https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sports-nfl-stadiums-insig...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.