New Jersey still owes $110 Million on the Meadowlands. We REALLY need to stop public funding for stadiums.
by smutsboy1 on Sep 8, 2010 11:02 AM EDT
Email
PrintHere's the money (ha) quote:
With more than four decades of evidence to back them up, economists almost uniformly agree that publicly financed stadiums rarely pay for themselves. The notable successes like Camden Yards in Baltimore often involve dedicated taxes or large infusions of private money. Even then, using one tax to finance a stadium can often steer spending away from other, perhaps worthier, projects.
We're all huge sports fans, obviously, but we have to stop supporting public money for stadiums that largely create private revenue, at a net loss to the taxpayer.
The myth that the stadiums pay for themselves needs to be killed off forever.
Read more:
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I couldn't agree more
Once again politicians deciding what is best for everyone. It’s amazing the average person gives a rats ass about this.
Fans buy the lies too.
We rarely hold elected officials responsible. Most taxpayers end up supporting publicly-funded stadiums.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Holy Shit
I had no idea that tax payer money was used like this…
Using tax payer money to build stadiums used by sports teams to generate private revenue. There has GOT to be a more responsible way to spend taxpayers hard-earned dollars.
With rampant unemployment, home foreclosures and an increasing poverty rate, this is the last place taxes should be going..
I think part of the thinking is that the construction, maintenance and use of the arenas help create jobs and promote tourism.
The article doesn’t touch on that aspect of it, and I don’t imagine it’s of significant impact, but it is one of the positive things about it.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Harvard did a study and found that it doesn't really have any positive effect on the local economy
That storyline is a load of BS. It creates a miniscule amount of jobs for hundreds of millions of dollars. Publicly funded stadiums are a losing bet for taxpayers.
by BayAreaBullet on Sep 8, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
yea...PG county where Fedex is a disaster
You never hear of shopping malls close by Landover Mall now is an abandoned awfulness. Even the restaurant that Lavar agreed to put his name on went under…tho there were some crime there if I recall.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
Didn't Jack Kent Cook finance the stadium himself? Partially.
Stadium Financing Private ($180 million) and state ($70.5 million) http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/WashingtonRedskins/index.htm
by Jefferson1935 on Sep 8, 2010 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Landover Mall was having problems before the stadium was built. I knew people that lived nearby who would go to
Annapolis or Parole because of security. The brother of Lynn Bias got shot there.
by Jefferson1935 on Sep 8, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Pretty sure economists take that into account. Otherwise there's no point.
The idea that building a stadium creates $500M in revenue seems outrageous to me.
1,000 construction workers
5,000 stadium staff
a handful of area businesses?
I bet you I could pay those off for less than $500M
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
The quality of the jobs created is suspect as well
I mean no disrespect to the people who work in stadiums, but these aren’t highly-skilled high-paying jobs that are added. And whether the funds were used to build a stadium or some other more widely-beneficial structure, it’s going to provide short-term employment for construction workers. So I don’t see that as a very good argument in favor of doing this either.
plus most of those jobs are temp(construction) or seasonal(stadium staff)
and the staff would be hired regardless of whether or not the stadium is publicly funded.
by BayAreaBullet on Sep 8, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
What frustrates me
Is that the players pay for part of the stadium as well – and the league wants them to pay more.
The league last year took $1billion off the top before the players got their 60% cut…(which is used for stadium construction)…and now they want to make it $2 billion while giving them a smaller cut of the pie. Hard to imagine these two sides settling.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
Its pretty ridiculous that the NFL
refuses to give players a larger slice of the pie, considering that the players are really what bring in the revenue. No players = no football = no revenue. TV stations aren’t going to continue these huge contracts if the players never return to the field.
I partially agree
But this is kind of simplistic. In theory (not that I agree), this is how capitalism works.
Owners. Investment money. Employees. Etc.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Its a strange situation to think about economically
because there is nowhere that players could take their skills and make comparable money besides the NFL, and also its not like the NFL could find new players that could make a product of similar quality for less pay. Its hard to wrap your head around who has the leverage here… probably because the NFL is, basically, a monopoly.
The NFL owners are simply trying to replicate other big business
Smutsboy is right to bring up the word capitalism. Corporations are legally bound to maximize the returns of the stockholders. This almost always happens at the expense of the employees with the glaring exception of the CEO. Completely capitalist countries are unique in that the CEOs compensation is so completely out of line when compared to the salaries of those under him. A reasonable number is 7 to 10 times the average salary of an employee, in this country and in others, it’s 10 to 20 times that.
The NFL is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 50/50 in compensation to owners/players. Of course the owners are trying to skew that more towards what their colleagues in other industries are used to which is 90 to 95% for the owner/CEO and the rest for the employees.
The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button
by Skins Fan '77 on Sep 8, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
The NFL is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 50/50 in compensation to owners/players.
True, but this is 1 owner vs. 53+ players. If you don’t think that NFL owners make 10 to 20 times what an NFL player makes, then I don’t know what you think— but it probably isn’t right.
I think you misunderstood me
Yes, currently NFO owners make 10 to 20 times what an NFL player makes. I reread my statement and realize it’s confusing, what I meant in the corporate world is that CEOs make 10 to 20 times what a reasonable number would be (7 to 10 times) so the product is actually 100 to 200 times
The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button
by Skins Fan '77 on Sep 8, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Erroneous reasoning
This is the same reasoning that unions use to hold corporations over a barrel. They claim that because Ford makes $X.XX Million in profit, the employees of Ford deserve to make Y% of that profit, regardless of what that number is. This is why people get cradle-to-grave healthcare in addition to $40/hr to fasten bolts on a chassis for 8 hrs/day.
People get paid what the market will bear for their employment. If they’re underpaid, someone else will pay more. If they’re overpaid, other people will be offering the same jobs for much less, and in the future the overpaying company will pay down to the market level for the position. Of course, if you overpay, you’ll have all the best people wanting to work for you, but you’ll also have people who just want the money. This entire paragraph can be summed up in two words: Albert Haynesworth.
So I guess what I’m saying is, these people get paid enough. They don’t need a “bigger slice,” they need to make what the market in the NFL will bear. League minimum for a rookie is getting close to $400,000 a year; I’ll make that much in 10 years. I think they’re paid enough.
Look, I agree
and I don’t like unions as much as the next conservative. But, the fact of the matter is that
People get paid what the market will bear for their employment. If they’re underpaid, someone else will pay more. If they’re overpaid, other people will be offering the same jobs for much less, and in the future the overpaying company will pay down to the market level for the position.doesn’t apply to the NFL, because there is no competition to it. The UFL, arena football, etc. just don’t matter. The NFL is the only game in town, and because of that, the owners can dictate their terms to the players.
Why does what they make in comparison to you matter?
The owners make a shit ton more than you do too. I love how people huff and puff all self-righteously about how much a player makes in comparison to them but is totally cool with that money going to even richer owners. It doesn’t matter what you make your not one of 1696 employees who are the most essential and indispensable part of a corporation that brought in 10s of billions of dollars last year. If your worried about what they make you should be arguing against ticket prices, parking fees, sponsorships, cross promotions, $8 beers, stadium licensing deals, official [product X] of the NFL, insanely expensive jerseys/merchandise, etc. Them making more than you is a result of the size of the NFL pie not because players percentage of it. As long as that money is being made I’m not gonna be trying to give it to the owners at the players expense. The Owners make enough and have the luxury of paying for most of their teams on credit and making money for the extent of their natural lives.
by BayAreaBullet on Sep 9, 2010 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Why does it matter what the owners are making, then?
American dream, baby. Making a profit is not a bad thing, it’s what this system was founded on. You find a way to make a buck, and you do it the best you can as long and as hard as you can, and you improve your life, your family’s life, your childrens’ futures. When is rich “too rich?” I don’t see any reason to punish the owners for having found a way to make a shitload of money. There’s not a single one of us on this board that wouldn’t trade places with Snyder in a heartbeat.
For the record, I think players ARE overpaid, AND I think owners have gotten too greedy. The marketplace has started to resist, for example in Jacksonville, where fans got tired enough of a sub-par product on the field that the negatives of paying so much for tickets, parking, food, etc got them to stay home. But if they can still fill the stadiums at high prices, more power to them. You can’t fill 80,000 seats with rich people, so at some point the middle class will win out.
I never said anything about what I make
or what they make in comparison to me. I’ll thank you not to place words into my mouth.
Teams compete with each other
The NFL is unique, its own little microcosm of a workforce marketplace. There might not be other leagues (though there are, and you left out the CFL), but think smaller scale. Let’s say there’s a really good RB out there, and you want to sign him. The market is going to determine what price you’ll have to pay for him, because you’ll be competing against other teams who want to sign him. Competing offers will vary, and based on what teams are offering, the next round of negotiations might see the offers go up or down. It also figures on what other players at that position are making, just as how much you make as a pilot or a chemist would be influenced by how much others are already making in similar positions. Plus, you have the chance to stand out; if your credentials, grades, certifications, references etc are better than everyone else, or if you run faster for longer and stronger, you are probably worth more to the company you work for than someone who is just average, and they will compensate you accordingly to make sure they don’t lose your talents.
It all works out in the end. What the union wants to do is get as much money as possible for its members, so that they can pay more in dues and the union makes more money. Big labor is as corrupt as big business these days, and don’t kid yourself on that. The union is necessary to represent the players and help protect them in such a violent sport, but it’s almost to the point of being one step beyond a necessary evil, IMO.
Maybe my previous post
doesn’t communicate my thoughts on the subject. I’m not some pro-labor union member, and I’m not crying because the owners are greedy capitalists making too much money. I’m all for free-market capitalism, and they should make as much money as possible. That’s America, and that’s their prerogative. However, given how large the NFL pie is getting, I don’t see the all of the union’s demands as unreasonable. It seems silly to me that the owners would rather have a work stoppage in the name of short-term profits than concede a little bit to the players in order to build the brand in the long run.
He just doesn't understand the economic concepts Carver don't sweat it
Lots of big talk showing a stunning lack of understanding of what he’s talking about.
by BayAreaBullet on Sep 9, 2010 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions
not really
there’s all kinds of competition because the NFL is just another form of entertainment and even with football there is college football. While college football isn’t at the same level I know lots of people that only watch college football and don’t watch the NFL at all.
Also you’ve ignored the fact that part of being an owner is that you had the capital to risk and the players are not risking any capital (just their bodies – a rather poor risk IMO but nobody’s making them do it).
Personally I don’t have any sympathy for the owners or players as I think they all make too much but I also don’t want wages dictated to people. I don’t think what either side is doing is wrong or immoral – they’re just looking out for their own interests. I’m grateful that I live in a country where that is allowed.
To be fair Owners don't put up much cash to buy teams
It’s mostly credit.
by BayAreaBullet on Sep 9, 2010 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah they're only risking their health, the ability to walk, permanent brain damage etc...
That is way more of a risk than some guy losing other people’s money imo.
by BayAreaBullet on Sep 10, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe NJ can convince
AH to pay off the debt. After all, he has a knack for picking up 100M or so for little effort.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
The people in other parts of Maryland have subsidized Baltimore's stadiums and other aspects of the City. A
disproportionate share of State highway taxes go to Baltimore City. Montgomery County gets about 17% back of the taxes
it pays out. That is probably true for other more prosperous counties but not to the same extent.
The same way that the
top 10% or so of all Americans pay something like 75% of all tax dollars. I know my numbers aren’t perfect, but that’s the jist of it.
And Democrats are always screaming about the wealthy not pulling their weight. But I digress.
I'm really not interested in going into a political debate here
Which is why I’m asking you not to attack the other side. I’m a Democrat, but I don’t particularly want to respond…there’s no need for that political crap on a sports blog.
I'm back. YAY SUMMER!
It's cool.
I’m not that offended, I just wanted to stop a political debate from happening.
This in effect is a political topic, but it doesn’t have to turn into Democrat vs. Republican.
I'm back. YAY SUMMER!
Well Carver it depends on what taxes you are discussing. Elementary economics text books will give the basics. The U.S.
Treasury Department compiles Statistics of Income from the individual, partnership, and corporate tax forms such as the infamous 1040. The structures of the tax systems of the 50 states is quite varied. For instance, Florida does not have a personal income tax. Most cities and counties rely significantly on property taxes.
Yet all of this is digressing from Smuts original topic concerning who pays for stadiums. Television revenues to the NFL are a large source of the leagues income. Businesses buy the commercials which in turn are paid for by the ultimate consumers.
Salaries and wages make up the bulk of income even during recessions. Those that enjoy the entertainment probably should be the ones that pay for the whole shebang, but we don’t know how that shakes out.
by Jefferson1935 on Sep 9, 2010 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Not really a good parallel to funding something for private ownership and private profit. IMO
disproportionate share of State highway taxes go to Baltimore City. Montgomery County gets about 17% back of the taxes
it pays out. That is probably true for other more prosperous counties but not to the same extent.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
The issue isn't one of good parallels, but it does involve morals and politics. Obviously someone gets the short end of the stick.
by Jefferson1935 on Sep 9, 2010 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
The issue isn’t one of good parallels
You brought some up, not me.
Obviously someone gets the short end of the stick.
Yes. In this case, taxpayers are. By a wide margin. Hence the article and my post.
This is because they don’t care, or aren’t paying attention, or don’t hold elected officials responsible.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Some thoughts
I posted this elsewhere during a debate on bringing professional soccer to Portland, Oregon:
“Cities use professional sports to bring people in. Don’t forget that cities need citizens, thus the derivation of the word. Sports teams are as useful and needed as a good performing arts venue, a good library system, good education, public transportation, etc. It’s all part of the “standard of living” calculation, and as such, it makes a ton of sense for cities to invite sports teams in and even help pay for stadiums. Would the city of Denver have as high a profile as it does if it didn’t have professional sports teams like the Broncos, Nuggets and Rockies? Sure, it’s a beautiful place to live, but those teams put them on a much bigger national map than the scenic views and good shopping.
Is it worth it for Portland? Up to the city to decide. But don’t go trying to say it makes no sense to spend the money … bringing in more people means more tax revenue, more population, more clout and more exposure. Sports teams help make a city relevant."
Not according to Harvard
And if you think a sports teams is as important to a city’s economy and ability to grow and thrive as public transportation your deluded.
by BayAreaBullet on Sep 9, 2010 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I didn't say "as important"
but it’s all a part of it. Take any small city (like Pensacola, where I live) and you’ll find them constantly trying to keep sports teams in town. We have a minor league hockey team, independent minor league baseball, a women’s football team, and we used to have minor league basketball. Every year, one of the teams we have will talk about having to leave or shut down, and every year the city figures out a way to keep them. Why? We have plenty to do here, the most beautiful beaches in the world, great food, good local music scene, plenty of fine arts exposure, etc etc. We keep them because they add something to the identity of the city and the quality of life here.
that's a very nebulous value you're placing on sports teams
and it’s far from given that $500M on a sports stadium is the most efficient use of money if your goal is to bring in residents and raise profile.
I’m not against all public funding for stadiums, but footing anything more than 20-30% seems egregious to me.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Agreed
I guess I’m not so much arguing for this specific case as against people who were talking about no public funding at all, etc. This case is a bit over the top, indeed.
"Sports teams are as useful and needed as a good performing arts venue, a good library system, good education, public transportation, etc"
But yeah you didn’t say they were as important. Definitely not.
by BayAreaBullet on Sep 9, 2010 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I I would've thought that jobs
Would be the most important thing to a city, but what the hell do I know I never graduated from college.
The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button
They probably are
which is why I think it’s a mistake to spend $500M on a stadium in the name of “jobs”
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
One can make some arguments based on "Civic Pride" or other Qualitative gains
But from a strictly economic sense there is no impact or job/tax revenue windfall. Thats actually one of the few things economists from all politcal persuasions can agree on. If people wanna view it as what it is, a luxury, that in no way pays for itself thats totally cool. But the argument that it stimulates the economy or has positive gains for the tax payer isn’t really true. It will always appeal to Politicians of both sides of the aisle because it is a cheap PR gain that they can get and most often these subsidized stadiums are made possible by “Hotel Taxes” that don’t affect the people voting for them. Of course if they are in the tourism/hospitality industry and are now less competive with other cities it affects them but people rarely think that far ahead.
by BayAreaBullet on Sep 9, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- From Cam to RGIII, and the weird psychology of draft analysis
- UCLA comes down with a case of Tebowmania
- Ellen tries to get Kate Upton to confirm Mark Sanchez is her boyfriend
- Sore loser Bully Ray spits beer in the face of Brandon Jacobs
- Anthony Shadid followed the Green Bay Packers, with love, from a distance
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
