I can go along with that....let's expand and have an 8 team playoff instead of four.
Nine out of ten economists agree: Sports stadium subsidies are dumb
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
I can go along with that....let's expand and have an 8 team playoff instead of four.
Sure use the super dome
We don't. Rich people who are only consuming the produce of others are not adding anything to the community or economy. If they want stadiums then they will pay for them.
The rich are what make us great!
You are lucky to work for them!
What do you want, all poor people
Give Detroit a call
Nope. Productive effort makes us great. If they (or their capital) are not productive, i.e., if they persist by living off the productive effort of others collected in taxes then they are a net drain.
Detroit is a prime example of what happens when you open the public purse to any and all that want a handout.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well of course they do. The fact of the matter is, you're not going to see to many working stiffs paying for seat licenses, luxury suites and season tickets on the fifty yard line for a Major League Sports franchise. Public subsidies for pro sports do in fact subsidize entertainment for the prosperous.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I didn't say that and don't put words in my mouth and I'll return you the favor. If you don't think public subsidization of Pro sports isn't subsizdizing entertainment for the wealthy lets see how you feel about thant when they want to tack 5 mil onto your property taxes to subsidize sporting venues and events you can't afford to go to. It costs $85/ ticket for decent seats to see the Blue Jackets. I can't afford season tickets at that price and I have a six figure household income. I can't afford that and if I can't afford that some working class stiff with a 50 kpy income can't either. Why should my tax dollars subisidize that?Agree. And while, as Mott says, sports are "wealthy peoples [sic] entertainment," sports also provide entertainment for plenty of poor folks. While they might not get to attend games in person, plenty enjoy games in various (TV, radio, fantasy games, etc.) ways. Besides I like to watch a good football game much mor than I want to see some ballet or opera.mi know that doesn't make me the cultured snob so many [liberals] would like me to be but, hey! that's me.
You don't like economics much right
Most people buying make less than you!
Choice
cawacko
Well-known member
Working stiffs may not buy 50 yard line seats but they still wear their teams gear and support their team whether it's watching the game at home or at a bar with buddies. You don't have to be at a game to support your team and get pleasure from it. When thousands of fans spill out onto the streets to celebrate a city's championship do you think it's only rich people out there?
In football watching the game does not do anything for the team directly. It helps the league. In baseball and other sports it helps the team, but only based on advertisers and they pay more for higher income viewers.
Even in cities that don't have a team people watch sports, buy merchandise and gain some joy from being a fan.
I have to disagree with Mott. The tax subsidy does not subsidize tickets. The teams charge what the market will bear for tickets. They don't reduce the price of tickets because the stadium was built for them. While some deals do require a certain amount of tickets be provided at a lower price that's mostly a smoke screen. You are going to have cheap seats anyway simply because some seats will be further away.
Where does the subsidy go? Well mostly into building the stadium (though some teams are even ripping cities off to guarantee a certain amount of ticket sales). The teams will spend more on building the stadium than they normally would. Oftentimes it will be inefficient. If a team can build a feature that will increase revenues by, say, 40 million over the life of a stadium and costs 50 million to build and maintain, then they would not likely do it with their own money. But if taxpayer are paying for it then every bit of increased revenue is a bonus. They might even add features that don't increase revenues at all, because... fuck it, it's not their money.
So that money goes into the pockets of the owners and leagues and probably leads to an increase in pay for players and coaches. The poor are being taxed to help millionaires and billionaires.
cawacko
Well-known member
I never said it benefitted the team. I was responding to this comment from Mott: "Public subsidies for pro sports do in fact subsidize entertainment for the prosperous"
Many working class stiffs watch and enjoy sports so they get benefit from the team being there. One doesn't have to be rich, nor at the stadium, to garner pleasure from the event.
Or, as I pointed out, in the same city. The Rays did not join the league until 1997. I have been enjoying the game since the late 70s.
cawacko
Well-known member
You are correct although I would argue there is a certain pride one has in his home town team. I'm not a SF Giants fan but this City was on fire in 2010 and 2012 when the Giants won the World Series. It brought all kinds of different people together to celebrate as one.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that and try fighting eminent domain when you're not the wealthy party.
Wealthy person
SmarterthanYou
rebel
in court, they are considered a party in the suit.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Maybe single game tickets. That or they like sports a whole hell of a lot more than I do.
I mean these are the costs in my area.
2 season tickets, Cincinnati Reds. infield seats, +$5,000
2 season tickets, Cincinnati Bengals. Lower Level a relative bargain at $3200
2 season tickets, Ohio State Football. +$6000
2 season tickets, Columbus Blue Jackets. +$6000