NationStates

Some call it corporate welfare and others call it enhancing the value of a city. An ongoing trend in professional sports seems to be having the local governments help fund new stadiums or renovations to the stadiums. In many cases, these sports teams are owned by wealthy companies or groups that often tell the public that these stadiums help revitalize the area where they will be put and provide the city or area with an identity. In many cases, if the teams don't get what they want then they start talking about relocation or actually relocate. An example of this is the Raiders moving to Las Vegas since Oakland wouldn't fund a new stadium or the previous owners of the Marlins talking to officials in San Antonio about potential stadium sites.

I watched a documentary about this a long time ago. I think that the local and state govs have better use for their money and funding sports stadiums should be a private affair.

Fuck no. It's just a form of corporate welfare that benefits no one important.

Conserative Morality wrote:Fuck no. It's just a form of corporate welfare that benefits no one important.

It can sometimes lead to the local government into immense debt and, at worst, bankrupts it if they bid too hard to have it built. The tourist dollars are never enough and many cities are still paying off their stadiums

with the way corporate sports run in the US then hell no, funding sports stadiums is corporate welfare

for the rest of us, I'd say it depends on the degree of public benefit that can be gained from shared facilities.

For instance when I was a boy, the local Basketball Team wanted a stadium, so did my High School. With good lobbying (one of our PE teachers was in the National Basketball team) they secured a deal whereby the Stadium was built on School Land and we got to use it as the School Gym - that was awesome.

Equally the NZ Government funded the Team NZ bid for the Americas Cup Yatch Race, which many decried as corporate welfare (Team New Zealand is a private syndicate). However it was justified as a research and innovation investment in promoting the NZ Yatch building industry, plus the economic spin offs of increased tourism.I tended to agree with that.

For the next bid however Team NZ has gone again cap in hand and this time is making demands about what they want - I think they should now be politely told to stick it and fuck off

If there's a public use for them and corporate entities must pay for their use.

Valrifell wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Fuck no. It's just a form of corporate welfare that benefits no one important.

It can sometimes lead to the local government into immense debt and, at worst, bankrupts it if they bid too hard to have it built. The tourist dollars are never enough and many cities are still paying off their stadiums

You'd think someone would learn after 32 Olympic Games, but people just keep making these dumbass decisions.

Herador wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
It can sometimes lead to the local government into immense debt and, at worst, bankrupts it if they bid too hard to have it built. The tourist dollars are never enough and many cities are still paying off their stadiums

You'd think someone would learn after 32 Olympic Games, but people just keep making these dumbass decisions.

The Olympics are paid for by national governments, and are a global event. Bit different.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Herador wrote:You'd think someone would learn after 32 Olympic Games, but people just keep making these dumbass decisions.

The Olympics are paid for by national governments, and are a global event. Bit different.

And the stadiums they leave behind are (almost) always a huge waste of everyone's time and money. It's the same principle, just bigger.

Herador wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
The Olympics are paid for by national governments, and are a global event. Bit different.

And the stadiums they leave behind are (almost) always a huge waste of everyone's time and money. It's the same principle, just bigger.

They’re not a waste if they were used, and find a use after the event. They also boost the international reputation and standing of the nations that host them, why else do so many nations activly bid for them.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Herador wrote:And the stadiums they leave behind are (almost) always a huge waste of everyone's time and money. It's the same principle, just bigger.

They’re not a waste if they were used, and find a use after the event. They also boost the international reputation and standing of the nations that host them, why else do so many nations activly bid for them.

Because the Olympics are international dick wagging and getting to host them gives you the biggest dick of them all.

No. Look at Montreal. They tried to build a stadium for the Olympics, and they almost went bankrupt. It doesn't work. Corporations can jettison losses. Cities can't.

Herador wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
They’re not a waste if they were used, and find a use after the event. They also boost the international reputation and standing of the nations that host them, why else do so many nations activly bid for them.

Because the Olympics are international dick wagging and getting to host them gives you the biggest dick of them all.

Well then, I’m surprised America doesn't host them every time.

Also, the whole boosting the image and standing of the country there held in, tourism to the host nation, entertainment for citizens who can attend in their own country.

The South Falls wrote:No. Look at Montreal. They tried to build a stadium for the Olympics, and they almost went bankrupt. It doesn't work. Corporations can jettison losses. Cities can't.

Montreal, Montreal...nope, never heard of that country. Sounds like a governance issue.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Herador wrote:Because the Olympics are international dick wagging and getting to host them gives you the biggest dick of them all.

Well then, I’m surprised America doesn't host them every time.

Also, the whole boosting the image and standing of the country there held in, tourism to the host nation, entertainment for citizens who can attend in their own country.

The South Falls wrote:No. Look at Montreal. They tried to build a stadium for the Olympics, and they almost went bankrupt. It doesn't work. Corporations can jettison losses. Cities can't.

Montreal, Montreal...nope, never heard of that country. Sounds like a governance issue.

I thought Montreal was a continent..

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Herador wrote:You'd think someone would learn after 32 Olympic Games, but people just keep making these dumbass decisions.

The Olympics are paid for by national governments, and are a global event. Bit different.

They also lose a lot more money and the stadiums and infrastructure built to host them often goes into disrepair.

Greed and Death wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
The Olympics are paid for by national governments, and are a global event. Bit different.

They also lose a lot more money and the stadiums and infrastructure built to host them often goes into disrepair.

Other note, this says cities and governments, so both can be talked about.

We live in a Democratic Republic. If the people are happy with a stadiums why can't they build them ?

Greed and Death wrote:We live in a Democratic Republic. If the people are happy with a stadiums why can't they build them ?

I can imagine people making plans for stadiums, then people forming a collective to fund them. Yea no.

Government funded sports facilities are fine. Government funding for huge, ridiculous stadia that'll be operated for someone else's profit is sillypants.

The South Falls wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Well then, I’m surprised America doesn't host them every time.

Also, the whole boosting the image and standing of the country there held in, tourism to the host nation, entertainment for citizens who can attend in their own country.



Montreal, Montreal...nope, never heard of that country. Sounds like a governance issue.

I thought Montreal was a continent..

I can see it from my porch.

Ifreann wrote:Government funded sports facilities are fine. Government funding for huge, ridiculous stadia that'll be operated for someone else's profit is sillypants.

You mean gigantic loss, once the event is over but maintenance is not?

The South Falls wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Government funded sports facilities are fine. Government funding for huge, ridiculous stadia that'll be operated for someone else's profit is sillypants.

You mean gigantic loss, once the event is over but maintenance is not?

It's my understanding that American football is never over.

If they do shell out tax breaks or incentives, they should be revocable, plus accrued interest, if the team then moves out within twenty years

The South Falls wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Government funded sports facilities are fine. Government funding for huge, ridiculous stadia that'll be operated for someone else's profit is sillypants.

You mean gigantic loss, once the event is over but maintenance is not?

Govnerment spending is meant to be a loss, and really only used because the people want it. Why sports stadiums must be an Exception to this rule is beyond me.

Greed and Death wrote:

The South Falls wrote:You mean gigantic loss, once the event is over but maintenance is not?

Govnerment spending is meant to be a loss, and really only used because the people want it. Why sports stadiums must be an Exception to this rule is beyond me.

Such a loss that is causes bankruptcy? Cities are supposed to stay afloat.