
Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team - finid
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insight-idUSKCN0VC0EP
======
onetwotree
The Green Bay packers have an interesting approach to this problem, although
it requires a fanatical fan base and special ownership provisions, and the
fact that the team can't leave Green Bay (without a vote by the shareholders,
who are all fans, which will never, ever, happen).

When they want to improve their stadium, they issue stock and sell more season
tickets. This works because Packers stock cannot be sold or traded after
purchase, and a season ticket is, for many working class Wisconsin families,
an heirloom. A friend who's a Wisconsin native was put on the waiting list for
season tickets at birth, and is in his parents' will to inherit his mother's
ticket. His mom is probably going to die before he breaks 10,000th on the
list, so that position will go to his kids. It's insane like that.

But it means that the taxpayers of Wisconsin, including those of us who, like
myself, could really care less about football, don't have to foot the bill for
maintenance and improvements to the Packers' stadium. But again, the Packers
have a uniquely fanatical fan base, were created with provisions to keep them
in Green Bay forever, and are owned by the fans.

~~~
nhebb
The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be
repeated elsewhere.

 _" The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires clubs to
be wholly owned either by a single owner, or small group of owners, and
requires that at least one owner owns a 1/3 stake in the team. The Packers are
granted an exemption to this rule, as they have been a publicly owned
corporation since before the rule was in place."_

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers_Board_of_Dir...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers_Board_of_Directors)

~~~
scoofy
That seems extremely anti-competitive. I wonder if that rule could be
challenged.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Private company, go start yer own football league if you don't like it, etc.

~~~
rickycook
that's a pretty horrendous way to change what's morally wrong with the world

~~~
TheGRS
The alternative is to change a majority of people's minds that this is
something morally wrong with the world, make cases to supreme court and/or
lobby congress and eventually turn the tide in your favor. Not really sure
which way is easier.

------
JackFr
It's not an unreasonable position for a municipality to chose lose money on a
stadium. They typically lose money on symphony orchestras, ballets and
performing arts centers. That one is considered low culture and the other
considered high culture is not relevant is we assume that the people are being
ably represented.

But what seems to infuriate people is that orchestras and ballets are
typically not owned by billionaires, and they are not part of a league with a
multi-billion dollar budget.

~~~
gozur88
What infuriates people is these deals are always sold to the public as some
sort of net-positive redevelopment, instead of what's really happening, which
is a transfer of tax money to team owners.

With orchestras and ballets and performing arts centers everybody knows up
front you have an ongoing financial liability. And the numbers are smaller.

~~~
adventured
> which is a transfer of tax money to team owners

It's primarily a transfer of money to players. In the next ten years players
will earn around $50 to $55 billion in income. That's _drastically_ beyond
anything owners will either earn via operations or extract through capital
gains via a sale.

Take the Houston Texans for example. They're stated as the 7th most valuable
NFL franchise per Forbes, generating $114m in operating income (not net
income) annually - the salary cap is $143m. Green Bay? Tenth most valuable,
they only generate $63m in profit - every 10 to 12 years, the Green Bay
players earn more total than the entire franchise is worth. The bottom 20
teams? Forget about it.

Most leagues are the same, the players overwhelmingly extract the value. The
top 450 NBA players are set (with the new TV rights money) to earn more than
all of the Fortune 500 CEOs combined in terms of salary (~$17 trillion in
market cap of the companies those CEOs operate).

~~~
cmurf
That makes me feel better, actually. It's obscene money, and I don't agree
with the subsidy. But, the players get beat up, and CET. Some commit suicide.

Fans paying high ticket prices, parking, meh whatever, make them pay more
instead of begging from taxpayers though.

~~~
douche
The rank-and-file football player, arguably, is underpaid, particularly in
comparison to their colleagues in MLB or the NBA. I think the median salary
for non-rookie deal NBA players is north of $5 million/year now. Baseball is
similarly outrageous for veterans that reach free agency (the Red Flops were
handing out $10 million deals like candy the last couple of years). Not to
mention that those deals are guaranteed, unlike the NFL, where players are
routinely cut when injured or just before they reach thresholds where bonuses
kick in. s

------
giarc
I live in Calgary and our NHL arena is nearing the end of it's life. Our
mayor, Naheed Nenshi, has been very vocal about public funding for arena's and
is holding the owners group and the NHLs 'feet to the fire' so to speak.

>I have said for a long time — and continue to strongly believe — that public
money must be for public benefit and not private profit. [0]

I don't think he's necessarily against using public money, but he's not
willing to just throw money at a stadium just because the Calgary Flames and
the NHL say it's a good idea, or because 'that's the way it's done'.

[0] - [http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-
flames/ma...](http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames/mayor-
nenshis-statement-on-the-flames-arena-project)

~~~
wesd
It's a terrible time to try to get public funding for a billion dollar project
in Alberta while thousands of people are losing their jobs due to oil price.

They will try again. Here is a Grantland picce that covert it:
[http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-to-sell-a-stadium-
in-s...](http://grantland.com/the-triangle/how-to-sell-a-stadium-in-six-easy-
steps-calgary-gets-the-high-pressure-pitch/)

------
randycupertino
Between the scam of municipalities losing so much $$ on stadiums, how the
stadiums cause urban blight sitting empty most of the time then causing major
traffic headaches the other times, and the CTE injury rate, I can't fathom how
football still exists today as a popular sport. Seems like the whole thing is
a house of cards that needs to collapse.

~~~
Touche
I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of
action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average
football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes
of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it.

[1]
[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406)

~~~
sampo
As someone who recently moved to the US, should I first try to learn about
American football, or about baseball?

~~~
sehr
Definitely football, it's more popular (unless you're in St. Louis).

Baseball games are really fun to watch in person though, more so than football
in my opinion. It's just an excuse to drink and shoot the shit while hearing a
bat crack every once in a while, always a great night out

Also checkout basketball, especially if you're in the bay.

~~~
derekp7
That's why I hear some people say that Wrigley Field is Chicago's largest bar,
and it happens to have a game field in the middle of it.

~~~
mixmastamyk
They must have reasonable prices? Here on the west coast its probably now $15
per shitty light corporate American beer. It was $13 last time I went about 4
years ago.

So, I couldn't imagine going just to have a few beers, in fact more likely to
abstain on principle.

~~~
kelnos
Depends on where, I guess. AT&T Park (SF Giants) serves decent beer (Guinness,
among other things) for either $11 or $12 (as of last fall). Still highway
robbery, but better than $15 for piss water.

------
georgefrick
Money a city gives towards a stadium should be returned in the form of shares
in the team. Otherwise no deal. St. Louis should be selling their shares to LA
for a profit right now...

~~~
gist
Unlikely. There is competition from other geographic areas. If a team can
simply play one venue against another they do have the upper hand
unfortunately.

~~~
ashark
Do any cities own their own teams? I was thinking about this the other day,
and as someone who doesn't really follow sports I think I'd actually be _more_
supportive of things like stadium building if the city were involved _more
heavily_ —namely, if the city owned the team(s), or at least a controlling
share.

I'd also be way more likely to care about and cheer for "our" team if they
couldn't just pull up stakes and move to another city if we don't bribe them
enough to keep them. Fan loyalty to commercial teams that don't have any real
ties to the home city (they don't even have to give up their name if they
leave!) strikes me as bizarre.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
If I understand correctly, the Green Bay Packers cut up the ownership of the
team something like 3,000 different ways. They did this deliberately so that
the team could _never_ move, because it would be impossible to get a majority
in favor of moving.

When the (first) Cleveland Browns moved, the city negotiated that they had to
use a different name. They became the Baltimore Ravens, and Cleveland was able
to call the new franchise the Browns.

~~~
wadetandy
The Baltimore Browns probably also didn't play very well from a PR
perspective.

------
joshstrange
John Oliver did a good piece on this as well and how crazy it is that the
public pays so much for these things:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs)

------
beastman82
I'm from St. Louis. The Cardinals also bilked > $500M towards their new
stadium despite being the most profitable MLB team.

The mayor went around telling everyone it was a good idea. Of course the
touted economic benefits are usually an order of magnitude above reality.

IMO basically capitalized on a huge inferiority complex.

~~~
vermontdevil
$500M? The stadium cost $365M and most of it private money. The county loaned
$45M for improvements.

 _Busch Stadium had a final cost of $365 million when it opened in 2006. Of
that cost, $45 million (12%) came from a long-term loan from St. Louis County.
Private financing came in the tune of $90.1 million in cash from the
Cardinals, $200.5 in bonds paid by the team, and $9.2 million in interest
earned on the construction fund the Cardinals held. The stadium has a seating
capacity of 46,861 and is owned by the St. Louis Cardinals. The stadium does
not have a roof, or its own named expressway. I was unable to determine who
paid for the cost overruns of $20.2 million._

[http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2009/05/28/miller-park-vs-busch-
st...](http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2009/05/28/miller-park-vs-busch-stadium-
milwaukee-vs-st-louis/)

~~~
beastman82
Roughly $520M.

[http://www.lindenwood.edu/moPolicyJournal/issue02/articles/c...](http://www.lindenwood.edu/moPolicyJournal/issue02/articles/click/click.pdf)

>However, the Cardinals also receive significant returns through an estimated
$520 million in public subsidies: $350 million from St. Louis City’s five
percent admission tax 30-year waiver, $20 million from St. Louis City’s
25-year property tax abatement, $108 million paid by St. Louis County to
retire the $45 million in stadium bonds, and $42 million from Missouri tax
credits and highway ramp construction. Further, the Cardinals also receive an
additional estimated $150 million in new stadium selling sources: $100 million
over 30 years on stadium naming rights, $40 million from the Ballpark Founders
Program that charges season ticket holders $2,000- $7,500 for new stadium
seats, and $10 million from old Busch Stadium memorabilia sales

------
NamTaf
Why aren't stadiums shared multi-use endeavours?

Here, square stadiums are used by rugby (union and league) in the winter and
soccer in the summer. Oval stadiums are used by AFL in the winter and cricket
in the summer. In between, they occasionally host concerts - for example, when
there's away games, or mid-week, or between seasons.

This seems like a way better approach than the NFL one. Is it just because NFL
/ baseball / basketball (the 'big 3' in the US as far as I can tell) are all
so radically different in field/court size and design that they can't be
housed together? Is there any overlap that _can_ occur in stadium mixed-use?

~~~
bmm6o
> Why aren't stadiums shared multi-use endeavours?

Because nothing about this whole thing is rational. Sharing makes sense if the
owners want to split costs and get year-round use out of it, but if every
major sports team in the area can strong-arm its own special-purpose stadium
from the local government, then they will.

There are exceptions, like sibling comments note. In LA, the Staples Center is
actually shared by 3 teams (2 NBA, 1 NHL) and is also a popular concert venue.
It works great for the city having the one building in the heart of downtown
to build an ecosystem around rather than 3 or 4 similar ones spread out.

~~~
bmm6o
And I don't recall the details of the deal to build the Staples Center, but as
a city LA has been pretty steadfast about not providing public money for
sports venues. This may have pushed the incentives to make sharing much more
sensible.

------
whyenot
I don't know. When cities get involved in a venture like this, it's usually
because that is what their citizens want. For example, Levi Stadium in Santa
Clara went before the voters, who approved it's funding model (1). On a moral
level, I have a real problem with a sport that when played successfully leads
to debilitating brain damage (2), but it's pretty clear I am in the minority
on that.

1\. Without going too far out on a tangent, there was more to the story, see
here:
[http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165](http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20107165)

2\. "Stabler is the seventh former N.F.L. quarterback to be found to have had
C.T.E. by Boston University, which has found C.T.E. in 90 of the 94 former
N.F.L. players it has examined"
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/sports/football/ken-
stable...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/sports/football/ken-stabler-nfl-
cte-brain-disease.html)

~~~
throwaway60453
Excuse me, local resident here.

Santa Clara City residents approved $400 million in financing.

City Council went ahead with a promise for ... $1.3 billion so far. So most of
it was not voted on at all.

~~~
bringles
But how were the council members appointed? Resident approval must be involved
somehow. If this city council is doing a bad job (seems like it), push for a
new council. If the tide is too strong against, you have to challenge ideas.

A lot of folks seem to believe there's a legal apparatus we need to invent
that can solve this, when it's perfectly sufficient to just get traction for a
critical stance on concussionball (gasp!)

~~~
tamana
When you fire a council, you don't get the money back.

~~~
jessaustin
And they get to keep all but the most egregious bribes...

------
jacalata
The article seems to focus on "because they might leave" but the real reason
is this line:

> Even before the team decided to leave, the city's stadium revenues didn't
> cover its payments, leaving the city with annual shortfalls.

------
mc32
"This is why no city..." "Any city" sounds more like non English grammar.

That said, I most certainly agree that cities should not be in the business of
subsidizing sports teams, when those are private money making enterprises.

St. Louis should sue the NFL and all cities in the same position (potentially
liable for stadium costs, if team were to leave) should hold out till the NFL
guarantees debts.

Build schools, get more teachers, do something worthwhile with the tax dollars
you have.

------
bdcravens
> Houston’s iconic Astrodome, once dubbed the Eighth Wonder of the World, sits
> empty a decade after the facility housed 25,000 evacuees of Hurricane
> Katrina and nearly 20 years after the Oilers left.

It's worth noting that the Astrodome sits in the NRG complex, next door to the
NRG Stadium where the Texans play, and in the same parking lot as the NRG
Center, where events like the Houston Livestock and Rodeo take place. Just
this week they were planting grass outside of the Astrodome to beautify it for
the upcoming Rodeo. (NRG Arena is in the same complex) In other words, it's
not the isolated abandoned property that other properties in the article
describe. (it's not finalized, but it will likely become a park to bridge NRG
Center and Stadium)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
> but [the Astrodome] will likely become a park to bridge NRG Center and
> Stadium

Only because so many people are too sentimental for the damn thing to knock it
down. It's likely to become a greater boondoggle than anything else that
exists on the property.

~~~
bdcravens
costs to demolish have been estimated between $30m-$60m

------
elchief
[https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev...](https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev/econrevarchive/2001/1q01rapp.pdf)

"So does it makes sense for metro areas to use public funds to attract and
retain major league sports franchises? The answer is definitely not if
benefits are limited to increases in economic activity and tax revenue
collection. A strong case can be made, however, that the quality-of-life
benefits from hosting a major league team can sometimes justify the large
public outlays associated with doing so"

Either way, there's always a risk of teams relocating, and this should be
taken into account.

~~~
Someone1234
That report or whatever it is is really low quality. I just read the "How
hosting a professional sports team contributes to quality of life" (page 71)
section, and it reads like a middle schooler's homework.

It is devoid of facts and has questionable logic and very questionable
conclusions. Honestly it is junk.

Essentially their entire quality of life argument boils down to "BUT SPORTS
ARE AWESOME!!!" then just pull random dollar figures out of thin air and
attach them to how awesome it is for fans to enjoy watching sports (????).

~~~
scythe
>Formally, the quality-of-life benefit to a particular fan who attends a
sports game is the amount above the admission price they would have been
willing to spend to attend the game. For instance, if someone is willing to
spend $30 to attend a game that only costs $20, they receive a $10 quality-of-
life benefit. Adding up the individual quality-of-life benefits of all
residents who attend games yields the total metro area’s quality-of-life
benefit from game attendance.

Nope, this is real economic theory. It's not something the Fed invented out of
thin air, and it's used in a wide variety of fields. Of course, there is a
(widely-acknowledged) epistemic problem in assuming a person's desire for
something is proportional to the happiness they will receive from it -- this
is called "the theory of revealed preferences", and it is used primarily
because all of the alternatives people have been able to think of so far (for
assessing happiness) are even worse.

------
stplsd
I am from Europe and this looks almost surreal for me. It is unheard of here
that team simply packs players and go to other city. Sport culture and sport
business so different in USA.

~~~
philwelch
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Wimbledon_F.C._t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Wimbledon_F.C._to_Milton_Keynes)

~~~
theoracle101
This was literally blasphemy in the UK, so not sure what you're point is?

~~~
valleyer
Fans in the U.S. don't take too kindly to it either. See fan reactions to
relocations of the Baltimore Colts, Cleveland Browns, St. Louis Rams, etc.

~~~
theoracle101
How can you compare the top tier relocation to the third tier?

------
speeder
I am from Brazil.

You should not build any stadiums for a private team using public money, the
only stuff you should build with public money is stuff aiming for public use
(example: community centers, bicycle race tracks that anyone can use, public
olympic swimming pools for anyone that wanna learn and train, and so on).

The World Cup stadiums are right now mostly abandoned, and giving us lots of
trouble, some of them saw like 3 games during the tournament, and were never
used again, it is a waste of money and land.

Other stadiums now we found out that were just a means to funnel corruption
money in certain people pockets, and even the stadiums that ARE in use, don't
made the government profit.

The World Cup in fact made the country lose money, the tourist spending don't
covered all the money we lost. (and no, it didn't drove the economy either,
one of the effects of the World Cup is that the government defaulted on many
companies, that were forced to also default, and so on, resulting in my
parents shop being defaulted too, and now we are in deep shit, including
struggling to buy food sometimes, my parents are unsure when a potential new
costumer shows up, if they sell because we desperately need the money, or if
they refuse the sale because we've been defaulted too much and cannot afford
another default).

------
cowardlydragon
The NFL is a unionized, state-supported, maximally regulated market with rigid
spending requirements, price fixing, supply shortages...

... held up as the conservative free market jingoistic ideal.

~~~
quadrangle
Unions only come into existence because of capitalism. In a cooperative, the
employees _are_ the owners, so there's no such thing as a union.

The NFL is certainly not maximally-regulated, in that more regulations are
possible.

But the key here is that corrupt corporate wealthy powerful people are
_always_ happy to claim that _whatever_ they are doing to stay wealthy and
powerful is actually based on some ideal whether that's socialism or
capitalism or whatever. It's basically never true, of course.

~~~
icebraining
_Unions only come into existence because of capitalism. In a cooperative, the
employees are the owners, so there 's no such thing as a union._

What about unions of public workers? Even in the USSR there were unions.
Worker cooperatives are not the only alternative to capitalism.

~~~
quadrangle
True, I really meant more like "capitalism naturally leads to unions" rather
than implying that nothing else can do so. But unions don't exist within
cooperatives. The bigger point is: Unions are a _symptom_ of bigger systemic
problems.

------
st3v3r
Not just stadiums. This is why no city/state should be able to offer anything
like this for any private entity, be they sports team, movie crew, or private
company.

~~~
ec109685
There is never a case when there is a net positive benefit for th city by
enticing a corporation to move in?

~~~
st3v3r
You'd have to measure that against other things that money could have done.
And in many times, the company would be moving anyway.

------
greenbay_ftw
Green Bay has an interesting structure in that it is a non-profit with the
community owning shares of it, and have no financial incentive to own it --
only team support and voting rights.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers#Community_ow...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers#Community_ownership))

It would be a fascinating experiment if more teams did this, but I can't
imagine an owner giving up control like that.

~~~
richsherwood
The Saskatchewan roughriders do this as well. Its CFL though.

------
tshtf
Relevant Onion article, which Chinese media reported as true:

[http://www.theonion.com/article/congress-threatens-to-
leave-...](http://www.theonion.com/article/congress-threatens-to-leave-dc-
unless-new-capitol--98)

[http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/U-S-satire-tricks-
Beijing...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/U-S-satire-tricks-Beijing-
paper-Satire-fools-2829911.php)

------
cowardlydragon
Convert them to exotic hanging gardens of babylon public spaces then. Or water
parks. or something similar.

There has to be SOMETHING you can do with a structure like that.

~~~
prawn
At one point, ignoring the significant maintenance costs, you could buy a huge
stadium in Detroit for less than my house is worth. A friend and I would joke
about living in the corporate suites and raising livestock and crops on the
interior field.

------
blisterpeanuts
Phoenix built a huge sports stadium, then gave the naming rights to University
of Phoenix in return for a donation, which rankled a lot of taxpayers who had
footed most of the bill.

They levy a tax of several bucks on every car rental called the "stadium tax",
ostensibly to help fund the stadium, although critics say it punishes tourists
and locals who need a rental car, and anyway the money is apparently routed to
other uses.

I see nothing wrong with building a world class sports facility. Build it, and
they will come. It brings in millions of dollars in tourism and related
business. The problem is when cities that build these things don't know how to
budget properly, don't monetize the stadium properly, and piss away a lot of
the money in corruption, fraud, nepotism, are taken advantage of by
unscrupulous contractors and unions, and so forth.

Probably a public-private consortium would do a better job in the long run.
Public to get the initial rights-of-way and easements, private to run the
thing efficiently and profitably and defend against the con artists who plague
all such major projects.

------
maxxxxx
What I find fascinating that the most anti-government people (usually right
wing) are usually for these deals and the more pro-government people (usually
left wing) are against these deals. At least this is my observation.

Scott Walker for example signed a stadium deal in Wisconsin and campaigns on
small government.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Because its often more a cultural issue than not. And right-wingers are hardly
anti government when it suits their own ends.

------
adamjcook
This article reminds me of a report that John Stossel did some years ago on
the economics of sport stadiums.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bGNIgdOLa0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bGNIgdOLa0)

------
kwoff
The article linked to is promising.

[http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-americans-know-
so-m...](http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-americans-know-so-much-
about-sports-so-little-about-world-affairs)

------
thetruthseeker1
I dont agree with the way the title is worded: as if to indicate that it is
wrong in principle to build a stadium for NFL team. I think this is a case of
a bad business deal or contract. The NFL clearly had a better contract here.
If the deal was worded such that St. Louis Ram's teams were obligated to play
there for X years or something else that guarantees cash flow, probably the
city wouldn't have had such a loss. It is just poor deal making.

------
yeehong
Because NFL have been allowed to set up artificial caps on the number of
franchises that can exist, owners have repeatedly used the threat of
relocation to extort municipalities into paying for stadiums.

While European soccer clubs are punished by relegation into a lower league for
sustained mediocrity, the pro sports monopolies in the U.S. ensure that even
the most poorly-managed franchises are still immensely profitable.

------
ashwinaj
So it's just like Wall Street, tax payers take the losses while the team
owners take all the profits.

Brilliant, when will the so called "fans" comprehend this?

------
vermontdevil
To be fair, that stadium now can be used for conventions. It's attached to a
large convention center.

The problem was for years the Convention Authority couldn't use the stadium 6
months a year (August to Jan) as NFL releases their schedule around March (I
think). Conventions are typically planned far ahead than NFL.

Now maybe the Convention Authority can start to utilize the space and pare
down the debt faster. Who knows.

------
BuckRogers
It looks pretty clear, unless you have the NY or LA market, you're going to
pay some team to play in your city. Dallas, Atlanta, SF, NE are runners up on
getting a team to invest their own money.

You would think at being the 3rd largest market, Chicago would be in the same
situation as NY/LA, but I'm assuming the systemic corruption led to the bad
deal on Soldier Field.

------
btreesOfSpring
For those interested in the topic, this book [0] is a pretty good starting
point for understanding the modern stadium construction game.

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/New-Cathedrals-Politics-
Construction-E...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Cathedrals-Politics-Construction-
Entertainment/dp/0815631324)

~~~
frandroid
Now if only stadia were built to last, like cathedrals...

------
gerbilly
Cities shouldn't go into debt for stadiums.

But...I can see spending some public money towards sports venues.

I mean not everyone takes a stroll in city parks, or uses the library or
visits the aquarium, but it would be peevish to insist that people only pay
for what they themselves use.

------
JackFr
Why are these stadiums not financed with revenue bonds? Municipalities
typically issue bonds as general obligations or as revenue bonds where there
is no obligation to the broader municipality, only to the revenue producing
entity.

------
draw_down
No, that's not why. Cities shouldn't do it because sports are not a public
concern.

~~~
rmxt
Sports are a form of entertainment....entertainment can and does drive
spending.... and spending can contribute to more jobs and more tax revenue.
Seems fair that sports are, in turn, a public concern.

That isn't to say that building a stadium or hosting the Olympics is
inherently a profitable affair.

~~~
draw_down
Except, whoops, the bucks only ever go to sports teams.

~~~
rmxt
What of all the employees of the stadium? Of all the travel to and from the
stadium? Of the merchandising deals? And any other numerous subsequent
results... what does the money that goes to the employees or third-parties
count as? They don't get paid in company scrip.

That's akin to saying that the money for any government funded project only go
to the party directly responsible for building/supporting it, and all of the
consequences from the initial project are inherently zero.

------
ArkyBeagle
The contrary view is the story of why the Brooklyn Dodgers left for
California. Ball clubs are semi-public goods, so it gets tedious very quickly
trying to factor it all out.

------
natch
"The fans are left holding the bag."

If only that were the case. Unfortunately, it's the taxpayers, not the smaller
subset that are fans, who are left holding the bag.

------
danr4
obligatory Last Week Tonight video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs)

------
ck2
The billionaire owners in the NFL socialize the costs of building stadiums,
not paying cheerleaders, etc. but keep the profits for themselves. I wonder
how little in taxes they pay.

------
drpgq
So what happens to the Edward Jones sponsorship?

~~~
giarc
They likely have a section in their contract that covers this and can probably
back out if no NFL team is present.

