Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksdale | Hacker News Reader

This is a very underrated point. I feel like in the abstract, we should be asking how much a city should be willing to pay for a place where tens of thousands of people can gather for a common purpose tens of times a year to attend an activity that tens (or hundreds) of thousands more people really enjoy watching on TV.

It seems very plausible that this should be a non zero amount. (Also plausible that it shouldn’t be in the billions...)

A lot of people think sports are not a worthy use of government funds, which I totally understand. But looking past the relative pointlessness of most sports, it really is an exceptional experience to be in a packed stadium whether it’s for a football game or a concert or whatever.

View on HN

One big difference is that artists pay to use a venue for a performance. Sports teams get the city to pay to build the stadium, and keep the profits.

When I go to the theatre or the symphony or the ballet or the opera, the programs and the placards in the lobby always make it clear that most of their funding comes from donations from big companies (in Seattle: always Boeing and Microsoft) and private donors.

If we're so excited to spend public money for gatherings at events that people want to see, why don't they ever spend that sort of money on the arts? Why don't I see Seattle Pops concerts on TV? Why do we depend on private donations to keep the theatres open? Why do we zone for stadiums, but not community theatre?

Everyone I know wants to see more of these performing artists but most have trouble affording tickets. When you can't afford an NFL ticket, you turn on the TV and watch it for free anyway. When you can't afford to see the local arts, you're mostly just SOL.

Do you think there is a conspiracy to keep local art off TV? Or maybe the reason that you don't see the Seattle Pops on TV more is because broadcasters can't make money since people won't watch them? Sports are popular. That always seems to be a shock to people in the type of circles that frequent HN, but it is the underlying fact that allows sports teams to get these subsidizes in the first place.

"Conspiracy" is an ugly word, and usually not applicable. Let's not build straw men where none exist.

Go back a step. Why are sports so sought after? Well, they spend many millions of dollars on advertising, for one. That's more than the entire Seattle Symphony budget. How many people even know they play live movie soundtracks to popular movies here? Yet I don't even follow football and I can tell you about a team 2000 miles away which is in the playoffs. It's hard to avoid it. Why do they have that kind of money? Because they were successful in decades past.

I think a much simpler explanation is: a couple of professional sports leagues got big in the middle of the past century, for various reasons, and have used that success to gain a foothold into TV. Note that it isn't sports in general that are popular. There are really only 3 sports leagues that most of America cares about. Try to start a pro cricket league here and you'll just hear crickets.

The rich always get richer. In this case, the rich are getting richer using public money. It's not really about sports. Even the sports fans here aren't pushing to let kids play ball in the stadium when it's empty.

Nobody at a concert is going to wait through commercial breaks, for starters.

I think this is a question of relative popularity, they could hold a local arts performance at Centurylink and even if it were free, the stadium would still be mostly empty.

The 5th Avenue Theater holds a little more than 2,000 people, it’s not a giant logistical problem to fit an extra 2,000 people into downtown Seattle.

And I’m not trying to defend people’s preference for sports. I’m one of those people who wishes there was more of the arts around, but the demand for sports is enormous compared to the demand for local arts.

The last 3 live arts performances I went to had to turn away people because they didn't have the capacity to seat everyone who wanted to attend.

2000 seats isn't 2000 people. Add performers and stage crew and support staff -- and then consider that most of them have to leave town after the buses stop running for the night (and certainly can't afford downtown Amazon-esque rent). Do you think adding hundreds of cars downtown in the evenings isn't a major logistical problem?

In recent history, a significant theatre (not the 5th) was bought and sold under terms which turned out to be completely false. This isn't some libertarian fantasy where we're only giving people what they want. People in power are literally lying and cheating to keep the arts away from citizens.

If people like sports, they should express that preference not by spending tax payer dollars on stadiums, but paying higher prices on tickets to fund the increased cost of the stadium. That way, the market mechanism signals what is the appropriate level of resources society should spend on this kind of thing and instead of some backroom negotiation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com