Ridiculous. NFL Stadium construction is funded by taxpayers to the tune of 68%

[SF1900]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/20/1365048/-Sports-Stadiums-Have-No-Impact-on-Municipal-Economies-So-Why-is-it-We-Still-Subsidize-the-NFL


Leeds studied Chicago – as big a sports town as there is – with five major teams.
“If every sports team in Chicago were to suddenly disappear, the impact on the Chicago economy would be a fraction of 1 percent,” said Leeds.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1997/06/summer-taxes-noll

Another article about sport stadiums and taxes.

The economic rationale for cities' willingness to subsidize sports facilities is revealed in the campaign slogan for a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers: "Build the Stadium—Create the Jobs!" Proponents claim that sports facilities improve the local economy in four ways. First, building the facility creates construction jobs. Second, people who attend games or work for the team generate new spending in the community, expanding local employment. Third, a team attracts tourists and companies to the host city, further increasing local spending and jobs. Finally, all this new spending has a "multiplier effect" as increased local income causes still more new spending and job creation. Advocates argue that new stadiums spur so much economic growth that they are self-financing: subsidies are offset by revenues from ticket taxes, sales taxes on concessions and other spending outside the stadium, and property tax increases arising from the stadium's economic impact.

Unfortunately, these arguments contain bad economic reasoning that leads to overstatement of the benefits of stadiums. Economic growth takes place when a community's resources—people, capital investments, and natural resources like land—become more productive. Increased productivity can arise in two ways: from economically beneficial specialization by the community for the purpose of trading with other regions or from local value added that is higher than other uses of local workers, land, and investments. Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.

[Dave D]

The stadiums generally are a bad deal for tax payers. They don't create jobs, unless you're referring to the temporary construction jobs until the project is finished (Selling popcorn seasonally isn't a real job).

NFL stadiums are the worst because if a team doesn't use the stadium for home playoff games its used 10 times (8 regular & 2 preseason games) for its intended purpose and MAYBE 5 more times for concerts. A lot of public money being spent to use the venue for 13 events a year.

How many local economies collapse when a sports team leaves? There are examples (Cleveland Browns, LA with the Rams and Raiders,now St.Louis, or Seattle with the NBA) and the cities do fine post team.

Im a sports fan and Id be devastated if my team left, but the stadium is hardly ever a good deal for the tax payers.

[Rambone]

It's a shame taxes are taken from wealthy heterosexuals to fund a homosexual sport. I'm surprised IFBB shows haven't started taxing us. As long as I'm alive, I never want to look at my pay stub and see a 5% "thong tax".

[SOMEPARTS]

It is, but the ROI for the tax payers who funded it is negligible. Like negative.

Just like most taxes, really.

[El Diablo Blanco]

Nfl is only 8 games a year. For the rest of the year the stadium is used to hustle used cars and monster track rallies. It's not really a boost for a city.  Most stadiums aren't even in the city they represent. Look at NE, SF, Cowboys, Giants etc.   

[tonymctones]

Don't care, I pay for your disability and social security the least you limp dicks can do is pay for a football stadium so I can enjoy my off time a little more before I go back to supporting you.

[hardgainerj]

[El Diablo Blanco]

The irony is that 99% of those that pay taxes to build the stadium can't even afford tickets to watch one game.  Only in America bitches !!!!

[Walter Sobchak]

I think there are more important things to spend money on and better ways of generating revenue.

Such as?

Enlighten us with your economic wisdom.

[DanielPaul]

Wal-Mart isn't the best thing for many established , local small business.
It's often said that when Wal-Mart rolls in, everything unique and special in your town, rolls out.

and did you know that some cities will gaurantee the profits of that Walmart just to get it into there town, I'm not really sure but I don't think that's very good business to be in for cities

[TuHolmes]

While I do like football, I have to agree that tax payer funding of stadiums seems pretty asinine.

[Coach is Back!]

Such as?

Enlighten us with your economic wisdom.

Personally I think we have too many cooking shows so that's out.

[Marty Champions]

unfortunatly idiot people will move to a city because they like sport teams wich lead to night life traffic tickets hotel  restarant money ect

its not the stadium alone
sports fans all over the dam place they all suck too
cheif economist

[doggler]

Here we go again. Nutsack is Back with his copy/paste faggotry.

[TuHolmes]

The money it will bring to Los Angeles will have so little impact it doesn't matter.

[Walter Sobchak]

I'd happily pay that tax and more like it  

Since the ancient Greeks, the masses have yearned to see a spectacle  played out before their eyes in a big stadium. The Romans were famous for it and the Gladiators of the Colliseum live on today in the NFL and MMA arenas.

The need to see blood battles is as old as human nature.

Howard thinly unveiling his man love for Kirk Douglas and gladiator movies like Spartacus

[Fuzzy Nuts]

The irony is that 99% of those that pay taxes to build the stadium can't even afford tickets to watch one game.  Only in America bitches !!!!

Some teams like the Packers are 100% season tickets, yet take tax dollars.

Using tax dollars to fund billionaires private businesses, land of the free.

[Coach is Back!]

Some teams like the Packers are 100% season tickets, yet take tax dollars.

Using tax dollars to fund billionaires private businesses, land of the free.

Yes, because all of the profits go to them. Genius.


Flip a burger.

[TuHolmes]

Yes, because all of the profits go to them. Genius.


Flip a burger.

Most of them do.

If you are signing checks for millions a year, then yes, you are probably making a decent amount.

Last count of 31 owners (The Packers have shareholders) 18 of them are Billionaires... With a B.

Billionaires taking money from working stiffs seem ok to you Coach?

Seems to me that it's socialism... Taking money from the masses and giving them to the wealthy class.

[Coffeed]

Most of them do.

If you are signing checks for millions a year, then yes, you are probably making a decent amount.

Last count of 31 owners (The Packers have shareholders) 18 of them are Billionaires... With a B.

Billionaires taking money from working stiffs seem ok to you Coach?

Seems to me that it's socialism... Taking money from the masses and giving them to the wealthy class.

You make it sound like the billionaires are taking money from these people.

But these people are paying to go a game and buy the jerseys and the sports cards and hats.

I own exactly 0 NFL hats shirts or other apparel, nor do I pay for the NFL network or cable TV sports package. And I never had anyone try to force me to buy any of that...

So, I'm not going to blame some nameless rich guy for shoving pro sports down my throat.

[TuHolmes]

You make it sound like the billionaires are taking money from these people.

But these people are paying to go a game and buy the jerseys and the sports cards and hats.

I own exactly 0 NFL hats shirts or other apparel, nor do I pay for the NFL network or cable TV sports package. And I never had anyone try to force me to buy any of that...

So, I'm not going to blame some nameless rich guy for shoving pro sports down my throat.

I'm not talking about the money making by people choosing to buy things.

I'm talking about a billionaire getting a city to take local tax dollars in the billions of dollars (The new LA stadium will be 2.9 BILLION dollars to build) and it coming from tax payers because a BILLIONAIRE doesn't want to spend money on one themselves.

It's insane really.

[El Diablo Blanco]

Some teams like the Packers are 100% season tickets, yet take tax dollars.

Using tax dollars to fund billionaires private businesses, land of the free.

The new trend are PSL.  Teams charging thousands to tens of thousands for the right to purchase season tickets.  They're making an extra couple hundred million on day from these stadiums.  None of that goes back to the city.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Yes, because all of the profits go to them. Genius.


Flip a burger.

Flip a burger = pick that up ten times, now put it down. You are a mouth breathing simple son of a bitch.

You complain about paying for health insurance, yet giving tax dollars to billionaires is ok.

[Coffeed]

I'm not talking about the money making by people choosing to buy things.

I'm talking about a billionaire getting a city to take local tax dollars in the billions of dollars (The new LA stadium will be 2.9 BILLION dollars to build) and it coming from tax payers because a BILLIONAIRE doesn't want to spend money on one themselves.

It's insane really.

My guess it has more to do with politicians than what the people want. The influx of cash and growth just seems like low hanging fruit for some politician to put that feather in their hat.

But honestly, I have no idea... if a city is big enough to financially support/warrant a sports team then it's probably a foregone conclusion that enough people will be in favor. After all, people with jobs want something to do.  I mean, I think, who is voting against a stadium in or near their city? It's probably mostly people with jobs who care about the negatives associated with the impact that stadium will have. That, to me, seems like a voting minority.

[Dave D]

The new trend are PSL.  Teams charging thousands to tens of thousands for the right to purchase season tickets.  They're making an extra couple hundred million on day from these stadiums.  None of that goes back to the city.

Si.com has an interesting article about Joe Robbie and how he was the first to build a stadium via private funds and psl's.

Even if the owner fiances the new stadium out of pocket, there is usually a deal with local governments that results in tax cuts and maintenance fees.  Somehow the public gets shoehorned into making some sort of contributions (although private funded is far better than publicly funded).