'How the NFL fleeces taxpayers'

Does it, though? The conceit of Gregg Easterbrook's story is that all of these taxes, if not going to NFL teams, would be spent on education and roads and police. But they wouldn't. The taxes are supported and passed because the teams threaten to leave town, and citizens and legislators cave. Do you think that hypothetical P.S. 356 on the near-east side can swing that kind of weight around? It can't. The Colts subsidies aren't robbing from schools and police and roads. The Colts subsidies would not exist were they not going to the Colts. They would remain in some businessman from Memphis's or Detroit's or Peoria's pocket.

 

I don't think that NFL teams bring in a ton of money for cities. I am most familiar with Denver. The Broncos, as do all other NFL teams, rely on the same season ticket base year after year. Not that many people travel into the city and spend the night to see the games. It is also very difficult to develop an entertainment infrastructure around a football stadium, that is used 15 times a year or so. There is not much in the way of entertainment around Sports Authority field in Denver.

 

OK, I follow you now. I was inferring that those "productive" areas of the economy meant public investment. But now that I read it again, it's clear what you mean because you say "driven by demand."

I think you are glossing over the collective action/free-rider problem, though. Obviously the Memphis businessman doesn't care about the Colts, so they aren't a great example. But the Washington State resident may want nothing more than for his 10 cents property tax increase to go to the Seahawks rather than toward a candy bar. But it's a pointless purchase - those 10 cents to the Seahawks - unless the rest of the citizenry is on board, too. Under your extreme free market view, roads and schools wouldn't be built, either. Because who would actually contribute their tiny share toward that, let alone the thousands needed to make it happen?

 

I posted this in the Braves stadium thread, but there is uniformity across ideological lines that there sorts of "targeted" incentives are a waste of money.

https://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-and-commentary-state-tax-incentives

They exist because political entities are willing to compete against each other to do anything to look like they're "bringing jobs." Missouri's governor just called for a truce in a battle between his state and Kansas to lavish tax incentives on private businesses, but even if it happens, so what? Some other state or locality (like Rick Perry's tour of states to poach businesses for Texas) will find a way to give out a deal.

 

Also, the beauty of giving out tax incentives is that you never have to bring it directly to the citizenry for a vote, like you have to do with, say, increasing school taxes. I'm sure if you had a vote to RAISE taxes for the purpose of getting a company to stay, the issue of these incentives might get more attention that it does from the general public.

 

Green Bay is the NFL market I'm most familiar with and it probably is the exception.

If not for the Packers, dozens of hotels are not filled - hundreds of restaurants are not filled. People make a "weekend" out of going to Green Bay, zipping up to Door County (the thumb of Wisconsin - look at your left hand, that's Wisconsin).

Green Bay without the Packers would be Oshkosh as there really is no other "culture" there. Appleton (25 miles away) actually has a far stronger economic outlook than Green Bay. Better airport. Better retail. Better careers. Better schools. Except it doesn't have the Packers.

 

Well said. The money given to The NFL is better spent than say money given to organizations like Acorn.

 

Until you guys put numbers on the dollars spent outside the stadium for sporting events, and then reduce that further by taxes turned over to the local and state jurisdictions, this is just an argument supported by annecdote.

70% of the total capital investment for all NFL Stadiums was/is provided by taxpayers, not owners. That's $10,850,000,000.00 of taxpayer money on 31 stadiums at 500 Million dollar cost per stadium, extremely conservative.

Construction jobs are temporary so the bump in employment is very short lived. After the cost of the ticket, how much does a ticket represent in dollars spent? $50 per person, including little Jimmy and Janey who go with Mom and Dad? Jets and Giants fans tail gate, all the money is spent for parking and either at the grocery store or in the stadium, no outside businesses make money. How many teams are similar?

Public investment in sports stadiums is bad for taxpayers.
BTW The NFL pays zero taxes. It is a non profit organization. Roger Goodell must be the highest paid employee of a non profit entity since Stalin.

 

Yes, revenue is the same as social value. People just don't appreciate the how much good bondage porn and black-tar heroin bring to our communities.

 

Excellent points... I think there are a few other markets where it's similar, as in, a lot of people driving in from out of town to go to games. I don't think you're going to see that in New York, San Francisco or Chicago, but you see it with the Broncos, the Chiefs, the Packers, the Steelers, to a lesser extent, with the Seahawks, where the team's fan base is an entire state, or in the case of the Steelers, a large portion of the state, where going to a game will likely involve staying at a hotel. I think the Cowboys get a bit of that as well.