Church of Football

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,926
Reaction score
5,297
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
How much money do the sports franchises (and stadiums) bring into the communities where they are located? How many non-athlete jobs do they create? Does the return on investment justify the expense to the people? I dunno. I'm just asking. But there clearly is benefit to be had. It's not all one sided.

I'll go out on a limb here and say not as much as the arts do for the money paid for them.

Dollar for dollar, public investment in the fine arts brings measurable wealth and improvement to a community, seven times initial investment by one reckoning, far more monetary and intangible benefits both according the the Centre for Economics and Business Research in London.

I don't know how much money sports bring into communities, rather than their owners' pockets, but I do know a lot of horror stories of white elephant sports stadiums.
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,176
Reaction score
3,200
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Richard, that would be a damn good argument if I'd ever actually claimed the NFL as an organization owns nothing.

Look, you can make the argument that the NFL as an organization is undeserving of non profit status because they're not a charitable business and that their main function seems to be making the team owners richer. But that's not this argument. It's a different one.

The primary issue I see here is not a question of tax status for the NFL but rather whether or not hugely profitable individual football teams ought to receive public funding for their stadiums. And I'll continue to maintain that if you put a pencil to it and it ultimately benefits the community I'd approve, but if it wouldn't return more than the investment, I'd disapprove.

Can I expand this into a blatant political philosophy trap general question?
Are you saying that any public investment that is a dollar for dollar benefit is an acceptable public investment?
 

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,228
Reaction score
18,311
Location
A dark, evil place.
I'll go out on a limb here and say not as much as the arts do for the money paid for them.

Dollar for dollar, public investment in the fine arts brings measurable wealth and improvement to a community, seven times initial investment by one reckoning, far more monetary and intangible benefits both according the the Centre for Economics and Business Research in London.

I don't know how much money sports bring into communities, rather than their owners' pockets, but I do know a lot of horror stories of white elephant sports stadiums.
I wouldn't disagree with you, Alessandra. But if the arts do provide more for the community it doesn't necessarily follow that sports is not a good investment.

Regarding white elephants--you bet. Lots of them. Frankly, I think that ought to be factored into any cost/benefit analysis up front.
Can I expand this into a blatant political philosophy trap general question?
Are you saying that any public investment that is a dollar for dollar benefit is an acceptable public investment?

Thanks for the warning. :D

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by "any public investment." And also on who's doing the accounting. If either the DNC or the RNC were running the numbers I wouldn't bet my life on their accuracy.

I've already mentioned tax incentives to businesses. I'd rather they were disallowed altogether, but they're not. So if Indiana is trying to pull a manufacturing business away from Michigan because they offer lower taxes and consequently a lower cost of doing business, Michigan has to do what they can to retain that business if, and only if it's financially feasible. I don't like that it's that way but I can't change it.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I wouldn't disagree with you, Alessandra. But if the arts do provide more for the community it doesn't necessarily follow that sports is not a good investment.
I'll disagree with you both, especially when the evidence for these things is totally agenda-driven, totally about justifying such "investments."

ROI isn't an automatic thing, for the arts or for sports (or for anything else), and it's a major error to suppose that it is. But that's the justification given when it comes to the taxpayers being forced to fund such things.

Such investments might very well produce economic benefits larger than the investments, themselves. They also might not. They might do so initially, then the benefits might taper off and actually become costs down the road.

But again, they'll always be sold to the taxpayers with the rosiest possible glasses. Me, I think the owners of teams should shell out the money for stadiums and the like as a matter of course. If it's too costly, they can cut the player's salaries and/or up ticket prices, then let the chips fall where they may. If they can't sustain their business model with such conditions, well then...
 

K.L. Bennett

A floopy flolloper
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
801
Reaction score
247
Location
The High Plains, baby!
I had a nice thoughtful post typed out in response to Haggis' questions, but my computer ate it. Suffice to say I see little to no benefit in my own community in terms of the professional sports teams existence and their use of tax-payer monies to fund the building of increasingly elaborate stadiums.

The non-athlete jobs they create are by and large low wage, temporary or seasonal, and come with zero benefits; think ticket takers, confession stand works, parking attendants. Yet the players themselves, and the owners, are taking in the big bucks.

Every time we build a new stadium for one team, another team gets jealous and starts vying for more tax dollars so they can have a fancy new stadium, too, .cause that's only "fair". For example, the football team tore down a perfectly good stadium several years ago and built a bigger one right next to it, which rarely sells out; now the baseball team has their panties in a twist because the stadium they built with our tax dollars 15 or so years ago isn't good enough. They want a new one or they'll strike. I'm sure our hockey team week be demanding a new rink soon, too.

I also hate all the traffic and congestion the games cause, all the drunk tailgating idiots that clog up my streets and cause wrecks, who jaywalk in front of my car when all I want to do is go home after work or run errands on a Sunday afternoon, all the animosity and fake rivalries between fans.

I just don't see how any of that benefits the larger community, I'm sorry. I'd much rather my tax dollars get spent on actual services for the community, on things that matter, like education, social services, roads that aren't pockmarked with "patch and pray" style attempts at maintenance.But that's just me.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,176
Reaction score
3,200
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I wouldn't disagree with you, Alessandra. But if the arts do provide more for the community it doesn't necessarily follow that sports is not a good investment.

Regarding white elephants--you bet. Lots of them. Frankly, I think that ought to be factored into any cost/benefit analysis up front.


Thanks for the warning. :D

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by "any public investment." And also on who's doing the accounting. If either the DNC or the RNC were running the numbers I wouldn't bet my life on their accuracy.

I've already mentioned tax incentives to businesses. I'd rather they were disallowed altogether, but they're not. So if Indiana is trying to pull a manufacturing business away from Michigan because they offer lower taxes and consequently a lower cost of doing business, Michigan has to do what they can to retain that business if, and only if it's financially feasible. I don't like that it's that way but I can't change it.

That's fair, but it kind of begs the question, when is it financially feasible, and what would happen if we applied the same logic to individuals?

So, if a corporation's presence pays high enough wages that the taxes generated in the locality are greater than the tax loss from giving the break that would, in theory, be acceptable. But the tax burden would be made up by the taxes paid by the workers and the other businesses that are being paid by this corp, so the tax burden is paid by others. That's corporate welfare if ever there was any.

Except that it's far worse from a capitalist perspective than plain old welfare. A decent welfare system will allow someone to keep alive and healthy (and hopefully learning), until they can enter the labor market, but it will not create unfair competition in that market.

Tax incentives make it harder for competitors to enter the market and compete with the advantaged corporation. So the government is favoring one company giving that company the advantages of a government subsidized corp, but without the government getting anything from it.

The corp is obviously not running on capitalist principles since the only thing it's competing for is government hand-outs. Wouldn't it be better, therefore, to either not subsidize at all or nationalize the business, so the government and the people will benefit from all aspects of the business rather than gaining from some and losing from others.

Blatant Trap for accusations of socialism: If you agree to government subsidy of business, you're just differently socialist.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
That's fair, but it kind of begs the question, when is it financially feasible, and what would happen if we applied the same logic to individuals?

So, if a corporation's presence pays high enough wages that the taxes generated in the locality are greater than the tax loss from giving the break that would, in theory, be acceptable. But the tax burden would be made up by the taxes paid by the workers and the other businesses that are being paid by this corp, so the tax burden is paid by others. That's corporate welfare if ever there was any.

Except that it's far worse from a capitalist perspective than plain old welfare. A decent welfare system will allow someone to keep alive and healthy (and hopefully learning), until they can enter the labor market, but it will not create unfair competition in that market.

Tax incentives make it harder for competitors to enter the market and compete with the advantaged corporation. So the government is favoring one company giving that company the advantages of a government subsidized corp, but without the government getting anything from it.

The corp is obviously not running on capitalist principles since the only thing it's competing for is government hand-outs. Wouldn't it be better, therefore, to either not subsidize at all or nationalize the business, so the government and the people will benefit from all aspects of the business rather than gaining from some and losing from others.

Blatant Trap for accusations of socialism: If you agree to government subsidy of business, you're just differently socialist.
I knew we'd agree on something before the world ended. :D The government should not be picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and that's precisely what it does when it favors one firm over another with privileges of any kind. I expect the government to level the playing field, and they can't possibly do that while they're playing favorites.

Sink or swim is the only way to play it, IMO. As soon as you nationalize a business, you get all the disincentives for competition currently in play in our crony capitalist economy, with the added disincentive of the government often just flat-out declaring competition illegal. (See also: first class mail) Also, if the business becomes a money-loser instead of a money-maker, the taxpayers are once again going to eat it. (See also: first class mail)

No subsidies for businesses, and in subsidies I include those clever regulatory barriers to entry that raise the cost of entry to small businesses. Jacking up everybody else's costs to compete is as golden to the favored corporation as cutting their costs would be.
 

GeorgeK

ever seeking
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
6,577
Reaction score
740
From the Green Bay Packers:

"An economic impact study commissioned by the stadium district estimated the annual economic impact by out-of-town fans in 2009 was $282 million, or about $12 million per game."

And

"The Green Bay Packers will add 6,600 seats to Lambeau Field, and the team will cover the cost. It also may offer a stock sale to help pay for renovations.......The total cost will be about $143 million, and the projects are expected to employ more than 1,600 workers with a combined payroll of $70 million."
The Packers are the exception in that the City of Green Bay owns the team. If they are ever sold, the proceeds go to the city unlike every other team.

Anybody know who this "williebee" is?
Are they a regular poster?


;) just thought I had to add something since I started the thread
 
Last edited:

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,228
Reaction score
18,311
Location
A dark, evil place.
That's fair, but it kind of begs the question, when is it financially feasible, and what would happen if we applied the same logic to individuals?

So, if a corporation's presence pays high enough wages that the taxes generated in the locality are greater than the tax loss from giving the break that would, in theory, be acceptable. But the tax burden would be made up by the taxes paid by the workers and the other businesses that are being paid by this corp, so the tax burden is paid by others. That's corporate welfare if ever there was any.

Sure. But if a business is in my town instead of yours, people will be buying new homes in my town, buying groceries in my grocery stores, buying cars from my dealerships, not yours. And all of those places will be paying taxes too.
Except that it's far worse from a capitalist perspective than plain old welfare. A decent welfare system will allow someone to keep alive and healthy (and hopefully learning), until they can enter the labor market, but it will not create unfair competition in that market.

Tax incentives make it harder for competitors to enter the market and compete with the advantaged corporation. So the government is favoring one company giving that company the advantages of a government subsidized corp, but without the government getting anything from it.

The problem is that you have competing governments. Indiana wants the new Ford factory. Michigan wants it too. Don't blame the business because the states choose to duke it out. In a better world, the states would say "no" to incentives but this ain't a better world. If Michigan gets all holy and refuses to play the game, Indiana winds up with all the factories.
The corp is obviously not running on capitalist principles since the only thing it's competing for is government hand-outs. Wouldn't it be better, therefore, to either not subsidize at all or nationalize the business, so the government and the people will benefit from all aspects of the business rather than gaining from some and losing from others.
I agree it would be better not to subsidize any business. Last time I checked we don't nationalize businesses in this country.

Blatant Trap for accusations of socialism: If you agree to government subsidy of business, you're just differently socialist.

If you agree that it's government's place to motivate business behavior, it's the kind of outcome you should expect.
 

MaryMumsy

the original blond bombshell
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
829
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
Sorry to disagree, George. The city does not own the Packers, they only own the stadium. The team is owned by a multitude of stockholders. And if the team is sold, the proceeds goes to a foundation that supports many charitable activities throughout Wisconsin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers

Scroll down to the section titled 'public company'.

MM
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,926
Reaction score
5,297
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
I'll disagree with you both, especially when the evidence for these things is totally agenda-driven, totally about justifying such "investments."

ROI isn't an automatic thing, for the arts or for sports (or for anything else), and it's a major error to suppose that it is. But that's the justification given when it comes to the taxpayers being forced to fund such things.

Such investments might very well produce economic benefits larger than the investments, themselves. They also might not. They might do so initially, then the benefits might taper off and actually become costs down the road.

But again, they'll always be sold to the taxpayers with the rosiest possible glasses. Me, I think the owners of teams should shell out the money for stadiums and the like as a matter of course. If it's too costly, they can cut the player's salaries and/or up ticket prices, then let the chips fall where they may. If they can't sustain their business model with such conditions, well then...

The economic benefits of public funding of the arts have been exhaustively studied and documented.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research in London issued a study of the economic benefits of the arts in the UK earlier this year.

The Conservative government of the UK saw what an incredible economic engine the arts are and agreed to fund them.

Sports? I don't know.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
The economic benefits of public funding of the arts have been exhaustively studied and documented.
Doesn't change what I'm saying in the least.

You can't just say "funding the arts will have a positive ROI, period," much less that it will have seven to one return. Doesn't work that way. Results depend on specifics, on information which may not be available, and on factors that can't even be anticipated. This is no less true for funding a new stadium or the like.


The Conservative government of the UK saw what an incredible economic engine the arts are and agreed to fund them.
"Incredible economic engine"? Please. Again, it depends on specifics. The non-thoughtful approach of slapping down money on things because some person or group proclaims it will spur economic growth is one of the things that helps bankrupts governments at all levels.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
I agree it would be better not to subsidize any business. Last time I checked we don't nationalize businesses in this country.
Well, mostly we just bail them out when they get in trouble instead, so we socialize the costs but not the profits. That's really smart. :sarcasm

But there is this list, which includes Amtrak, Conrail, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, ...
 

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,228
Reaction score
18,311
Location
A dark, evil place.
Well, mostly we just bail them out when they get in trouble instead, so we socialize the costs but not the profits. That's really smart. :sarcasm

So then you are in favor of nationalizing businesses.:sarcasm
But there is this list, which includes Amtrak, Conrail, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, ...
You forgot the Postal Service. :)

When exactly did government forcibly take over control of the B&O, New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads? I must have missed the memo.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
I just poked around looking for some hard info on the new Atlanta stadium, arena, or whatever they're calling it, and I found this:
Fieldofschemes.com is the companion website to Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, by Joanna Cagan and Neil deMause. Since 1998, we have been casting a critical eye on the roughly $2 billion a year in public subsidies that go toward building new pro sports facilities.
(bolding mine)
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/about/
And it has coverage of all the shenanigans going on between pro teams and government (and quasi-government) officials, regarding who's threatening to move out of town if they don't get a new arena/stadium, which officials are getting free season tickets, and on and on, as well as full coverage of the Atlanta Falcons new stadium deal(s).
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
The Packers are the exception in that the City of Green Bay owns the team. If they are ever sold, the proceeds go to the city unlike every other team.

Incorrect. The fans own the team. There are over 363,000 stockholders and are the only NFL team not owned by one person or a small group of people.

The City owns the stadium.
 

GeorgeK

ever seeking
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
6,577
Reaction score
740
Sorry to disagree, George. The city does not own the Packers, they only own the stadium. The team is owned by a multitude of stockholders. And if the team is sold, the proceeds goes to a foundation that supports many charitable activities throughout Wisconsin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers

Scroll down to the section titled 'public company'.

MM
I trust my relatives there. I don't trust wikipedia for pretty much anything.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
The NFL isn't really like other businesses in that it's mainly revenue generator that distributes most of that revenue to its member teams. In practical terms, since the teams are (Packers excepted) for-profit businesses, and most of the revenue the NFL collects flows to them, it probably tax-wise doesn't make a lot of difference whether the NFL is classified as a for-profit or non-profit organization. The parent organization isn't keeping the money anyway.

That doesn't really impact some of the other issues raised here (like stadium subsidies), but those are mostly local, team-centered issues.
 

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,228
Reaction score
18,311
Location
A dark, evil place.

Yeah, I know. I worded that part of my argument poorly. The licensing fees generate money too as do the investments. But income =/= profit. And like Clintl says,

The NFL isn't really like other businesses in that it's mainly revenue generator that distributes most of that revenue to its member teams. In practical terms, since the teams are (Packers excepted) for-profit businesses, and most of the revenue the NFL collects flows to them, it probably tax-wise doesn't make a lot of difference whether the NFL is classified as a for-profit or non-profit organization. The parent organization isn't keeping the money anyway.

That doesn't really impact some of the other issues raised here (like stadium subsidies), but those are mostly local, team-centered issues.