Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team | Hacker News Reader

Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

reuters.com

328 pointsfinid279 comments

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.

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...

Apparently the limit is now 5% per individual, 30% per family, and stakes can be owned by irrevocable family trusts:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/25...

The loophole-finder in me wonders if it would be possible to create "The Mitochondrial Eve Family Trust", for all descendants of mitochondrial Eve, by invitation only. Assets could then be contributed into this trust in exchange for season tickets to a football team, and the trust would own the team. Additional restrictions (eg. X generations of residency in a certain metropolitan area) might apply.

If you're trying to game the system, why try to create a definition for family when one already exists that serves your purpose?

Just have your team be owned by the Hominidae family.

Then you'll have bonobos showing up and claiming their percentage.

Well if they do claim it, who are we to deny them?

Hmm. Those guys can be pretty unruly when they're in crowds.

As a Green Bay Packer Shareholder, there's a lot wrong with your idea. As per the 2011 Offering Document[1]:

1) The limit isn't 5% per individual, 30% per family. It's 200 shares. Total.

2) Shares can only be transferred to immediate family, defined as "the spouse, children, mother, father, brothers, sisters, or any lineal descendant of a shareholder". An improper transfer will give the Corporation the right to purchase the shares at 2 .5 cents per share.

3) "As is the case with holders of Outstanding Shares, a purchaser of Common Stock in the Offering will not receive any Packers merchandise, through the purchase of Common Stock. However, purchasers will play a key role in facilitating the continued viability of a professional football team in Green Bay and will have the opportunity to have a voice in the Corporation’s governance. In addition, shareholders will receive an invitation to the Corporation’s annual meeting and have the opportunity to purchase exclusive shareholder merchandise."[1]

Or in the words of Tom from "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels", "You get a gold plated Rolls-Royce, as long as you pay for it."

So what do you get? A piece of paper. The right to vote. The ability to purchase specially branded merchandise. It's not even really a fan club.

[1] http://media.broadridge.com/documents/GBP+2011+Offering+Docu...

[2] http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/01/13/are-the-green-ba...

He was talking about the rules for other teams (pointing out that the minimum stake has gone down from 30% to 5%, apparently). The Green Bay model is explicitly banned for every other team.

Clever, but probably some spoilsport judge would frown at families with 7 billion members.

It wouldn't make sense to consider family lineage from before the team existed. That alone limits how much you can expand the pool of eligible shareholders.

It depends on the state. Some still have rules against eternal trusts (google "rule against perpetuities") but the trend is now towards the supernatural. So it might fly as an Alaska trust.

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

It's a League. The entire reason for its existence is to be anticompetitive (in business).

Yes. Note the idiom "in league with."

The NFL got Congress to write them a specific exemption in the anti-trust laws, so it's very, very doubtful.

I've heard about an exemption for baseball, although that came from judicial corruption rather than being a legislative effort. Confirm that there's a specific legislative exemption for football too?

[1] 15 U.S. Code § 1291 - Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of professional football leagues

[2] 26 U.S. Code § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1291

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501

There are also a few more places the Code references football: https://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/football?f[0]=bundle...

Football and baseball are not equivalently exempt. Baseball enjoys far broader exemption. The NFL does have some conditional exemptions, but not in the same scope [1]. Recently, the US Supreme Court said exactly as much [2] in a very specific scenario.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Sc...

[2] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-661

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

It's been tried a few times... Probably the best challenge was the USFL, but they couldn't make a go of it over the long term, and that was when the NFL media machine was much less entrenched. The ESPN 30 for 30 film "Small Potatoes: Who Killed The USFL?" is pretty interesting (especially given that Trump was a key player in that drama)[1]

[1] http://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=small-potatoes-who-kill...

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

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.

I was mocking it not endorsing it.

XFL

non profit with tax breaks you mean

Any industry can form a similar nonprofit trade association. The members pay tax.

When it's convenient, yup, doing a public service, keeping kids off drugs, stuff like that.

The Green Bay Packers are a non-profit corporation in a private sports league. Business competition within a league is prima facie absurd.

A team's fans could form a corporation which would be a single owner, but I'm sure the NFL would find a way around that pronto.

That's what the NFL rule specifically prevents. They require a single human owner, or a small group where one of the humans has at least a 1/3 stake.

The first thing I'd do is to take away the tax exempt status of the NFL.

The NFL gave up nonprofit status last year, and its status as one was a bit of a misunderstanding. All the teams (except the Packers) were taxed for-profits, as was the merchandising, TV deals, etc. Basically all the revenue streams were already taxed, and now that they're not non-profit the NFL can be a lot more opaque about its finances.

Didn't this already happen?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/nfl-tax-exempt-stat... NFL Voluntarily Ends Tax-Exempt Status

"Beginning with the 2015 fiscal year, the NFL's league office and management council will file tax returns as taxable entities."

I don't think it will matter. The NFL doesn't make money - the teams make money.

Not true. Roger Goodell made $44 million in 2013. Kind of shocking you can do that and still be considered a non profit.

Non-profits can still pay their employees & managers well (very well, in this case).

The NFL is already planning to do this. Besides, the teams pay tax.

Most was actually covered by a sales tax: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/money/2015/09/29/l...

>without a vote by the shareholders, who are all fans

Doesn't the German football team system work like this too? I think it at least does for Bayern.

Yep! The club/members have to own >50% of the club to compete in the German pro leagues

In the past, private ownership wasn't even allowed but that changed in the 90s.

Even cooler, the 2 largest football clubs on earth, Real Madrid & Barcelona are completely fan owned. They even vote for the presidency of the club! So refreshing compared to American sports, though without a salary cap their competitions are 1000x more predictable & boring. (ex. RM won their league match on Sunday 6-0, and Barca just won today 7-0)

I guess the biggest difference is that, in European soccer (especially in lovely England), the clubs are vastly more powerful than the leagues and governing bodies of the sport. In the NFL, NBA etc, the opposite seems to be the case - the teams are more like suppliers to the league.

Both systems, to put it mildly, have their warts.

Clarification: The corporate structure of the Green Bay Packers is shrouded in a mystery that would make a venture funded Silicon Valley company blush.

There are are multiple classes of stock. The later issued ones are indeed basically paper trinkets bought by rabid "cheese heads" so they could claim "ownership".

There is apparently no reason the owners of the few voting shares couldn't change the bylaws.

Rumor is that the NFL had to step in the 1980s (90s ?) and force the Packer owners to run a better shop (and stop paying themselves dividends). Same rumor mill reports they had to step in and force the New York Giants (who were paralyzed by two incompetent owners that owned 50% each) to run a better ship.

Note that this intervention turned around the fortunes these two teams which had earned reputations for gridiron incompetence. Miracle in the Meadowlands? Bart Starr coach?

Both the Packers and Giants have been very competitive, well run franchises since.

Don't know about the Packers, but the league definitely intervened with the Giants. One of the Maras sold out to the Tisches, the other one is is still there.

Well, it's a good thing they've locked in a team, because no one in their right mind would build one in Green Bay Wisconsin today when there are fools in warmer climates literally throwing money at anyone who will move a team.

NFL disruption tactic: calculate sites of new major cities based on projected global temperatures, ice cap melt and rising water changing coastlines; start minor league in those cities. Wait.

They are just finishing the new stadium in Minneapolis, which is colder, on average, than green bay[1] ...

[1] average low temp in MPLS, in January, is 8F, as compared to 9F in Green Bay.

That stadium is a heated dome.

... unfortunately.

How do you sell more season tickets to raise money? There are only so many seats and like you said, ticket rights are passed down from generation to generation. And like other folks said, there is a sales tax.

Green Bay may be off the hook for NFL stadium costs, but Wisconsin's still paying at least a quarter of a billion dollars for the new Bucks arena.

I'm glad there are other Wisconsinites who don't give a shit about football. HELLO FRIEND

That said, those of us in Brown County still got stuck with a 0.5% tax hike to pay for the stadium on sales tax, which I wouldn't mind so much except it stuck around about 4 years longer than it was supposed to.

Being a resident close by I can attest to what the evidence says: The argument that stadiums augment the local economy is hoo-hah. The area around the stadium is more built up, sure, and plenty of businesses do well there but the vast majority of the money goes right into the Stadium and of course the NFL, the only exceptions being the local motels (which can't be doing that well, they all look like slum housing).

Honestly I'd pay the 0.5% tax hike forever if we got rid of the stupid thing and stopped locking up the Green Bay metro area every Sunday.

Edit: For the record, it's not the amount of the tax hike, I realize I'm bitching over pennies. It's the principle that I'm subsidizing an industry that makes so much fucking money they have no business getting tax breaks on toilet paper, let alone facilities like Lambeau Field.

How much tax does Packer County pay?

> could really care less

Annnd that's a downvote. This community prides itself on good, honest discourse and high-level language. Please don't bring us down to the level of a 7-year-old redneck.

As far as I'm concerned this community could care less about people using idiomatic English, but we care a lot about personal rudeness in comments. Please don't do this again.

If you think a comment is bad for Hacker News, you're welcome to flag it, but not to post abusive noise.

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.

> 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.

Naturally; orchestras and ballets would struggle to exist without taxpayer money. Sports teams do not have this issue, which is why people complain; essentially every dollar spent by the taxpayers on a stadium is another dollar in the pocket of the team owner. I don't know about football, but no owner in the history of baseball has lost money on their team; even those operating at a negative cash-flow have seen net increases due to the increasing value of their team.

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.

I think it's mostly the money. Non-profits, small amounts of money, and the programs are always running. If they're not putting on shows, they're often running programs all day, all week for kids and teenagers.

The big stadiums and sports teams don't come even close to such an intimate level of involvement with the community.

> 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).

Somehow, the valuation of the team increased by $600 million in that year. The teams are capturing plenty of the money going around. I'd be willing to bet that the players pay more tax than the owners per dollar extracted, too.

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.

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

Symphony orchestras, ballets and performing arts centers also tend to be not-for-profit entities.

I'm happy to see my tax dollars go to schools, parks, community arenas and playfields, and, yes, performing arts centers.

For profit, successful (or at least extremely valuable) sports franchises ... not so much.

Except for the fact that those "high culuture" institutions tend to stick around a lot longer instead of bolting town as soon as the owners spot a more profitable deal. Also, I doubt there are as many concert halls where the public has sunk anything near the kind of money that frequently gets sunk into NFL stadiums. The Disney Concert Hall in LA, which I think was one of the most expensive ones recently built, bad a total budget of less than $300 million. (The county paid $110 to cover parking construction, getting revenues in return, the rest was covered by private donors, primarily the Disney family and Eli Broad.)

  Also, I doubt there are as many concert halls where the public has sunk anything near the kind of money that frequently gets sunk into NFL stadiums

The Elbe Philharmonie in Hamburg comes to mind. Budgeted originally at EUR 241M. They're now at 789 Million and counting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall

"The county paid $110 to cover parking construction"

That doesn't seem too bad for an entire parking lot (ducks)

> 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.

This rests on the premise that is is reasonable for taxpayer money to fund any cultural activities at all, "high" or "low".

In any case, even accepting this premise, the difference is that the examples of "high" culture you cite are, unlike professional sports stadiums, generally not promoted on the basis of claims that they will contribute to the economic development of their communities; rather, they are generally promoted on the basis of unfalsifiable claims that they will have a positive cultural and educational impact.

The things you listed that typically lose money are funded BECAUSE they can't be profitable on their own. Not IN SPITE of it. Professional sports can more than afford to fund their own stadiums, they just CHOOSE not to.

Don't forget the "stupid jocks picked on me in school so fuck them" factor.

I really think it has more to do with the examples that we are discussing. Cities throwing money at teams with no strings attached, and then the teams leave and the cities are still paying off the debt. It's ridiculous that they didn't at least make sure that the team couldn't take such an action.

There's also the fact that the cities are basically footing the bill for some rich people to make more money.

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...

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...

The NHL strike a few years ago had hardly any effect on people.

They just went out to restaurants more, and bars.

So hockey's loss = someone else's gains. If not, <

Calgary should be fine without a stadium for those games

*Atlanta Flames

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.

> I can't fathom how football still exists today as a popular sport

Your first three points make sense, but don't lead to this conclusion at all. People are not going to rationally say "football leads to traffic so I'm not going to watch it anymore." Football is entertaining, which is why it has an audience. Whether or not the negatives you outlined above are funded by the gov't is an entirely different matter.

Football is very boring.

I used to enjoy it, at least when the Steelers are playing. Then I got into soccer, eventually getting a more expensive cable package to watch the Premier League.

Now when I watch football again, I am painfully aware of the time between plays, the incessant commercials, and now the ever increasing number of "official reviews". Seems like every 3rd or 4th play, an official has to leave the field, watch the play over and over and over and over again for 5 minutes, before announcing that, yes, they got the call right in the first place.

Soccer, the action flows pretty constantly, and it's all done in under 2 hours. Watching football is a grueling, four hour commitment. There goes your Sunday afternoon (and evening, if you are enough of a glutton to stick around for Sunday Night Football).

It's starting to all seem like Farmville. Something terribly boring, that somehow the general public has convinced itself is a lot of fun.

(But please don't tell anyone I said this, I live in Pittsburgh!)

> It's starting to all seem like Farmville. Something terribly boring, that somehow the general public has convinced itself is a lot of fun.

Is it really such a crazy idea that people like things that you don't? I like football and don't like soccer. Some people have fun playing Farmville. There's no objective criteria for entertainment, everyones' brain is tickled in different ways by different activities.

"Some people have fun playing Farmville."

Do they? I had this in mind when I made that comment:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cleverest-explanation-as-...

Makes an interesting argument about Farmville's success being based more on creating social obligations, than on being inherently enjoyable. I was wondering if some of football's continuing popularity also rests on social obligations, like people in your municipality talking about the team, wearing the jerseys, posting messages on social media, participating in fantasy leagues, and using support of the team as a proxy for civic pride.

I suspect there are those, like yourself, who actually like watching the games. But I also suspect there are a large number of people who watch for social reasons.

> I suspect there are those, like yourself, who actually like watching the games. But I also suspect there are a large number of people who watch for social reasons.

I just can't be on the internet anymore without reading about 'social' anymore.

People watch teen mom for 'social' reasons, or 'the bachelor' for social reasons. Top chef, hells kitchen, x-files, I can keep going.

Humans are 'social' creatures by nature. Competition is human by nature. Survival of the fittest, feats of strength, preening, showing off, being knowledgeable about current events, speaking intelligently about the goings-on on the world, communication and idle chat about pop culture, thats how some people relate in their day-to-day 'shallow' interactions with others.

I can't do this whole 'social' thing anymore. Its almost getting to the point where prime numbers are offensive, because they're too unique, its not fair to the other numbers. Am I alone in this? Am I just that ignorant? Sincere question, as I'm a fairly left-leaning person highly motivated to bring the 'little guy' up and make a positive impact on humanity.

Well...that's just like your opinion man...

Amazed that people still think that other wide-held opinions can't be valid because one person doesn't like it.

Some people say "computer stuff" is boring. Doesn't change the fact that there are entire huge communities (this being one) dedicated to it.

Different people have different opinions. The inability to comprehend that says more about the person making that statement than it does about the people with a wide-held opinion.

> It's starting to all seem like Farmville. Something terribly boring, that somehow the general public has convinced itself is a lot of fun.

"boring" and "fun" are subjective. That you find something boring doesn't mean that it is objectively boring and that those who find it fun have deluded themselves. It just means that people have different entertainment preferences. Which is, decidedly, not news.

Soccer flows, but still seems boring.

It's all boring...

Shirling though... Now that's a sport.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gu3mbl8SAk

Soccer has it's dull games too. Watching teams park the bus or just kick the ball around to kill time. Thrilling stuff!

Also, as a fan of all sports, I have to say there is probably nothing more entertaining(at least to me) than the NFL Red Zone Channel. Almost no stop in the action, skip most replays, see all the big plays, often in real time. Of course playing fantasy football plays a big part in that.

Hockey is a great game to watch as well with pretty constant shots and action.

Lots of people I know don't understand how I like hockey or soccer. Some can't stand football. Some like watching sports I find boring, but I don't begrudge them or declare that a sport I find boring must be boring to everyone in the world and they're all somehow brainwashed or confused.

Hockey is like soccer in some ways, with the important difference that they have sane substitution rules. In hockey, you have line changes every couple minutes, so when they are out there on the ice, they are going balls-to-the-wall the majority of the time. None of this jogging around, diving, booting the ball out of bounds, conserving energy that you see in pro soccer, because the players have to play the entire game, barring one or two rare substitutions.

When I played in high school, our soccer league had unlimited substitutions, and, even though the skill level was pretty low, the games were more entertaining to watch than professional soccer, because people were actually trying. You start dogging it, and you'd get the hook.

> Football is very boring.

I agree! Why spend time on something that I have no effect on the outcome of? That's why I prefer gaming (especially online, against real other people). (Some people think online gaming is boring. But the fact that I do not understand how someone could possibly think that, is not an argument against their opinion.)

> the action flows pretty constantly

Ah, yes, those gripping 2 hour matchups ending in a score of... 2-1. :P

> Pittsburgh

I like Pittsburgh! I have a couple of good friends who live there.

I love it here, too, but not sufficiently loving the Steelers can be dangerous around here. :)

(And I do love the organization and what it means to the city, just finding it harder to actually enjoy the games as much as I used to.)

If you don't enjoy some sport then it can be boring. As a cricket fan that too "Test" cricket(the one which takes 5 days) to complete i find "Soccer" or Football as its know here boring. Cricket even has regular scheduled breaks for commercials. I used to love football at one time, but too many boring draws and player behavior led me away from it.

I was about to say the same thing. I'm a huge test cricket fan (only form of cricket I really like to watch). For me part of the appeal of Test Cricket (6 hours a day for 5 days) is that the Australia summer is too damn hot to do anything else. The big match (Boxing Day Test) coincides nicely with the break week many jobs have between Xmas and New Year. So the fact that you have a bunch of downtime from work combined with it being too damn hot to want to do much else makes vegging out on couch with a beer (or several) and the cricket on the box all that more appealing.

I do not know a lot about American football but I recall hearing or reading somewhere that the breaks in play make it a more popular spectator sport. As it allows for discussion and analysis of the prior event in a way more freeflowing sports do not.

All of this is totally true for cricket and even worse(8 fucking hours filled with commercials like american football). My whole country(India) has somehow convinced itself that its a lot of fun when the real reasos are that most of them aren't aware of good alternates and even if they are aware, India isn't doing well in any of those.

Soccer comes off as slow hockey played by people who are afraid to get hit.

"Now when I watch football again, I am painfully aware of [...] the incessant commercials"

You are not their target audience, I'm afraid

I am generally unaware of the commercials, but after watching a game I always have a strange craving for Budweiser and Viagra.

> Soccer, the action flows pretty constantly

Yeah, but it's the same level of action in a single NFL play spread over an entire match.

OK, a lot of these criticisms are fair enough, but this one seems objectively false to me.

There are constant one on one matchups of a dribbler trying to beat an attacker, or clever link up passes, or long balls contested by attackers and defenders, or, yes, shots on goal.

A fair number of NFL plays are just running up the middle for 1 or 2 yards gain.

So I really fail to see your point.

My point is soccer is so boring. so very, very boring. Fun to play, terrible to watch.

Football is boring too really.

It doesn't even have to be entertaining if it provides a tribal identity

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...

You know what else is boring? Comments of the form "I don't understand something, and my ignorance should be compelling"

To be fair, that's a non-insignificant amount of HN comments. People should come here with far more curiosity and far less arrogance than they do.

I post comments like that to be educated. Some have already offered explanations, so I'm happy to get your downvote if it means learning something.

Think about your question:

"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."

better framed as a question like such:

"I'm not quite sure I understand the American fascination with football. Can someone provide context?"

Except he did provide context as he cited an article with a genuine criticism. Your suggestion is in all ways a loss of information.

You did not. You posted that comment to make yourself look smugly superior to others.

Thats why I am awesome, because I don't ever make smug comments. You should upvote me for it.

There are better ways to get people to educate you than to be a condescending jerk and waiting for angry responses.

This might be related to Cunningham's Law?

It's definitely a similar theme. I think the Law isn't quite right, though. Posting the wrong answer might be the easiest way to get the right answer, but I don't think it's the best, even from a purely selfish view. But maybe that's just me being idealistic.

It's a good way to get the right answer but it's not a very good way to get help.

> The first layer is the literal meaning of the words: I lack the knowledge and understanding to figure this out. But the second, intended meaning is the opposite: I am such a superior moral being that I cannot even imagine the cognitive errors or moral turpitude that could lead someone to such obviously wrong conclusions. And yet, the third, true meaning is actually more like the first: I lack the empathy, moral imagination or analytical skills to attempt even a basic understanding of the people who disagree with me.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-12/only-stupid...

It's best understood as a turn-based strategy game with real-time elements during and between moves.

It's like Total War but with big dudes, a ball, and a time control.

Total war has time control. You obviously never tried the "Run your light calvary around the map until the attacker loses because the clock" trick.

The social aspect can't be ignored.

Football is typically held up as the quintessential American sport in many regions of the country. Those who don't proclaim their interest or love for it do so at the risk of being seen as outsiders and potentially treated as outcasts.

This starts at a very early age for many Americans due to the close ties between the education systems and football programs. Starting while they're children, those who are capable of playing are often expected to play, and those who aren't capable are expected to participate as fans. This continues through to high school, college, and to the NFL.

Even if the fans don't particularly like the game itself, they often like the social aspect of it, or just pretend to like to to avoid being stigmatized.

Association football (soccer) and cricket play a similar role in other countries. They can be seen as a form of religion, in some sense.

I think you nailed it.

"They can be seen as a form of religion, in some sense."

In my family it was Sunday School with mom and then football with Grandpa and Dad.

Football is kind of like drinking...even if you don't like it at some point it is easier to just pretend and fit in.

It also has something more fundamental than religion... it is tribalism. Us versus them. You get to be part of the accepted in-group, and get to hate the out-groups. That kind of need is wired deep in people's brains.

Ideally, all this effort would be put towards a more productive end, such as rooting for your local FIRST robotics team.

Have you ever heard of Dunbar's Number? http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

I have. You'd think that sports team fanbase membership would not work at the scale it does. But I guess it serves as a means of establishing common ground quickly.

Though, since we're all humans, you'd think we have enough common ground with each other anyway, what with death, taxes, relationship problems, etc.

And if you do it enough, you might end up liking it anyway.

Happened to me. I like drinking and (college) football, especially together, even though I can see the negative utility of both.

There's a lot of strategy between plays. Because the action isn't continuous it has a different flavor from a continuously played game like the other football. It's sort of a hybrid between a real-time game and a turn-based game, which is cool. I think it would be much more interesting if there were more time on the field, but i'm sure the NFL and their advertising partners love all that time that can be filled up with ads.

I dislike the game because the players get horribly injured, either immediately, or decades later. The NFL is a company that makes money by encouraging degenerative brain disease in its employees.

That doesn't explain the popularity, strategy is invisible to the viewer. Chess is not a popular spectator sport.

The strategy is far from invisible to an informed viewer; many viewers are very vocal of their opinions of the topic, too. The reason chess isn't a popular spectator sport has more to do with the fact that all of the moves are very clearly defined, bishop moves at angles; knight moves in L's, and has no correlation to feats of extreme athleticism, the knight can't suddenly move into an unexpected direction.

It's not invisible. i'm not a serious sports fan, but when i'm around them they notice a great deal more detail than i do. a seasoned football fan can identify a play rather quickly. they know the styles and predispositions of their favorite players and coaches very well. they understand how field conditions and the state of the game influence the decisions made. it's rather fun to watch with a knowledgeable friend.

having some sort of depth is required for popularity, even if it is not sufficient. chess is not a popular sport for other reasons, probably the lack of money and the sheer marathon that is a high level game. soccer has been gaining ground in the US because moneyed interests have been pushing the sport and trying to build the franchises for years. the level of investment required for a nationally popular sport is steep. no one's going to put that money into chess any time soon. like all things in our world, capital is often the difference between "is" and "isn't", but other ingredients are also required.

> explain the popularity

Besides the hits,

1. The short season

You're always left wanting more.

There's an order of magnitude fewer NFL games compared to the NBA, MLB, or NHL. And it's convenient - you can follow pro football and have most of the year off and, during the season, most of the week off.

2. The action

Yeah, the ball is only in play for a few minutes, but there are 60-70 plays per game - that's a lot of punctuated action compared to the snail's pace of baseball or the constant back and forth of the other sports. And the plays are more likely to be do-or-die drive or game changers than in the other sports. It's way more edge-of-your-seat.

Those two features are somewhat "drug-like," imo.

> There's an order of magnitude fewer NFL games compared to the NBA, MLB, or NHL

Strongly agree. I've tried many a time to 'get into' baseball, but every day is just way too much. It also tends to increase the importance of each individual game, which (ignoring the quasi-nihilistic "it's just a sport, man") is another reason for the popularity.

There's strategy, and in a broadcast (as opposed to attending a live event), there are commentators to explain it to the average viewer. There are also amazingly spectacular plays, which you can appreciate whether or not you understand the strategy.

That doesn't explain why it's more popular than, say, basketball, though...

The problem with basketball as a spectator sport is that the marginal importance of any particular small piece of the game is small, and predictable. There may be awesome feats of athleticism and skill, but they really don't count for a lot, and by the end of the game, you could remove any one (or more) of them and the result of the game would have been the same.

When you think about what makes, say, movies exciting, it's plot twists. And a basketball game has a very high change of having none -- the better team plays a bit better than the lesser team, and at the end of the game, they have a few more points.

For football, baseball, hockey, and soccer, there are far more plot twists.

Basketball gets its popularity from the fact that it is really easy for people to play it themselves (every recess in school has a few hoops in use continuously, and every other driveway has a hoop in it or above the garage).

And every city has plenty of public courts. Soccer in the US has always been more of an organized sport and less of a street/pickup sport. It's more "something you haul the suburban kids to" than "toss a couple objects on the ground, call them a goal, and kick the ball at it". Baseball used to be a street sport here, but really isn't anymore (but it is in the Caribbean).

I actually think the experience of watching basketball, hockey, and soccer are more similar to each other in having fast paced, flowing action.

Football and baseball are more punctuated, stop-start action.

Yeah, I just don't buy it. I don't buy that the typical football fan recognizes adjustments mid-game. I don't buy that they recognize very many different types of defense (probably the blitz and that's it). This minutiae of a game is things that enthusiasts notice but not the typical fan. I think some of the other explanations given, particular in regards to the social aspect, are more likely it.

> Chess is not a popular spectator sport.

ESPN made poker entertaining. I wish they would try with Chess. I would watch something with good commentators explaining the game as it unfolded.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I had a good time at the last baseball I went to (company event).

Didn't even see a minute of baseball.

Where do you live? First of all, we need to get around the inaccurately named regions of the US.

If you live in the midwest (the middle of the country; from top to bottom) or the south (southwest of the country), football without a doubt.

If you live anywhere else, you can pick and choose. To me, baseball is a lot more intellectually stimulating and has a lot more interesting strategy, but the more I learn about football, the more I see how much goes into it as well. I was a rabid baseball fan as a youth, but these days can't be bothered to spend the time required to watch a game (let alone 160 games a season). As such, I'm more of a football fan now-- frankly, there is more action, and there are fewer games per year so it's easier to follow a team.

"If you live in the midwest..."

Unless you live in St. Louis, then it's baseball.

"...or the south (southwest of the country)"

I think you mean the southeast?

I think that statement requires more clarity. There are parts of the SE, like where I live (NC), where basketball is heavily favored over football. Even with the success of the Panthers this year, when it's ACC basketball season that's what people talk about.

Doof, correct. Planning a SW roadtrip so that's on the tip of my fingers.

> I think you mean the southeast?

Texas?

Ironically, many former football players will never be intellectually stimulated because of CTE.

Start with baseball. Season starts April 3. Football season ends this Sunday with the Super Bowl. You can pick up football in August.

Why not try both? The vibe and culture surrounding the two sports are totally different I find. Baseball teams, for instance, play almost every day as opposed to once a week for football. I think at least partially because of that (each game is less consequential), it's more common to casually watch baseball games as opposed to football where it's a proper event and people get really into every game. Depending on where you are, it's probably easier and cheaper to get tickets for a baseball game.

Two totally different sports, really. Buy some tickets to some games and see what tickles your fancy.

If you do go to a baseball game though, I recommend at least once getting bleacher seats (basically equivalent to general entry). That's where the fun happens!

Probably football if you're interested in contemporary culture, baseball if you're more interested in U.S. history. Baseball has more history and tradition associated with it, football is currently much more popular.

To be fair, the MLB is wildly popular.

73.7 million attendance last year, by far the world's most attended league. There isn't a close second. To pull 30,517 fans per game to 2,417 games is truly astounding.

To put it into context, the MLB is almost as popular as the NBA and NHL combined.

NCAA March Madness is coming up - it's probably the most exciting event in basketball, possibly all of US sports. There's always surprises, some team that comes out of nowhere to make a big run, some heavy favorite that goes down in flames, buzzer beaters, human-interest stories, the minor gambling aspect of filling out a bracket in the office pool.

College basketball can also be some of the most entertaining basketball to watch. There's a lot more variation in style and strategy than you typically see in NBA or international ball. As long as you don't get stuck seeing too many Big Ten style grind-it-out defensive slugfests.

It's kind of like the World Cup, with less flopping.

If you are in a town with soccer (football) then you might follow the local team rather than learn about the other sports.

College sports are also fun to follow.

Football. But only if you like sports. If not, just forget it and tell people you don't watch.

How about neither? Pursue what you enjoy and find meaningful.

Football is great for tailgating and then watching on TV. Baseball is fun to go to in the summer and maybe watch on TV when the playoffs are on.

Sorry - not gonna stop liking things you don't like :)

Football and baseball are things to which people are inoculated when young. I suppose the same is true of basketball but I'm just not familiar with it beyond attempting to play it in a pickup fashion while in school.

You'd think curling would be boring, but I've watched it a few times and there's a lot going on.

And never mind golf, which I love to watch. It's been compared to watching grass grow. I can't argue.

At least in the college game, there's the issue of "tempo", which has a tactical as well as (I'm sure) a desire to reduce that time between plays. "Tactical" because it puts pressure on the defense to assemble more quickly.

It gets even worse - I like college ball, but the pros look to me like they just run their pattern and stop, where you might find a college quarterback that will improve most of a game.

I don't watch normally but I left the seahawks playoff games on in the background while I did other stuff. It's okay.

Watching with other people is pretty good. You chat while the commentators are going on about whatever or they are playing yet another incessant commercial then you watch the play and go back to talking.

Football is what usually happens between the three sets of the marching band concert. It keeps the crowd occupied, even if it is an inferior form of entertainment.~

I also never understood the appeal of professional football games, with no band playing there at all. It feels like the "spectacle" type of gladiatorial games--the re-enactments of the Battle of Wherever, with condemned criminals portraying the Foovians on one side, and slaves portraying the Barrites on the other. But instead of getting killed outright, the participants just get a very mild case of severe brain damage. And instead of non-stop action, they stand around planning their next stratagem, as though it were not essentially "push the other guy away, so our guy can run past him".

Marching bands are by far the worst aspect of college & hs football in my opinion, almost more annoying then the music/fake forced chants they play during NBA games.

Some people just enjoy the sport without all the ridiculous fanfare!

"De gustibus non est disputandum." ("Everybody has their own opinions." / "There's no accounting for taste.")

Some people enjoy the game. Those who do not enjoy it should not be forced to pay for the stadium. I would even oppose using eminent domain to acquire a contiguous area of land large enough to build one, with the sole possible exception of Green Bay, Wisconsin, where the Packers are very nearly a municipal corporation due to their "ownership" structure (non-voting, non-dividend-paying, restricted-resale stocks don't count as ownership, in my opinion).

Selling the naming rights to the stadium to the highest bidder is just twisting the knife in the back, really.

This article is similar in character to economic retrospectives of cities that hosted Olympics competitions. The IOC always promises an instant boost to prosperity, but that never seems to materialize. I have been to Turner Field (formerly the primary 1996 Olympic stadium), and the surrounding area does not look very boosted (although other parts of Atlanta are admittedly much worse). The stadium is coming down in 2017, as a 20-year-old building is apparently no longer good enough for the Braves to play baseball in it. Their previous home at Atlanta-Fulton Cty Stadium only lasted 30 years.

For reference purposes, Fenway Park and Wrigley Field are both more than 100 years old and still in use. Stadiums in Kansas City, LA, and Anaheim are pentagenarians. Milwaukee County Stadium made it to 50 before the Brewers traded up. Yankee Stadium retired at 85. Tiger Stadium lasted 87 years. Candlestick Park retired at 53. Memorial Stadium (Baltimore, 2nd) lasted 53 years.

From a cursory examination of history, a city is much better off building its own smaller stadium, sized for basketball, hockey, and rock concerts, than one that can only reasonably be filled by MLB baseball, NFL football, Olympic track and field, club soccer (in Europe), and musical superstars. Offering public subsidy to a privately owned single-sport stadium strikes me as brain-damaged beyond all reasonable measure, especially when the sports franchise seeking to build it is currently leasing a publicly-owned facility.

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...

With taxes they are partners. That's the reasoning behind public financing.

I think a better alternative is just tax breaks. The team can build a stadium but gets huge tax cuts on everything for a certain period of time to justify the build cost.

I also don't understand why stadiums have such limited lifespans. Wrigely field in nearly 100 years old.

"Wrigely field in nearly 100 years old."

And it's a dump. I mean, I get why people think it's charming, but it's a pretty uncomfortable place to watch a game compared to modern stadiums.

Warning: I'm a Cardinals fan, so take that for what you will.

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.

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.

The Green Bay Packers aren't owned by their city, exactly, but they're publicly owned and no individual can have more than 4% of the shares. They have 360,584 owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers#Community_ow...

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.

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

We have the same problems with taxes. Corporations can play the states against each other in regards to 'bidding' with tax breaks. But I think citizens should do the same there; tax breaks in return for shares. Either way what really has to happen, is for gov't officials to resume responsibility for negotiating for the people instead of for themselves.

That said, I make no argument it's a great choice. The public probably shouldn't be "investing" and like many would argue; it's a bit of overstep by the government to be managing team ownership. It's all murky but inextricable.

> Corporations can play the states against each other in regards to 'bidding' with tax breaks.

I was actually amazed when GE did move their headquarters from CT. Often that's a ploy to just get taxes lowered in place. The people who run economic development play along because then it looks like they actually did something "see they were going to leave but we got them to stay". This happens also at the county level in addition to obviously interstate. (WSJ story below).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

>Corporations can play the states against each other in regards to 'bidding' with tax breaks. But I think citizens should do the same there; tax breaks in return for shares.

The corporations hold all the cards in that negotiation, since they're bringing jobs. Particularly corporations that do non-polluting things like software development and financial services.

If a state said "we'll give you a break but we want equity in return" they'd just get crossed off the list.

The corporations do not hold all the cards in all situations.

Take Austin at the moment, the "It" city that all the Cool Kids are flocking to, the darling of the business press for growth stories. Its population growth rate is faster than many cities much larger than it, by both absolute numbers and percentage growth. It is continuously growing a deeper pool of skilled knowledge worker talent; not nearly enough to rival giants like SV in tech, NYC in finance, BOS in bio, or Shenzen in hardware mfg., but enough to put it firmly on the heat map of "lots of eligible, skilled workers". Compared to those category-leading cities, the cost of housing in equivalent neighborhoods is cheap (though make no mistake, already out of reach of middle class households). There should be no tax concessions from a city in such a hyper-growth situation.

The messaging that "taxpayers have to give corporations a break for the jobs else the corporations take their ball and go elsewhere with the jobs" is a canard. These tax break arrangements last 5+ years, sometimes decades, sometimes effectively in perpetuity with constant re-negotiations the norm as agreements come up to expiration. There is often no, little, or lax monitoring of benefits received for the consideration. I haven't heard of big municipalities negotiating performance bonds, nor breakup fees. Some deals won't even "break even" until long after an agreement expires, so they need an investment horizon where the corporation stays after an expiration for anything to pencil out. Typical financial traders call parties negotiating these kind of terms "chumps" and "muppets" on days they're feeling charitable; NSFW pejoratives are used more often.

Many of these tax break arrangements are thin facades over what are effectively irrationally-expensive political bribes footed by taxpayers for sitting politicians to claim PR points in the political arena, especially for re-election fodder, frequently negotiated under conditions and terms that are effectively between private parties, and in representative systems frequently with little direct access by citizens to vote up or down. On the corporation side of the table, they pay a professional negotiator and get a return in the orders of magnitudes range that drops straight to the bottom line, Other People's Money else pays for the deal, in the vast majority of cases they can lay off and outsource/offshore the ostensible jobs that the jurisdiction was going to benefit from without penalty, or even close up and move away to a better offer before the arrangement is even expired and the jurisdiction even breaks even. It's free money for the corporations, and if taxpayers are foolish enough to sign off (by not voting out or better yet insta-recalling politicians who arrange these deals) on this, the taxpayers only have themselves to blame. Shareholders in the corporations should be upset that these deals suck up finite executive team time; no matter how much is sent to the bottom line, it's a one-shot that doesn't represent the highest and best use of that time, while the same execs spending the time putting in place revenue generators that grow the top line is far more valuable.

There are many (I'd go as far as to say most, and in many specific instances, all) on the corporation side of the negotiating table who do have good intentions and believe the ostensible messaging, but the financial returns history of these deals is so bad that in an open market the deals would have long since been punished with appropriate interest rates for the high risks they bring to the buyers (the taxpayers). I'd say the same about the politicians, as I think most of these deals are a case of a tragic mix of wishful thinking, inexperience with evaluating complex economic policy, cognitive biases, and go-fever combining into a perfect storm to create poor deals.

TL;DR: human nature, yo.

That's disallowed by the NFL, as mentioned in the Green Bay Packets thread.

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

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.

$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...

Roughly $520M.

http://www.lindenwood.edu/moPolicyJournal/issue02/articles/c...

>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

From St. Louis as well. It was weird when the Rams left. There wasn't much of an attitude of how great of fans St. Louis has and what a betrayal it is. It was more resignation. "Well, we're St. Louis, what did we expect?"

Also from St. Louis. I don't agree with this. r/stlouis wouldn't shut up about it, for example, and the opinions ranged all across the board.

Oh man, that is a rabbit hole of rage. I've been away too long.

The mayor derives personal benefit from being involved in the stadium. (Throw out a pitch, meet players, etx) It's corruption.

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?

> 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.

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.

The NHL (ice hockey) and NBA (basketball) share some stadiums. The NFL (football) and MLB (baseball) used to share a few but I think only one or two still do, if any.

But you will find things like monster truck events, dirt bike racing. or concerts at sports stadiums quite often.

I live in Oakland and both the Oakland A's and the Oakland Raiders share a stadium, which is considered the worst stadium in both sports. They do have some monster truck events as well and used to host the San Jose Earthquakes on occasion before they got their own stadium.

They used support both football and baseball. Oakland has the last multi-purpose stadium for MLB and NFL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.co_Coliseum

Baseball needs a large oval and foot ball needs a rectangle. The compromise to support both baseball and football leads to a suboptimal solution for both.

They used to be very common. There used to be football and baseball shared stadiums as well as basketball and hockey shared stadiums too. I don't know why exactly it changed, I think everyone just wanted their own special place.

Stadiums purpose built for baseball are way better than dual football/baseball stadiums. They are also a lot better for other events as you are significantly closer.

The problem with football stadiums is that you really don't get a good view of the field since they are all about packing in the maximum number of people at a single event. Consequently, nobody really wants to host anything there.

Oval stadiums...

It was pretty smart to invent another sport that could use those oval cricket fields! And Aussie rules is great in its own right. Actually the first Polo Grounds in Manhattan was originally used for polo but hosted lots of baseball and football as well.

Some NFL stadiums are also used for soccer, as well as concerts and such.

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

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...

You could likely argue that the people that show up to vote for a stadium funding model are more likely to be sports fans. Probably wasn't a true representation of the citizens desires. Which isn't an excuse, everyone had the ability to vote, but still the decision can't be applied to everyone.

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.

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!)

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

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

> push for a new council

Kinda late, since the stadium is already built.

Hasn't most of that been paid back already due to personal seat licenses?

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.

"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.

> 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)

> 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.

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

https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev...

"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.

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 (????).

>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.

These type of non-financial factors are always ignored in this debate. People seem to forget the government doesn't have to be profit focused and there are plenty of other examples of public expenditures that benefit private industries that are still widely popular. We don't expect public parks, libraries, or bridges to turn a profit, so I'm not sure why we expect stadiums financing deals to do it.

If the citizenry of a municipality votes to spend their money to ensure that a local team stays, that is up to them. That said, they are idiots if they come away with a deal like St Louis did that doesn't even protect them from a potential team move and any politician who pushes it through without a vote isn't fit for their job.

> so I'm not sure why we expect stadiums financing deals to do it.

Because tickets to enter the stadium are not free.

If they were free, like how parks are free, that would be different.

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.

It used to happen more. The most famous example is probably Arsenal - the Royal Navy dockyard they're named after certainly isn't anywhere in Highbury! On a smaller scale, Leyton Orient were once Clapton Orient.

And yes, both of those examples are of clubs moving from one place in London to another. But if you live in Woolwich, your club might as well move to the moon as Highbury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Wimbledon_F.C._t...

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

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.

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

Seattle Supersonics...

Deleted comment

I always wonder why people from Europe always use "As a European" to preface smug comments, there's got to be a sociology study there.

I mean, it's pretty necessary for the context of what the OP is saying. Americans say "As an American" less often because they just assume everyone is an American in the first place. I'm not sure that's better and, come on, it's not like Americans aren't capable of smugness now, is it?

Anyway, you guys have almost exactly the same behavior in UEFA teams

Do they? I'm certainly not aware of any, and the lack of franchising makes the whole situation different (a team will very, very rarely ever move city. It's basically unheard of).

And yes, I agree the original comment was flippant. But citing fan racism in soccer isn't exactly raising the tone either.

Why do you consider it flippant?

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).

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.

> held up as the conservative free market jingoistic ideal

I've never heard anyone claim the NFL is an example of a free market, even by fans of both.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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...)

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

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

Relevant Onion article, which Chinese media reported as true:

http://www.theonion.com/article/congress-threatens-to-leave-...

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/U-S-satire-tricks-Beijing...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Woe be to the Governor of Wisconsin who loses a sports franchise.

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

The article linked to is promising.

http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-americans-know-so-m...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Last I was aware, there was no evidence that this investment provided any return.

Not that it matters because that still wouldn't justify a huge investment by the public into a private entity without any ownership stake.

If the idea was really to create something resembling a grant to private organizations to create business that stimulates the economy, you would rationally have some kind of process around for screening candidates based on merit and be more diversified in your awards.

I'd like to believe it's anything other than a kind of blackmail where these organizations use their media power (== public opinion) with impunity to bully municipalities into providing them the tax revenue of citizens, wasting money that could otherwise be used for individual or public good, but that's all I can make out of it.

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

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.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, public money funds all sorts of entertainment and cultural endeavors, from operas to art museums to 5K fun runs and so on and so on.

I'd be ok with this argument only if the leagues were nationalized.

What is the need for nationalization before a city should foot the bill? This isn't to say that cities should pay for a stadium, but there are definitely dynasty franchises that are guaranteed to generate income for many years. Would I build a stadium for the Rams? Not likely. Would I build a stadium for the Patriots? Immediately.

Generate the lion's share of income for who? If a city's citizens are ponying up tax revenue to support a team, then the city should do it right, and be a shareholder in the team, and capture a proportional share of the lion's share of the income that flows to the team's owners. Forbes has a good breakdown of the profitability of the teams to their owners [1]. PBS Marketplace has a good overview of how much of that profitability makes it to the city [2]. You can read many papers examining the economic impact of letting a sports team walk, here is one [3] such paper.

Given the level of profitability to owners, the statistically insignificant economic impact of teams on cities, and the accumulated data to date continuing to support these conclusions drawn so far, city managers giving away valuable consideration as if they're supporting charity cases are simply using taxpayers to purchase extremely expensive political points.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2015/09/14/the-most-...

[2] http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sport...

[3] http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&c...

Sports aren't an inherent public concern, but the idea is that there will be a future return.

I don't claim that building a stadium/arena for a professional sports team will generate profit for the city. It's supposed to be an investment. The city foots the bill for the stadium. The team generates revenue over X years to cover the costs, and it also provides jobs for the city's residents. It's an idealistic win-win.

Again - this doesn't always work as intended.

The explanation I heard is that professional sports are a key element of "urban pacification." It makes sense to some extent, in a panem et circenses kind of way.

Sports definitely are a public concern. Exercise improves health (well maybe this doesn't apply to football ;).

A better question would be whether these grand spectacles actually increase sport participation in the general population, and if that same effect can't be attained in a cheaper way.

And yet cities and states are often in the business of luring large employers to their area, and tax advantage is almost always the bait.

Everybody complains about sweetheart deals that so often go along with the seduction of an employer into their area, but almost nobody complains about the jobs. Perhaps in San Francisco the situation is reversed, but almost anywhere else is happy to accept your runoff, even if profitability isn't in the short term agenda.

More jobs means more people employed which in turn drives up employee competition, and hence wages, which equate to increased tax revenues and better quality of living.

I think that the stadium deals tend to be overboard, but not only is it not a net negative, it is at least more straight-forward plot than the backroom deals done as enticement for businesses.

The economic effects of stadiums are often put forward as positive during the 'deal' phase of placing them, but many studies have reported only a small positive or negative effect on economic activity.

http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sport...

"Everybody complains about sweetheart deals that so often go along with the seduction of an employer into their area, but almost nobody complains about the jobs"

Probably because, in most cases, the amount that those jobs cost has not been worth it.

So, did this defunct stadium inflate the job numbers in St Louis somehow, or am I misreading your comment?

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.

"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.

obligatory Last Week Tonight video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs

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.

So what happens to the Edward Jones sponsorship?

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com