NationStates

Farnhamia wrote:

NeoOasis wrote:
Stadiums almost never draw more revenue than they cost to build and maintain. The projections tend to be based on best case senarios and often ignore the drawbacks of having a massive stadium in the middle of a city. If a football team that makes billions in profits wants a stadium, they can fund it themselves.

Okay, well, you explain to the mob of fans with torches and pitchforks that gathered at City Hall when their beloved Mudskippers move to Toledo.

Perhaps it's time to break the sports leagues' monopolies, which solves both the pitchfork and mudskipper problems. I think Europe has more sensible laws on how the sports leagues work, but I've never been clear on it.

Farnhamia wrote:

NeoOasis wrote:
Stadiums almost never draw more revenue than they cost to build and maintain. The projections tend to be based on best case senarios and often ignore the drawbacks of having a massive stadium in the middle of a city. If a football team that makes billions in profits wants a stadium, they can fund it themselves.

Okay, well, you explain to the mob of fans with torches and pitchforks that gathered at City Hall when their beloved Mudskippers move to Toledo.

^
The amount of profit you turn isn't always the be all end all of what government is for.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Okay, well, you explain to the mob of fans with torches and pitchforks that gathered at City Hall when their beloved Mudskippers move to Toledo.

Perhaps it's time to break the sports leagues' monopolies, which solves both the pitchfork and mudskipper problems. I think Europe has more sensible laws on how the sports leagues work, but I've never been clear on it.

Right, you go find out. *hands over some paperwork* Sorry, Max hasn't sold a book in a while, but this freighter leaves from the Port of Newark on the 14th of June. Pack light.

Farnhamia wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:Perhaps it's time to break the sports leagues' monopolies, which solves both the pitchfork and mudskipper problems. I think Europe has more sensible laws on how the sports leagues work, but I've never been clear on it.

Right, you go find out. *hands over some paperwork* Sorry, Max hasn't sold a book in a while, but this freighter leaves from the Port of Newark on the 14th of June. Pack light.

I figure a European will be by eventually to roll their eyes at us silly Americans and our sports monopolies.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Right, you go find out. *hands over some paperwork* Sorry, Max hasn't sold a book in a while, but this freighter leaves from the Port of Newark on the 14th of June. Pack light.

I figure a European will be by eventually to roll their eyes at us silly Americans and our sports monopolies.

What's a "sports monopoly?" How is the structure of sport in America different from that in Europe? Five pages, single-spaced, footnotes, all that.

I don't have a problem with it under certain circumstances. For me to get behind public funds for a stadium, the public funds themselves would have to be an investment where the government paying for it gets back more than just tax revenue, it would have to be open for public use when not being used by whatever teams it was built for, and any team owners would have to foot all or part of the bill for the infrastructure that gets people, power, and sanitation to the stadium.

Farnhamia wrote:

NeoOasis wrote:Okay, well, you explain to the mob of fans with torches and pitchforks that gathered at City Hall when their beloved Mudskippers move to Toledo.

I actually think that would actually end up being great for someone's political career in the long run, and may not be as unpopular as you think. My town is filled with semi-retarded, obese boomers who cling to these loser teams as if they're ever going to see a Stanley Cup or Superbowl win in their lifetimes. The team owners demand something new from the town and of course, the town gives in to their demands while ignoring our dreadful schools and roads. When someone suggests telling them to fuck off, you hear the chorus of "you can't offend the team owners, they'll move and that will be the end of someone's political career", and always from some fat old person who probably hasn't been for a run in decades.
You'd probably lose the demographic of fat old people, but anyone under the age of 50 with a BMI of under 30 is not going to base their vote on whether (insert team that hasn't even made the playoffs in years) is still in town. If timed right in your political career, standing up to the team owners, even if it makes you hated locally, could make you "the one with principles who chose local schools and roads over another stadium" and you find yourself in a good position to move from local to state politics. This may assume you have a significant portion of your state outside your team's territory where any rabid sports fans can say "it wasn't our team that moved" and/or you have enough people at home who don't care to push you over the edge.

far be it from me to second guess a local consensus, but i would recomend national and state level support not exceed 1/3 of budget to build, over runs not included, and only if venue once built available for any and all not for profit event when primary events not scheduled.

personally not big on sports as such, nor the blood sport of immediate politics, but a place for large gatherings has many uses.
rather see public funds go where they belong, public transportation, libraries and parks, in approximately that order.
(schools, hospitals and first responders, but hopefully proportionally less demand loads on them)

Farnhamia wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

I figure a European will be by eventually to roll their eyes at us silly Americans and our sports monopolies.

What's a "sports monopoly?" How is the structure of sport in America different from that in Europe? Five pages, single-spaced, footnotes, all that.

I assume the NFL, NBA, and MLB would all count as effective monopolies.
Also, you call it the World Series when most of the world neither partipates nor cares.

Aclion wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Hosting the Olympic Games etc kinda entails many countries using public funds to build stadiums, unless suitable venues exist beforehand.

Olympics are an even worse prospect then a team because with the Olympics you know they're leaving.

That's an issue that can be resolved with good legacy preparation.

Socialized Sports... in America?

Kowani wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:What's a "sports monopoly?" How is the structure of sport in America different from that in Europe? Five pages, single-spaced, footnotes, all that.

I assume the NFL, NBA, and MLB would all count as effective monopolies.
Also, you call it the World Series when most of the world neither partipates nor cares.

How are European soccer leagues any different?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Kowani wrote:I assume the NFL, NBA, and MLB would all count as effective monopolies.
Also, you call it the World Series when most of the world neither partipates nor cares.

How are European soccer leagues any different?

Well, European soccer leagues do not claim to be World leagues.
Also, relegation and promotion. It is possible to start as a local amateur club and ending up winning the national top-flight championship in less than ten years - and it is also possible to go the other way around.

Risottia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:How are European soccer leagues any different?

Well, European soccer leagues do not claim to be World leagues.
Also, relegation and promotion. It is possible to start as a local amateur club and ending up winning the national top-flight championship in less than ten years - and it is also possible to go the other way around.

The European teams are still bought and sold by individuals and play in a unified league structure, that controls that league and who can and can not play.

As to where they play, If we look at say the soccer team AC Milan, who built and paid for the stadium they play for?

Risottia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:How are European soccer leagues any different?

Well, European soccer leagues do not claim to be World leagues.
Also, relegation and promotion. It is possible to start as a local amateur club and ending up winning the national top-flight championship in less than ten years - and it is also possible to go the other way around.

That's what I thought: the league doesn't have a monopoly on which cities have top-tier professional teams. That would be an incredible help in the US. Teams could no long attempt to blackmail cities into giving them fancier stadia on the threat of the team leaving, which is the root of the problem the thread is discussing.

The New California Republic wrote:

Aclion wrote:Olympics are an even worse prospect then a team because with the Olympics you know they're leaving.

That's an issue that can be resolved with good legacy preparation.

Yup. The previous LA games made a profit, one of the very few that did, and the LA 2028 games will use some of the same facilities. From following the LA Times' website, it seems like planning for 2028 is unusually smart, and the 2028 games are expected to turn a profit again.

I have no idea about the upcoming 2020 Tokyo games or the 2024 Paris games, though. The little I saw suggests the Olympic Committees have at considered the costs in their planning, but that doesn't mean it's their highest priority.

I think the only instance where public funds should be put into use for a stadium is if it is going to be primarily used for non-sports purposes.

No. Tax money should be reserved for defense, border security, disaster relief, basic education, etc.

Entertainment is a nice addition to society but it doesn't need government assistance. If the demand is not there then why should the government bulldoze city blocks to make room for a stadium?

If the government can subsidize a stadium, what stops it from subsidizing literally anything with tax money?

Flaxxony wrote:If the government can subsidize a stadium, what stops it from subsidizing literally anything with tax money?

We're called voters.

No, and the way that cities basically whore themselves out to billionaires and their team corporations is either catastrophically ignorant of how basic governance works or blatant corruption.

It needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, I doubt it's going to be, due to the slavish devotion too many Americans have to sports teams.

Aclion wrote:

Purpelia wrote:That depends on who owns the team and the resulting stadium. If it is privately owned and run than no public money would be spent. But a good case can be made for publicly building stadiums that are to be publicly owned and than leased to a team or something similar.

That arrangement is basically taking the risk in investing in a stadium and transferring it from the person who wants the stadium to the public, with the addional risk that the owner of the team can decide to move to some other town when the lease is up. What will you do with the stadium then? It's not like someone else can start a team to fill the stadium, the leagues are monopolies, and they have a fixed number of teams.

Well basically you rent it out for concerts, public gatherings, various sports events etc. Ideally you'd do that anyway as the team isn't playing games all day every day so you have a lot of down time when they ain't using it that you can rent out.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Okay, well, you explain to the mob of fans with torches and pitchforks that gathered at City Hall when their beloved Mudskippers move to Toledo.

^
The amount of profit you turn isn't always the be all end all of what government is for.

And yet it's the excuse they pull when trying to justify the costs of the stadium. Once again, if the teams are are rich as they claim, they can build their own shit, and every city should absolutely call a team's bluff over moving. Worst comes to worst LA will find itself with half a dozen NFL teams.