Hacker News Reader

Comment by srhngpr | Hacker News Reader

>Lol no, a professional sports team is of little "joint benefit to society", at least not of the kind that seriously concerns the government. You may as well argue that the government should be subsidizing new Marvel movies, or Call of Duty, because those are popular forms of entertainment too.

Local governments do subsidize movie production with all sorts of funding and grants. In addition to the local population, many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities.

>Plenty of high prestige world cities like Tokyo or London or Paris aren't known for their pro sports teams. They seem to suffer little for it.

Ever heard of... - London: Arsenal, Chelsea, or Tottenham (Soccer), Wimbledon Championships (Tennis) - Paris: PSG (Soccer), French Open (Tennis)

Every major "high prestige world city" as you describe is a hub for multiple sports and various tournaments that invites both local and international crowds.

View on HN

> many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities.

Sure, but when slg says the financials are settled, presumably they mean stadiums are a bad investment even when all such tangible benefits are taken into account.

The question is whether there are other intangible benefits - maybe a city with a sports team is happier; or has lower obesity; or an improved cultural life reduces brain drain; or the city can afford a mass transit system and needs one, but bundling it with a stadium breaks through some political deadlock; or it's just plain that voters support the stadium.

A theory of intangible benefits would also be helpful in explaining why cities keep on bidding for the olympics, which is otherwise hard to rationalise.

> why cities keep on bidding for the olympics, which is otherwise hard to rationalise.

There was one bid for 2028 and one for 2032. Compare with 8+ bids in years past. There are fewer and fewer new cities that have never hosted before putting in bids (ostensibly due to insane construction costs/demands by the IOC). 3 out of 5 cities bidding for 2024 withdrew their bids and the other two got 2024 and 2028. 2032 seems to have gotten only one bid. What's happening is that this "intangible benefits" theory is dying as more and more of the world realizes that there are none. On the other hand the olympics and the world cup does seem like a good venue for authoritarian regimes to create spectacles.

Public interest in the Olympics also seems to be falling. IIRC the last two olympics had record low viewership. I know I didn't watch at all, and I used to watch most of the big prime time broadcast events 10 years ago. The same seems to be the case for many of my acquaintances.

I still have an interest in quite a few Olympic sports. NBC's coverage, in the US, has made watching the Olympics unbearable. Things like spending half the broadcast on background/special interest stories instead of the competition. Only showing the US athletes and usually, but not always, the podium winners. Starting an event on one channel and then moving it to a different channel halfway through. etc.

Their whole method is very bizarre to me. Even as someone who has worked in film and television for a decade, I can’t make heads or tails of their strategy. I mean there must be something they are seeing that we are not, I can’t imagine they do it over and over again like that without their reasons.

Not to mention Juan Antonio Samaranch, who ran the IOC from 1980 to 2001, was a Franco crony.

> There was one bid for 2028 and one for 2032.

The bidding procedure changed, one preferred bid is selected far earlier to avoid losers feeling frustrated and to lower costs.

> On the other hand the olympics and the world cup does seem like a good venue for authoritarian regimes to create spectacles.

Off the top of my head: recent Olympic host countries include Russia, China, and Brazil . World Cup hosts includes Russia, Brazil, and Qatar. Yup, checks out.

P.S. Ok, Brazil being in this list is debatable, as they are a democracy ... but with Bolsonaro in power I'll lump them in this group. Yes, I realize Bolsonaro wasn't in office for the Olympics or World Cup, or for the bidding process which happened many years earlier, but he's shitty enough that I'll take the editorial liberty of retroactively smearing his stain back in time.

P.P.S. Yeah, if you want to do the same with Trump in the US I guess I can't disagree either. But the US hasn't hosted an Olympics for 20 years or a World Cup for even longer.

Quite possible that's the case, but I think it's unlikely that it outweighs the "intangible benefits" you'd get from other, more standard investments, like public transit or libraries.

> Every major "high prestige world city" as you describe is a hub for multiple sports and various tournaments that invites both local and international crowds.

Big cities tend to attract big sports, can't deny that, I just don't think the causation really works the other way, at least not strongly. How much would London or Paris suffer if they lost their big sports teams and events?

> In addition to the local population, many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums.

The article directly addressed this point by saying:

While counter-intuitive, tourism does not see an increase as the result of a sporting event, as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain.

Now this may not be true for concerts or other events held in the stadium, but in general I think the idea is that the study indicates sports events don't generate significant tourism, instead drawing a primarily local crowd.

I would also argue that most people would have no issue(or minor issues) with local governments subsidizing _Some_ of the cost of a new stadium and other forms of entertainment. I think the issue comes in when the financial cost is extraordinary (> 1 billion USD).

> The article directly addressed this point by saying..

It addressed this point for the US. It is a US centered article. Check all of the references. The data is US centric.

> While counter-intuitive, tourism does not see an increase as the result of a sporting event, as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain.

True of the US maybe but not London or Paris.

Also, london does not fund a private team's stadium (like PSD or Tottenham), they do sometimes fund national stadiums (like Wembley).

Let’s stay on topic this article is about the US.

> as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain

I'm having my trouble getting my head around this. That seems to say that a city WOULD benefit from the stadium because people would spend their money in a different city. I'm clearly not understanding it.

For example, I'm thinking of all of the people from Maine and NH that come to Boston to watch the Bruins play hockey. Without the team, they'd most likely not go to Boston, but might go to Manchester NH, or Portland ME instead. That's definitely not zero sum for the city of Boston or state of MA.

All that said, I also agree that cities and states shouldn't be providing the majority of funding for these types of facilities.

> I'm having my trouble getting my head around this. That seems to say that a city WOULD benefit from the stadium because people would spend their money in a different city. I'm clearly not understanding it.

No, you're reading it backwards. It said:

>> tourism does NOT see an increase as the result of a sporting event

Which is a bit wrong in using the word "event". Sure, city revenues will increase from a home game -- but that evens out when local fans travel elsewhere to see an away game, and spend money there that they otherwise would have spent at home. OK, it works if you take "event" to mean a set of home + away games between two teams... But anyway, having a team that attracts some away fans and their money will logically give no net revenue increase to any one city, since presumably (and on average across all cities, as a mathematical certainty) all away fans spending money "here" are also local fans somewhere else, not spending that away-game money in their home town.

> For example, I'm thinking of all of the people from Maine and NH that come to Boston to watch the Bruins play hockey. Without the team, they'd most likely not go to Boston, but might go to Manchester NH, or Portland ME instead. That's definitely not zero sum for the city of Boston or state of MA.

A) So Bruins fans only watch home games? OK, maybe they're more travel-averse than fans of other teams in the league... But one would think most cities' fans are about equal in this respect, so on average just as much money is siphoned out of the greater Boston area for away games.

B) See that "greater Boston area" above? That's your "city", for the purposes of this discussion. That the "sports-fandom city" happens to stretch across municipalities and even states in your case is kind of irrelevant; in principle it's no different than rivalry between various districts within a city about where to put the stadium. Wherever you put it, of course the immediately surrounding area gets more of that revenue than areas further away. :: It is zero-sum for "the city of Boston" as defined by Bruins-fandom.

I think my confusion is based on what "local" means in that article. My interpretation was literally the City of Boston, vs the regional catchment area for a team's fan base. Tourism in the umich article, and the sources it cites, is region to region. i.e. Someone coming from NH to Boston wouldn't be considered tourism as that's intra-region travel.

Looking at the study the umich study notes that stadium would little effect on net regional exports, which makes sense. However, that betters supports "governments shouldn't pay for stadiums" as a conclusion than narrowly defining it as "cities". That said, the fans come for the team more than they do for the stadium, and I agree with the conclusion that governments shouldn't be paying for these things.

>>. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities.

This has been dis proven TONS of time,including in the parent link. Funding of sports stadiums DOES NOT increase economic activity enough to cover the costs

> Every major "high prestige world city" as you describe is a hub for multiple sports and various tournaments that invites both local and international crowds.

My gut says you have the causal relationship here backwards. The lack of those teams wouldn't ding the city much, if at all.

> In addition to the local population, many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums.

The article refutes this point.

Anecdotally that also doesn’t really check out for me. I can’t name a single time me or anyone I know traveled to see a sports team unless it was something like the national championship or the Super Bowl. Maybe people see a sports team if they’re already visiting a city, but I just don’t associate “travel“ and “vacation“ with going to see a regular season game of any sport as the main objective.

> I just don’t associate “travel“ and “vacation“ with going to see a regular season game of any sport as the main objective.

Did it really say "vacation"? I think they meant "travel" as in going to another city (say, in a chartered bus packed full of fans, and which goes back home afterwards) to see your team's away game; at least that kind of travel is what brings most of the out-of-town spectators -- who are what's under discussion here, right? -- to most of the big inter-city sports events I know of.

For that kind of "travel", going to see a regular game of some sport is the main objective.

Sure but that’s a pretty narrow use case in the grand scheme of things. I’m not saying NO ONE does it, but compare it to, say, New York City. People go there for specific things not just to see big tall buildings. Certain restaurants, certain landmarks, certain parks, etc. And for the vast majority of people, yankee stadium isn’t really a consideration. Does that make sense?

Sure, makes sense. But then again, you seem to be as little of a sports fan as I am: If I were to got to NYC, I'd try to take in as much as possible of all of those things... and perhaps some kind of sportsball game while I'm at it. (Never having seen any baseball, I suspect I might try to fit that in, to see what all the hoopla is about.)

But I know people who plan trips abroad, for instance from Helsinki (Finland) to Liverpool and Manchester (UK) etc, mainly to see football. Sure, going that far they do other stuff to -- visit team museums, for instance:-) -- but the matches are the backbone the rest of the journey is scheduled around. Maybe there aren't all that much fewer of that kind of people than there are fanatic foodies? I really don't know. But yeah, of course both categories are a drop in the ocean compared to ordinary tourists.

> Local governments do subsidize movie production with all sorts of funding and grants.

Which is dumb, though I don't think the stupidity quite reaches "city spends a billion dollars for one particular team" level.

> This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities.

Again, the research on this is quite clear: the economic benefits there are meager at best.

> Ever heard of... - London: Arsenal, Chelsea, or Tottenham (Soccer), Wimbledon Championships (Tennis) - Paris: PSG (Soccer), French Open (Tennis)

I've heard of most of those, I guess I've just never heard of my friends or family going to see them, even though many have visited those cities (and myself as well).

> Which is dumb, though I don't think the stupidity quite reaches "city spends a billion dollars for one particular team" level.

If you look close enough, any spending that any governmental body does will have detractors. That's what happens when you spend someone else money.

From art to sports, to schools, to council housing, to foreign wars. There is always someone against it whose taxes end up supporting what they hate.

Sure, but you can have an argument about how taxes are distributed, that's what democracy is about. The ROI on investing on education is arguably better than the ROI of spending it on a stadium. And more people need to understand that the benefit of stadiums and sports teams is mostly about subsidizing billionaire sports teams owners.

I mean yeah, I wish the government were a lot more frugal with my money in general. but I don't mind as much when the money is spent on things that directly keep people fed, off the streets, and possibly learning some useful skills to contribute back.

Check football, real football, fan demographics. It’s the most popular sport in the world, just not the US.

> football, real football

As opposed to American hand-egg.

> Local governments do subsidize movie production with all sorts of funding and grants.

In yet another example of why government intervention in markets is mostly to make them worse: the politicians in charge can’t help but build and spend the citizens’ money on flashy vanity projects. Public expenses, private profits. They’ll talk it up like it’s some big “civic” investment in Prestige with all sorts of abstract benefits, rather than just being a handout to the rich — and if you challenge them, well, they will correctly tell you that everybody does it!!!

So what if City X gets some revenue from away-team fans when the City X Team has a home game? That only evens out with the revenue lost when the local fans go spend their money elsewhere on away games.

The article cites economic research showing the impact on tourism of new sports facilities is negligible.

Americans consider sport to be

* American Football

* Basketball

* Baseball

* Ice Hockey

Of which Ice Hockey is the only one really played outside of America (and I believe even that's mostly Canada which is basically America)

And why not city would ever fund a private team's stadium (like PSD or Tottenham), they do sometimes fund national stadiums (like Wembley)

Basketball and baseball are both extremely popular in many countries outside of the US and Canada.

This is typical reverse-American-exceptionalism sneering, where someone assumes that because something differs between the US and the few countries they’re familiar with (usually all in Northern and Western Europe), it must be unique to the US.

Baseball is one of the most popular sports in at least Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba.

> Basketball and baseball are both extremely popular in many countries outside of the US and Canada.

Basketball, sure. But:

> Baseball is one of the most popular sports in at least Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba.

Where "at least" is also simultaneously "at most", AFAIK. Six is not exactly "many". And, hey, since you're writing from an American perspective, Cuba doesn't exist, so it's only five. And Venezuela? Four. Taiwan will probably be part of the PRC soon, so we're down to three... And how significant is the Dominican Republic, really, in a global perspective? So you're left with pretty much just Japan and South Korea. And are any teams from there even in the "World" Series?

So, sorry -- and yes, I'm from Northern Europe and everything -- but you guys really make this "typical reverse-American-exceptionalism sneering" all too easy all too often. :-)

Basketball is a major sport worldwide, honestly probably #3 after soccer and cricket and ahead of tennis because of its popularity in China. Baseball and ice hockey are region-specific (Japan/DR/Cuba/Venezuela for baseball and Canada/Russia/Scandinavia for ice hockey).

> Canada/Russia/Scandinavia for ice hockey

The Nordic countries -- Finland is not in Scandinavia. Also Czechia, Slovakia, and perhaps Germany and Switzerland should also be counted. (Surely there can't be fewer hockey players there than there are baseball players in the Dominican Republic?)

I'd be surprised if cricket was the second sport worldwide, it's not played outside the old British colonies. Granted, one of those ex-colonies is India...

Basketball is the second sport in Europe by number of participants, for sure.

By size of fan base, cricket is worldwide #2, basketball is #7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport#Popularity

Cricket is also played in places that Indians have emigrated to, like the US.

It is played, almost exclusively, by said immigrants from the Indian subcontinent. So only in a handful of cities where there's a critical mass of them that are somewhat recently immigrated (and there is room for grounds).

"Played" as in a bunch of friends get together have a friendly game in the park on weekends or "played" as in a has an active pro league and a national teams that competes in major international tournaments?

Several (and by several I mean hundreds) leagues exist across various cities just in USA. They have properly organized tournaments and winners win prize money. Its not a bunch of friends who play in the park. These leagues have to maintain fields, proper playing gear and so on...

Here is just one example - http://www.bayareacricket.org/

"Basketball is the second sport in Europe by number of participants, for sure."

Any references for that?

(I should have said team sports, apologies)

It's the second most popular team sport in most European countries, including the major ones. It's the second one even in England, despite low visibility and significant competition by sports that don't really exist elsewhere [0].

[0] https://www.skysports.com/more-sports/news/36244/12069769/ba...

Hmm. I know someone who works in the UK basketball industry and it's very niche as an organised sport. Attendance at local events is really low. Something that sums up basketball in the UK for me is that I have a local basketball court but the kids only play football on it. There will be ethnic/regional variation though so I'm interested in the real figures.

These are the only hard figures I can find and it puts basketball behind cricket:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/899184/basketball-partic...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/899199/cricket-participa...

It's ahead of rugby union but about the same if combining with the league variant (ignoring recent covid years).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/899308/rugby-union-parti...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/899302/rugby-league-part...

Something to bear in mind when comparing it as a "team sport" is that it's not quite like for like. Basketball is much more accessible like tennis - it can be played casually with a couple of friends. A lot of homes will have a hoop in the garden or driveway.

Cricket and rugby will mostly be organised teams, dedicated pitches etc. If the question was "do you play in a local sports team" then I expect basketball to not be comparable. There might be more people playing with a frisbee in a park than are members of a local rugby team but calling it "a more popular sport than rugby" would feel misleading by failing to account for different level of commitment/organisation required.

Number of participants isn't really the best gauge when we're talking about stadia. Basketball might be played in most British schools and casually by many more people in yards with a hoop, but few British people could name a single UK basketball team; our basketball league is essentially ignored by mainstream media. Rugby takes a lot more organization due to being an inherently dangerous sport especially without competent technique and refereeing, but international games see sellout crowds of 80,000 with millions more watching on TV.

Fascinating, thanks - I had no idea basketball was that popular - where I live I'd have said rugby was the obvious candidate for the second most popular team sport with other sports like shinty far behind it.

Yeah I would think it would be rugby. There's a fair few basketball courts in the UK (often combined with tennis courts) but professionally it's not on the radar at all. Less so even than ice hockey.

Rugby has minuscule participation rates outside of Britain, Ireland, and France. Which is why Italy can continue to take part in the 6 Nations despite being abysmal: because there is nobody else.

Even in England, by participation rates it edges rugby, because it's the second sport in populous inner cities.

I believe our friends in New Zealand are quite good at it too... ;-)

The fact they insist on living in the other hemisphere kinda stops them from applying for the 6 Nations though ;)

Do you have a source for that? I've just looked into it and while the data is sparse and the list after #1 Football varies in order, basketball doesn't make an appearance at all in the articles I've seen.

It does appear that basketball is very popular outside western Europe though, so I learned something today! It makes sense, I do enjoy basketball myself and think that a lot of sports in Europe persist on the weight of tradition moreso than their fun factor.

>Ice Hockey is the only one really played outside of America

So people really believe this shit?

Brittney Griner, a mega star in the WBNA, is currently being detained in Russia on drug charges. What was she doing in Russia in the first place? She was there playing professional basketball for a Russian team. She makes a magnitude larger salary playing in Russia than she does in the WBNA.

Baseball is a major sport in Japan and the Caribbean. There's even an MLB team in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organized_baseball_lea...

A game very similar to American football (Canadian football) has been played in Canada since the late 1800s.

> Of which Ice Hockey is the only one really played outside of America

This is hilariously false. Baseball is wildly popular outside of the US, in particular in Japan and the Dominican Republic. Basketball is also incredibly popular outside the US.

Just because it's not soccer and the people aren't white doesn't mean it's not popular. By that same metric baseball isn't even that popular in the US.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and is now arguably the 4th most popular sport in the US placing it ahead of NHL (Ice Hockey) and it is fast expanding in reach and popularity across the country. Part of the reason for this is that it is generally a very accessible sport to both play and watch as a spectator. Even for the casual attendee, it provides a fun atmosphere to experience - you don't need to be a hardcore fan to enjoy it.

The most recent expansion team, Austin FC, sold out 100% of every home game in their inaugural season with an average of 20k+ attendees in a privately-funded city-owned stadium.

Also let's not forget about the USWNT who are the most successful team in international women's soccer.

Of all the sports that sportsball people watch, this one is by far the most boring. Kind of amazing really.

Really? I'm not into watching pro sports, but if I had to pick the most boring one it'd definitely be baseball. People barely even move, and at least in golf they manage to hit the ball somewhere basically every swing.

“Baseball is a slow, sluggish game, with frequent and trivial interruptions, offering the spectator many opportunities to reflect at leisure upon the situation on the field: This is what a fan loves most about the game”

- Edward Abbey

For what it's worth (vanishingly little), I say that basketball is the most boring sport: everyone runs to one end of the court and somebody shoots and does or doesn't score, then everyone runs to the other end of the court and the same thing happens. This repeats until the last minute or so on the clock, which takes an unbounded amount of time to play because of fouls and free throws.

True for the NBA and most of the college season. But March Madness is always entertaining. IMO, of course.

This is why I stopped watching NBA. It's largely become a 3 point contest with an occasional dunk from a fast break or defensive lapse.

At least the college kids sometimes miss their shots. :)

May I introduce you to: Cricket

Like a more sedate baseball but slower and longer

Yeah, a sport where you wear a sweater during the summer. For five days.

This is also the best sport to show in an office, because people don't watch anything but the wickets. I used to work on a trading floor where they showed it all day on a screen, no problem.

> Yeah, a sport where you wear a sweater during the summer. For five days.

Not sure you’d wear that in NZ or Australia during the summer. Or maybe the purists would, strange game.

The sport is not my cup of tea but I recently listened to a (sadly paywalled) episode of the TrashFuture podcast which gave me a newfound respect for Cricket. There's a ~10 minute preview of it here: https://trashfuturepodcast.podbean.com/e/preview-britainolog...

Oh speaking of tea, a thing non-Cricket-knowers might enjoy is that a cricket match will traditionally stop for "tea" during the game. Players will go into a pavilion, have some cakes and sandwiches then resume play a little later.

Professional cycling. 4+ hour races, where 3.5 hours are people "just riding along" (granted at speeds that us mortals can only dream about). The sprints and the climbs are exciting, but everything in between is seriously boring for anybody who isn't a cycling geek (I am, my wife is not; she likes the 20 minute highlight reel, I spend most of July on the couch watching the Tour).

That assessment is 100% subjective, and anyway millions of people disagree with it.

Not American Football, where they regularly stop and bring out a whole new team?

That's the whole 'charm' of American Football. Every player is hyper specialized to do exactly one thing (I guess you can say American Football follows the Unix philosophy in that point). I mean they have two entirely different sets of players dedicated to kicking with each one specializing in a particular type of kick.

The only one that's not played outside the US is the American Football. Basketball is second (to football) in quite a lot of European countries, and in some like Lithuania, likely the #1. So is Ice Hockey. Baseball is massive in Asia as well.

American football is also played in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, and even Europe a little bit. Certainly not as popular as other sports outside the US, though.

>American football is also played in Canada

Well, sorta. That statement is sufficiently true, but technically incorrect; it'd be a stretch to call Canadian and American football different sports entirely, but the differences, even if minor, are multitudinous enough to merit consideration.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_Can...

I have met precisely one German fan of American Football. He rooted for the Stuttgart Stallions[1] who I had never heard of before. So, it’s definitely niche, but there are European leagues. Somewhat amusingly to me they call it “Football” as Americans do.

[1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_Stallions

Without "likely", I'm fairly sure it's n.1 in the Baltic region as a whole. It used to be n.1 in Yugoslavia too but I think football has since claimed that spot.

American Football is played outside the US and is growing in popularity. Watching NFL games in bars in Mexico City is a lot of fun, and I'm not much of a sports fan.

Baseball is huge in Japan and other Asian countries and has been for a long time.

Also Cuba.

And the Dominican Republic.

Ice hockey is mostly a Canadian and northern European sport, the US last became world champions in 1960. Even the Czech republic is ahead of the US in rankings.

America is a top hockey country who is a threat for a medal or world championship any time their best players are allowed to participate.

America has some great hockey but as a popular sport it's much more dominant in Canada.

Does winning the Olympics in 1980 not count as world champion? And getting the silver in 2010 isn't exactly terrible imo.

>Does winning the Olympics in 1980 not count as world champion?

Olympics (used to) disallow professional athletes in some team competitions. The US basketball dream team of '92 was so fabled b/c it was the 1st time to allow NBA players to partake. So in that regard Olympics don't really count as 'world champion' in pretty much any team sport event. 1980 hockey was no exception and featured "amateurs".

> 1980 hockey was no exception and featured "amateurs".

Where the definition of "amateurs" differed wildly depending on which side of the Iron Curtain you were from... Up to about 1985 the ice hockey World Championship was mostly about who would come second after the Soviet Union (usually Czechoslovakia). The Soviet Union's national team was largely identical to CSKA MOCKBA[1], whose players were all officers[2] who probably didn't do much else while on the clock than play, practice, or exercise for playing hockey.

___

[1]: Club Sport Krasnaja Armija, the Red Army Sports Club Moskva (Moscow)

[2]: Long-time goalkeeper Vyacheslav Tretyak ended up a full colonel, IIRC.

> Does winning the Olympics in 1980 not count as world champion?

No. That makes them Olympic champions.

The world championship is an annual competition[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Hockey_World_Championships

But AIUI many -- perhaps most? -- other sports than ice hockey skip the WC in Olympic years and count the Olympic champion(s) as world champion(s) for those years.

Although the government did fund the Olympic stadium in London, and then converted it and leased it to West Ham on ludicrously generous terms, which effectively works out as funding a private team's stadium:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/nov/02/west-ham-...

It's weird that London 2012 did reasonably well trying to avoid Olympic white elephants with facilities that could be downsized, use of existing sites etc., but really messed up what to do with the main stadium itself.

I think the only other major team stadium involving government stuff in the UK was the Coventry Building Society Arena (previously the Ricoh Arena) that used to be partly owned by Coventry City Council alongside a charity. But that was more notable for a long rent dispute between Coventry City FC and the stadium owners and various threats to move / build new stadiums etc., so was presumably less of a gift to the team financially. It's now owned by the Wasps rugby team, who also ended up in some sort of rent dispute with Coventry City FC leading to them playing at Birmginham City's ground for a couple of years.

> Of which Ice Hockey is the only one really played outside of America (and I believe even that's mostly Canada which is basically America)

I hear hockey is popular in Russia too, which is hardly “basically America.”

Ice hockey is far more popular in Canada than America.

Baseball is also played in Japan and central America

Reply on news.ycombinator.com