there.  Granted taxpayers money didn't pay for all of it but the company that owns the track is getting huge tax breaks for about 30 years.  For years KCK and Wyandotte county was bleeding business and population, however, the area around the track has seen a large influx of business to include Great Wolf Lodge, Cabelas, Nebraska Furniture Mart, a large shopping area that has several restraunts and stores and Schliterbahn waterpark.  All there because of the speedway.

Visibile benefits, hidden costs. Or, what is seen and what is unseen.

More of the poor economics education in this country. There are benefits, of course. TANSTAAFL, though.

[birdman]

It doesn't matter if they stay. Cities do not benefit (economically) from the presence of a sports team.

All you have is a chance of losing. There is no gain to be had from a sports team.

Since you made a categorical statement, I only need a single counter-example: Green Bay, WI.

Please change your statement to: "most cities do not benefit..." and "in most cases, there is no gain..."

[makattak]

Since you made a categorical statement, I only need a single counter-example: Green Bay, WI.

Please change your statement to: "most cities do not benefit..." and "in most cases, there is no gain..."

Alright. On average, cities get no benefit.

That's like arguing if I say people who go to Vegas will lose money. Yes, some people beat the odds, but the odds favor the house.

[HankB]

I once had the opportunity to speak to a local politician at a town hall type meeting who was very enthusiastic about a local sports stadium proposal, and he said "We ALL benefit!"

Repeatedly.

So I asked him - "Since I don't own a bar, restaurant, or hotel - to make money off the sports traffic - should I just contact YOUR office to make sure I get MY piece of the action? After all you said we ALL benefit - and I'd like MY benefit in cash!"

Much laughter, and a fair bit of applause from the audience.

The politician? He got rather upset and red-faced . . .   

[makattak]

Also, one has to ask:

What is the sports tickets replacing? People aren't suddenly spending more money because a sports team is in town, they are replacing some other activity with attending a sporting event. You will get some out of towners in for the event, of course, but most people will be local. As such, those local dollars have just been shifted from something else to sporting tickets. Meals at the restaurants near the sporting venue have just been shifted from meals in other local restaurants.

How much of that "new money" is actually money that would not have been spent locally in the first place? After we figure that out, how much did that "new money" cost?

[Perd Hapley]

I once had the opportunity to speak to a local politician at a town hall type meeting who was very enthusiastic about a local sports stadium proposal, and he said "We ALL benefit!"

Repeatedly.

So I asked him - "Since I don't own a bar, restaurant, or hotel - to make money off the sports traffic - should I just contact YOUR office to make sure I get MY piece of the action? After all you said we ALL benefit - and I'd like MY benefit in cash!"

Far be it from me to defend sports subsidies, but your counter didn't really hold water. If (that's if) a sports venue leads to more business for bars, hotels, etc, then everyone WOULD benefit from the additional hospitality jobs, construction and maintenance of those facilities, and whatever the waiters, construction workers, janitors, HVAC repairmen, et al spend their money on.

'Course, that doesn't mean there's additional money coming in to your town. It could just be money not spent on something else.

[wmenorr67]

That is the nice thing about the speedway in Kansas City.  When it is open it is bringing in "new" money because most people are from out of town.  And also since the surrounding businesses opened it kept money from leaving because before like I said KCK was bleeding business.

[Scout26]

The reason that Green Bay benefits is that it is privately held.  The residents (for the most part) are the owners of the team and the stadium.   The NFL actually dislikes GB because they can't push them around. 

The NFL (and it's owners) prefers that the cities or other municipal authorities own the stadiums.  Because that's were all the costs (other than salaries) and risks are.  They sign a (long term) contract to play in said stadium for a (mostly reduced) rate.  (or we'll move the team).  And the NFL and owners are free to profit from the deal.   

There have been several studies done on the economic effects of pro teams and publicly funded Stadiums, and they are, in a vast, vast, vast, majority of cases, a net loss to the municipality and the community.

[brimic]

TIF districts are fine by me- give a business a break on taxes to sweeten the deal.

A business shouldn't have to be supported by direct[/i taxation however.

When they built Miller Stadium in Milwaukee, they included an increase in sales tax (0.1%) for the 5 surrounding counties. I live 25 miles away and receive no benefit from the stadium- and no, in this case the stadium hasn't spawned any kind of economic expansion either- its located in a more or less desolate industrial site.
While this isn't much (I won't belabor the definition of 'isn't much'- we are 'isn't muched' to death in WI already), its never going to go away either, they've already talked about extending it into infinitum.

[brimic]

The reason that Green Bay benefits is that it is privately held.  The residents (for the most part) are the owners of the team and the stadium.   The NFL actually dislikes GB because they can't push them around.

The NFL (and it's owners) prefers that the cities or other municipal authorities own the stadiums.  Because that's were all the costs (other than salaries) and risks are.  They sign a (long term) contract to play in said stadium for a (mostly reduced) rate.  (or we'll move the team).  And the NFL and owners are free to profit from the deal.   

Yep, yep.
To add, Lambeau Field is a destination- Green Bay is Lambeau Field and vise versa.
Its almost a patriotic duty of a Green Bay business to choose green and gold as its favorite colors and name itself in someway related to the Packers. I'm not much of a football fan and find it kind of nauseating, but you don't find anything like that anywhere else.

[Monkeyleg]

I stand corrected.

As for Green Bay, if it weren't for the Packers, the city wouldn't have electricity, indoor plumbing or paved streets.

[Perd Hapley]

I stand corrected.

As for Green Bay, if it weren't for the Packers, the city wouldn't have electricity, indoor plumbing or paved streets.

Then it would still be better than Detroit?

[Jim147]

That is the nice thing about the speedway in Kansas City.  When it is open it is bringing in "new" money because most people are from out of town.  And also since the surrounding businesses opened it kept money from leaving because before like I said KCK was bleeding business.

The Legends shopping area got it's own tax breaks too. And if I remember my Cabelas receipts correctly the customers paid a special sales tax at the stores.

jim

[brimic]

Then it would still be better than Detroit?

Detroit multiple stadiums, so they should be like Disney or Vegas in terms of economic development by now.

[birdman]

The reason that Green Bay benefits is that it is privately held.  The residents (for the most part) are the owners of the team and the stadium.   The NFL actually dislikes GB because they can't push them around. 

The NFL (and it's owners) prefers that the cities or other municipal authorities own the stadiums.  Because that's were all the costs (other than salaries) and risks are.  They sign a (long term) contract to play in said stadium for a (mostly reduced) rate.  (or we'll move the team).  And the NFL and owners are free to profit from the deal.   

There have been several studies done on the economic effects of pro teams and publicly funded Stadiums, and they are, in a vast, vast, vast, majority of cases, a net loss to the municipality and the community.

Not onlyis it privately held, there are rules as to how many shares can be owned by any one individual or organization, the shares are expensive, and in order to move the team, a majority must vote to do so.  Since GB residents got first crack at the shares, it is more likely the earth will suddenly careen into the sun than the packers ever move, and then over my cold dead body.
-Marc (owner of a foam cheesehead, and one who screams when packer games aren't on regular TV here in NOVA)

[TechMan]

Hamilton County/Cincinnati Ohio is on the hook for close to ~ $1,000,000,000 in stadiums for two piss *expletive deleted*ss teams, well the Reds are trying to come back, just don't say anything about the Bengals Bungles.  The voters were even convinced to raise the sales tax on themselves in order to pay for the stadiums.  One of the county commissioners made a deal with Mike Brown the devil and now works for him.  No conflict of interest.  The best thing is that the teams get to say what other events can happen in the stadiums that the taxpayers own.    The Bungles just had to have an open air stadium so they could have a natural turf field, which is now field turf (courtesy of the taxpayers).  They should have built a dome so Cincinnati might have a chance of hosting a Super Bowl or at least be able to have events in the stadium year round, instead of being used 8-10 times a year.

[RoadKingLarry]

Tulsa buit a fance big *expletive deleted*ss arena downtown, sold naming rights to the Bank of Oklahoma (BOK) and now it is the BOK Center although quiet a few folks call it the bokarena.
Tulsa also just copleted a big *expletive deleted*ss baseball stadium downtown for the minor league Tulsa Oilers.
The downtown area is a special tax zone and all the businesses that "benefit" from the two operations get to pay extra taxes.

Did I mention that there was no additional parking included with either of these projects.

[brimic]

Did I mention that there was no additional parking included with either of these projects.

Well cars, who needs cars. I mean they did put bike lanes in, didn't they?