The premise is usually jobs, local pride and prestige...and it usually ends really badly for the locals...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insig...
Sports fans are religious. Teams, for better or worse, have the power to rally voters in a way that makes them politically powerful.
Not sure about the US, but in countries in Europe and Latin America that I know of, that's very much the case -- sports fans (soccer in this case of course) are a very vocal group, and have much influence on politics, and always push for more government spending on stadiums.
Arsenal paid for their stadium when they moved from Highbury to Emirates. Tottenham is paying for renovation of White Heart Lane. Real Madrid will be paying out of their own pocket for renovation to Bernabeu. Fc Barcelona will be paying out of their own pocket to renovate Camp Nou.
I'm not aware the barbaric culture of billionaires using tax payers money to build a stadium and then keeping the profits from it anywhere outside US.
You'd be surprised.
"Taxpayers have criticised a "ridiculous" deal which means West Ham United will pay just a fraction of the £2.3m annual business rates bill on its London Stadium home.Owners E20 Stadium revealed the Hammers will only pay additional rates on the retail and office space in the 66,000-capacity ground after they secured the lease for just £2.5m a year in rent last year. Costs for the rest of the arena will have to be covered by E20, a joint venture between publicly funded London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council."
"English club Manchester City received more than $170 million in public funds for its Etihad Stadium, where it moved in 2002, because the grounds were built to host the Commonwealth Games. Tottenham Hotspur, another English club, will reportedly receive some sort of public aid, whether through tax breaks or other forms of relief, to build a new version of its White Hart Lane. West Ham is moving into London’s Olympic stadium, also built with public funds, though the club will pay a small amount of the conversion costs and will also pay annual rent (in two of these instances, you’ll notice, the stadiums were built for other events and are being utilized by clubs, which isn’t altogether a bad thing). And in Spain, Barça, Real Madrid, the world’s second most valuable franchise, and other clubs are under a European Union investigation for receiving improper tax breaks."
"When Juventus inaugurated the Juventus Arena in 2011 instead of the old Delle Alpi it became the first club in Italy to have stadium ownership while other clubs in Italy still rent a stadium from the local council. The main reason is for municipally owned stadiums is regulation and financial power of Italian clubs but this is starting to change now".
Even when you read about "renting" it, the deals are more than generous (nowhere near the costs), and accompanied with huge tax breaks and easy state or municipally-supported loans in tons of cases.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-the-billions-brazi...
(And let's not even discuss e.g. Greece and other soccer-obsessed countries)
The cost of opening a shop, gyp etc and equipping it at a regular location is already too large, without having to co-sponsor part of a stadium (which has huge costs to build and maintain) while at it.
I suspect big subsidies or tax cuts or something involved too.
Wisconsin also loves to use property taxes for various things, which is how it gets away with being slightly lower-taxed than neighboring MN while having a similar quality of life.
The Packers are owned by the fans, making them the only publicly owned, not-for-profit, major professional team in the United States. The Pack have been a fan-owned operation since the primitive pro football days of the nineteen-twenties, when N.F.L. teams could be won in card games and no one foresaw the awesome power this sport would hold over both the American imagination and the American wallet.... The Packers’ unique setup has created a relationship between team and community unlike any in the N.F.L. Wisconsin fans get to enjoy the team with the confidence that their owner won’t threaten to move to Los Angeles unless the team gets a new mega-dome.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/those-non-prof...
The highlight - "However, the FAA only grants TFRs for stadiums and arenas that hold 30,000 or more, and since the StubHub Center capacity is under 30,000 — the Chargers announced a sellout at 25,386 during their game with the Kansas City Chiefs last Sunday — the FAA will not grant the TFR."
"Spanos had pledged $350 million to the stadium project in San Diego. But now that he’s moving, he’ll have to pay the NFL a $550 million relocation fee.
That’s right. For roughly the same amount of money he’s spending to flee the city that has loved his usually woeful team unconditionally for 56 years, Spanos could have had his new stadium. Instead, he fire bombed his fan base to relocate to a city so enthused by the move that it couldn’t even manage to stifle its yawn."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour...
1. The Raiders (like, it's not even close)
2. The Rams (probably a little more popular after their good season last year)
3. The LA Galaxy (that's right, a soccer team)
4. The Chargers.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chargers-taxes-nfl-201...
>For decades, Angelenos went without a hometown NFL team in part because they were notoriously loath to spend taxes on one. Rams owner Stan Kroenke, worth $7.4 billion according to Forbes, made the league's return to Los Angeles possible because he was game to use his own money to develop the $2.66-billion Inglewood stadium that, starting in 2019, will be home base of his team and the Chargers.
>Inglewood will ultimately pay the project an estimated $60 million as a reimbursement for the development of roadwork, utilities and public parks on the site of the property.
>James T. Butts Jr., mayor of Inglewood, said he would not have agreed to a new NFL stadium if it required fans to chip in.
>"From our first talks, we made it clear that was not something we were going to do," Butts said. "We wanted a model that basically insulated the city from the buffeting winds of both the economy and ticket sales, and we have that now."
It's an open question who it'll work out for: both the Chargers and Rams were in LA before, before leaving for perceived greener pastures. The Rams' owners seem to be hedging their bets this time with the multi-purpose real-estate nature of the stadium. But will STL or SD really be that badly off? We'll see if they end up spending money in the future to get a team back... LA didn't, though.
I've noticed USC fills their stadium only when they're spectacular. Whereas other teams across the country fill it up when they're only OK (most of the big 10).
Anecdotal but probably understandable via stats.
The Pelicans as far as I know don’t even get the historical numbers and seasons of the original location (Charlotte) team either. They go to the current Charlotte Hornets.
As a new team (Charlotte Bobcats) was created in Charlotte and fans had a successful campaign to rename that new team back to the Pelicans original team name, Charlotte Hornets.
Sorry if it’s confusing, but basically two NBA team name changes in this century and it wasn’t the biggest deal for the teams.
I can’t see the Chargers or Raiders being particularly hurt if they had to change their names when moving to their new location. Rams I guess would hurt a bit, but even then, doubt that much.
Also, what are fans going to do if their only local team that they’ve been long time fans of leaves? It’s hard for many fans to get emotionally invested into another team. And people enjoy being fans of local teams so the new location will bring new fans. Maybe Europe isn’t like that. I personally am not like that, but I’m def not the norm.
The city has rejected another request for a MLS stadium. I guess they are wising up.
How about that?
Not to mention that in a pinch, a stadium can always be changed to fit a different sport (if the space is enough), for much less than to build another one.
Those "perverse" tax incentives were a reasonable compromise between voters and businesses within a state. The perversion only exists at the interstate level, so which politician is "at fault"? The Washington legislature, responsible for all of Washington? Individual WA representatives, who get one vote regardless of their constituent's distance from the border? Or is it on the Oregon side?
If either state copied the other, there's no problem - but which one "wins", and how do those changes get implemented?
You're right. Technically the fault lies in the voters for voting in those politicians. In practice, it's the politicians that fail the voters though. That's literally what the politicians are voted to do, but they obviously operate under their own incentives, which is to get reelected.
The politicians are ultimately accountable to their constituents. The people of Walla Walla likely have different opinions on sales tax than the people of Redmond. If the politicians don't represent those opinions then they should be voted out. If they do represent those opinions, it is simply a numbers game from there. If your side loses, that is just how democracy works. That applies to every level of government from the local up through the federal. It applies to individuals the same way it applies to businesses.
My representative fairly represents my district's sentiment. The policies we want are blocked by neighboring district representatives - who also fairly represent their districts. The compromises tend to land squarely in between the extremes. If we're not happy with the compromise, the answer is to try moving the opposing side closer... which means convincing citizens of that district to change their mind.
Citizen discourse is the core of effective democracies. Elections merely represent public sentiment - peer to peer discussions are how we change the status quo.
America's problem is we seem to have forgotten how to talk about politics. Even your language reflects that... no suggestion of civil debate, just a false dichotomy of surrendering to the numbers game or "attacking" other citizens.
Insults are an attack, but genuinely challenging beliefs is not an attack. My neighbor and I may disagree, but we aren't enemies - we are both citizens that want what's best for our family and friends. Talking politics is how we figure out what that means. Those discussions between private citizens is the decentralized process of moving a democracy forward.
I also wasn't attempting to setup a dichotomy between surrendering or attacking (although I can certainly see that implication after rereading my comment, sorry about that). I would consider civil discourse part of the "work harder to convince the politicians to change their mind" comment. You can convince a politician by talking directly to them or by rallying other citizens to your cause.
However the discussion was about "blame" and "fault". I think those are very aggressive words to use against other citizens you disagree with. If we are going to use those words, I think they should be focused towards politicians who are accountable to your wishes. Your neighbor or the citizens in the next district over are not accountable to you and therefore should not receive blame for disagreeing with you.
While this is true to some extent, changing the minds of politicians sometimes requires changing the minds of voters.
I can choose to find fault with tech companies and sports owners while still holding politicians accountable as well.
And in addition voters are stupid. Spending a million on a swimming pool for kids is waste but half a billion for a sports stadium is a must.
If a politician believes a single report prepared by a sports team over the literally dozens of peer reviewed academic studies that say the exact opposite, I blame the politician.
>And in addition voters are stupid. Spending a million on a swimming pool for kids is waste but half a billion for a sports stadium is a must.
That is democracy in action. More people want the sports stadium than the swimming pool. You might disagree with them, but that doesn't make them wrong.
You can't blame the voters, they are free to choose whoever they want!
You can't blame the lobbyists or the PACs, they just try to persuade voters!
You can't blame corporations for contributing to campaigns, they are just trying to create the most politically favorable environment to maximize profits!
You can't blame the shareholders, they just want a return on their investment!
It's no wonder that the entire concept of a modern democracy is a shame. You never really had control as a voter.
I like to think of it as going out to eat. In a modern democracy you get a choice of ketchup or mustard. Some may choose not to pick (not vote) or some may be able to even get a third choice like hot pepper added at one location.
During pre-election everyone is shouting back why ketchup is better than mustard. News anchors going on and on about how important you making a choice because your life will be better or worse with or without mustard. Money that could be better spent goes into advertising that blankets the air putting down ketchup by carefully leaking a photoshopped ketchup bottle at a murder scene.
No one asks why are we eating a hotdog in the first place.
If none of the political parties talk about increasing internet connectivity, but that's a very important issue for me, then I'm basically picking at random.
You can't blame the media because they're just giving the voters what they want.
You can't blame the education system because it was put in place by the politicians.
Is this true? Was there a vote on this?
The politicians make the decisions and if people don't like it they can vote for someone else but I would bet in some deeply partisan districts they'd vote for anyone on their side. There's a lot of things the majority of the public want but the power that be say no.
By this logic, as long as a politician makes such a deal in order to garner public support or votes, with no concern for the wellbeing of their constituents, we can't blame them either. They're not doing anything wrong, just responding to political incentives!
The companies, by definition, act in the best interest of their shareholders. What if those also happen to be shareholders of a given company looking for a good deal?
On the other hand, the modal business has much more economic power and leverage than the modal individual. There's a reasonable argument that they should be held to a higher standard of responsibility and compliance because their contribution to the problem is magnified.
The only two professional sports teams that I know of that are owned by the community/fans are the Green Bay Packers and the Rochester Red Wings. Does anyone know of any others?
Edit: Did a small bit of research and it looks like the Toledo Mud Hens are community owned and the Syracuse Chiefs were community owned until this year when they sold to the Mets.
Edit: Oh, of course there's a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams
You'd also have to figure out the costs for gear, staff, and etc. You'd also have to figure out logistics for management, I imagine a trust would be the best middle ground. My best friend is from Cork City in Ireland, Cork FC is fan-owned which runs out of a trust. [0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FORAS_(football_supporters%27_...
Side-bar: I am curious if MLS has banned fan-ownership. Edit: Unsure, seems like 4th Tier league allows fan-ownership. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams...
Second Edit: Reading [2], it seems like it'd be possible to have a European fan-ownership structure except that the team would own shares from MLS to have the team rights.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_owners
You might be able to do something like this with eSports teams or streamers.
There is speculation that this is part of the reason that he loves criticising the NFL for players taking a knee, and keeps insisting they're struggling and their numbers are down and they're failing. He's salty that they never let him have a team.
At least it's usually subject to a vote. And it's hard to say it usually ends up bad for the locals unless you can quantify leisure. Some do, sure, but I wouldn't say usually and I definitely wouldn't say "really badly" compared to many other financial policies. By the same measures, tax funding of other arts like museums end up bad for the locals too.
I really don't get the fascination with subsidizing sports teams which via legal monopolization make money hand over fist.