OT: The Economics of Sports Stadiums and bye-bye to the Oakland A’s

[Hindmost]

Originally Posted by Elefantino

Yes, and what did we say when we were growing up?

"Why is it always smoggy in the South Bay? Because San Jose sucks."

I think you misread my intent. I was born and bread East Bay. My parents were raised East Bay. So I consider myself native.

[Waldo62]

F**k the A's and the Raiders. Good riddance, especially to the Raiders. Neither team negotiated in good faith. I feel sorry for concession sales staff who supplement their meager incomes on game days. Billionaire team owners, who line their pockets off poor saps who invest their emotional health in performance of professional athletes, deserve our contempt, not sympathy.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by echappist

How one choose to spend one’s spare time is the prerogative of that person alone. I am not making any comments on affinities toward a team in general, and commenting only when fans wishes to influence how decisions are made at a local level. Full disclosure, i watch a lot of pro cycling and Euro football. I am a full on plastic, though there are still teams I like. The difference is that i don’t advocate for local government to provide various subsidies to pro teams. The moment someone does that, s/he is fair game for critique (not to mention a pawn for the incredibly rich in their pursuit of gaining leverage over local polities).

It becomes a problem for society at large when an entire cohort demands a local polity to fork out money to a pro team, whether that money is spent on building/ maintaining a stadium or for various tax breaks. See the crazies shown in the John Oliver video upthread (post #5).

For 20 some years, residents in Milwaukee County and a few adjacent counties had to pay an extra 0.5% sales tax to fund the building/maintenance of stadia. That should be objectionable to both small government conservatives and liberals who want funding for expanded social programs. And yet, there was enough consensus that tax was levied. Is this tax at all fair for people who couldn’t give a damn about the local teams? Obviously no. Was the money spent on necessities such as providing for the general welfare (e.g. schools, funding police/ fire dept/ EMT, maintaining roads, etc.)? Also a big no.

The teams/ cartels are all wealthy enough to build and maintain their own stadia. Even Kroenke paid full freight after he left St. Louis (which had up to then funded for the construction of the St. Louis Dome) and resettled in LA. And for that, good on St. Louis telling him to pound sand. And if one thinks providing financial support for private enterprises that do not provide necessary services/good should take precedence over other considerations faced by often cash-strapped polities, then one has said all one needs to say about one’s priorities.

This, the bold and also the rest, is entirely different from what you said earlier.

Originally Posted by echappist View Post
Taking pride in an organization with which one has an at best tenuous connection is nothing short of misguided and misplaced sentiments.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Continually saying "it depends" is also just not very helpful even though it does of coarse always depend on the details. In this case the title of the thread is both general and specific. I gave a general answer, although the specific answer having to do with the Oakland A's also seems to be pretty similar.

Stealing taxpayers money to pay for super rich people to have super huge stadiums just doesn't make any sense to me unless the rest of your city / state is pretty well sorted out.

I know people can come up with economic models showing how these expenditures can pay for themselves through increased tourism, jobs, service industry, blah blah blah. People also come up with models showing how these never pay for themselves. It just isn't possible to make a dispassionate analysis of the economic impact of something like this because your political believes will always be incorporated into the analysis through differences in your basic a priori assumptions.

I am interested in a principled approach and my principles tell me that this is an incorrect use of taxpayers money. If the citizens of a city / state love a team enough they should donate directly to keep them.

I agree that always saying 'it depends' is of little value. That's why it doesn't make sense to always say that.
In this instance though, when all variables are considered, it may make sense for Memphis to invest when it doesn't make sense for Seattle to invest. There is simply no single cut and dried answer because the amount matters, the % share matters, the location matters, etc etc etc.

I agree with you that projections can show something is of value while they can also show that same thing is not of value. People have agendas and will push to find support to meet that agenda.

Cities use public funds to help bring private revenue all the time. They give tax breaks on property to bring a company in, with the expectation that the reduced tax revenue will be more than made up with sales tax, residential property tax, attracting more business, and more.
^ the above has been shown to work. It has also been shown to not work. It's almost as if it depends on the details.

I get it, not being black or white can be frustrating. But that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

[echappist]

If you are going to go down the route of nitpicking all and sundry, it behooves you to at least have the courtesy of quoting me correctly and within context. My original post reads as follows

Originally Posted by echappist

Taking pride in an organization with which one has an at best tenuous connection is nothing short of misguided and misplaced sentiments....

Pride, in this context, is in particular civic pride and how one could feel "a civic pride in having a major sports club". I will offer that I should have typed "civic pride" as opposed to pride per se. But hey, it's debate on the internets, and I'm not paid for this.

Having civic pride on the basis of a team being in a city is one of many reactions one can have, for a team that one chooses to follow. Not everyone who chooses to follow a team necessarily takes civic pride in the fact that there is a team located in that city.

So no, following a sport team and its travails is not the same as taking civic pride in a sport team.

Also, I responded to you, when you had the following response to me. It's evident that you are talking about support for a team in general, and my post above (at post #42) was in response to your post quoted below. You believed that I was casting aspersion for others' "interest and support", and I answered I have no objection to it.

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

I get it, you think that draw should be focused elsewhere. But if the person doesn't feel like their interest and support is misguided, is it? Seems pretty arrogant to claim you know what's best for how they spend their social time.

Good try at twisting words and conflating different ideas. Alternatively, if you thinking "a civic pride in having a major sports club" should be equated with affinity for a sport team, well, that wouldn't say much for your rhetorical skills, would it?

[Elefantino]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Wasn't the other issue the matter of the SLOOC members offering bribes to IOC members to get the rights to hold the games? This was a big scandal for the IOC: For the IOC itself, the problem wasn't that IOC members were taking bribes; the problem was that this long running practice was exposed to public scrutiny.

And one of the bribers who happened to be in the construction business lived nextdoor.

[Elefantino]

Originally Posted by Hindmost

I think you misread my intent. I was born and bread East Bay. My parents were raised East Bay. So I consider myself native.

No, I got it. We all did. San Jose pre tech was a punch line.

[nickl]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Technically I believe many teams are owned by partnerships, not corporations.

Those partnerships are owned and controlled by the top 1% in almost all cases. These individuals should not be benefiting from huge taxpayer funded subsidies in most cases. Then again, this type of arrangement is not unique to sports organizations.

[Mikej]

Just look up the financial history of The Meadowlands- built in 1974 it still held $264 million in debt when it was torn down to spend 1.6 billion on a new stadium in 2010. 34 years later. Because of the tax payer is the only way this can happen. If billionaire owners could make money off of a private stadium they would. But they can’t so we have to subsidize there fun. It’s a game.

[Elefantino]

Sports team ownership groups expect government handouts because most of them have been given government handouts. Private financing is almost non-existent. So who is to blame, the owners or the politicians who feed their habit?

[Mr. Pink]

I still think it's a decent investment to encourage a sports team to stay in your town, especially if they invest in a winning team. Baltimore would be in even worse shape without the Ravens. You should see it there every weekend, starting Friday, in the fall and early winter. The purple wearing party people start early. There's an enormous amount of business that churns because of that team. You can't ignore that.

One thing a lot have ignored, though, is how the average citizen is taxed on their cable bill for sports they could care less about. The YES network in NY, home of the Yankees, receives a surcharge from every customer in the NY area and a little beyond for that broadcasting. Last I heard, ESPN gets five bucks a household for every customer nationwide, too. So, your grandmother may love her cable TV for FOX and Lawrence Welk reruns, but she's also paying for the Yankees (in NY) and college football and poker tournaments.

[fiamme red]

It's an old trick: reduce payroll to the point that your team is out of contention by opening day, charge major-league prices to watch a minor-league team, complain that attendance has dropped drastically, let the current stadium fall into disrepair, then threaten to leave town unless you get a new stadium funded by taxpayers.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

There's an enormous amount of business that churns because of that team. You can't ignore that.

Studies have repeatedly concluded the economic impact of pro teams is limited to a small number of businesses. The vast majority that pay for these stadiums realize no economic benefit.

[Mr. Pink]

"Studies" have biases. You can't convince me that some sports teams don't have enormous impacts on local economies. To me, it's obvious. Or, to put it another way, watch Oakland descend into even worse problems without that economic activity.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

"Studies" have biases. You can't convince me that some sports teams don't have enormous impacts on local economies. To me, it's obvious. Or, to put it another way, watch Oakland descend into even worse problems without that economic activity.

I don’t believe this is necessarily true. The area that housed the Coliseum is pretty industrial. I don’t believe the stadium itself served as an economic linchpin the same way the Giants stadium does. When Pac Bell Park opened in 2000, it totally revitalized Mission Bay. I worked in the area for many of those years. The transformation was shocking.

Civic pride (or “psychic” pride if you prefer) is another thing. Oakland is the birthplace/hometown of Bill Russell, Rickey Henderson, Marshawn Lynch, Dame Lillard, Gary Payton, and numerous other luminaries. It has a very rich athletic pedigree. It seems strange for the Town not to have a professional sports team.