'How the NFL fleeces taxpayers'

This seems like one of those areas where well-informed politicians should overrule the ignorant will of the people. Sort of the whole reason we have representatives.

 

Tell that to the taxpayers in Miami.

 

Certainly the Federal government shouldn't be subsidizing businesses. It picks winners and losers every time it does.

And, I'm against most state and local efforts too, but I wouldn't say they should not be allowed. Cities and states should be competing for jobs, for residents, and for corporations. They should be able to offer incentives. Now, what I'd prefer is that low taxes and regulation be the law. This would attract people and jobs. And, there wouldn't be a need to waive them, and "negotiate" with businesses to attract them.

 

And Pittsburgh.

 

I don't know that you realize it, but this is a very dangerous line of thought.

 

Exactly. People need to remember Allegheny County voters shot down funding for those stadiums.

 

In other words, people make big money in both ventures. You just don't like the people in one of the ventures.

 

I haven't read through this whole thread yet, and it's a great debate. But one thing I've noticed is that some people seem to be arguing that benefits of stadiums are limited to the dollars spent on game days in establishments in close proximity to the stadiums that are built. I think the benefits extend beyond that.

I live about an hour from Foxborough, and I can tell you that, home or away, when the Patriots are playing, bars/restaurants across a six state area are full of fans spending money on food and drinks while they watch on TV. The social element of watching the game with a large group of fans still exists, no matter how good our home entertainment systems have become.

If the Patriots, for instance, moved to Los Angeles, I think there would be a distinct drop in revenue across New England on Sundays. I don't think football fans would decide to start spending $100 at the local movie theater instead of the local bar.

That being said, I am against taxpayer-funded stadiums. I think they are a drain on local/state governments. I have no problem with funding infrastructure improvements around the venues, such as highways, subways, etc., because those make life easier for everyone and keep people employed, but if Jerry Jones wants to build the world's biggest TV screen, that's coming out of his pocket.

 

The problem is the franchises and city leaders selling the public on the venue with bogus ROI figures.

Years ago, we had city leaders considering a publicly-financed stadium. They brought in a consultant to study the economic impact and he found it would pay for itself. He started doing a media blitz saying to would add millions per year to the economy. Of course, when I got to interview the consultant he refused to answer if he'd ever told a city "no, this won't work." And when I started asking about past venues he'd consulted on that were financial boondoggles that didn't live up to his predictions, he left.

 

You didn't even try to understand his post.

 

Patriots football was a crickets factory as recently as 20 years ago.
Why isn't this acknowledged when the deceitful try to paint NE as a football hotbed?

 

I just thought of this when I saw this -- my wife actually was on the JerryWorld field once for a corporate event, which featured a lockerroom tour and a performance (and autographs) from the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. This was part of the annual meeting of an association of the private equity industry.