1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hruby on Sports Welfare

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Alma, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Not a short read or a light read, but an important read - for journalists. In years to come, more cities and universities will have their hands out. This article can be a useful reference point.

  2. silent_h

    silent_h Member

    My biggest takeaway from this, as a journalist, is that there are a whole lot of experts on this out there, and most of them are frustrated that no one pays attention to this. A major untapped resource for anyone pursuing this.

    Second takeaway is that it helps a lot to think systemically about the topic. For instance: stadium subsidies aren't just the result of bad deals being cut by local politicians, but also because federal antitrust exemptions and rules create an environment where pro leagues largely have been able to control and limit team supply. Things like that.

    Also, Alma, thank you for the kind words. I'd like to take credit for most of the reporting in this piece, but the fact is that a lot of really smart and hard-working writers and journalists out there dug up just about everything I mentioned in the piece. I tried to link back to give them due credit, and really just attempted to put it all together in a way that might draw some attention. Get people thinking about the bigger picture of Sports Welfare and how it fits into the even bigger picture of what's happening in America.

    It's easier to ignore a few drops of rain than rushing water up to your waist.
  3. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    No lie. This may rank as my favorite read that I can remember in a while. Outstanding. And I'm in total agreement. Bravo, Pat. Times a million.
  4. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    Fantastic stuff. I know a lot of this may have been out there already, but the piece makes for a great resource.
  5. FileNotFound

    FileNotFound Well-Known Member

    Very, very well done. I always cringe when I hear about some publicly subsidized stadium deal, but seeing the aggregate is truly stunning.
  6. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    I've followed Field of Schemes for quite a while now, but damn does this really put it all in perspective.

    This may be the best article I've read in 10 years.
  7. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Good article. Doesn't even mention how sports benefits from cable TV. Granted cable isn't a "necessity" but if you want cable, a big chunk of your bill is for sports whether you are a fan or not.
  8. silent_h

    silent_h Member

    This is what I like about the board. You're right. I actually thought long and hard about including something on this in the Sports Welfare piece -- in part because I think the cable bill sports subsidy is on the verge of becoming a thing, topic and story-wise -- but decided for a couple of reasons that it would be better off in a stand-alone column.

    I also thought Will Leitch would be a better person to address this in an interesting and meaningful way, so I gave him a few gentle suggestions and ... voila:


    Think he did a really, really fine job on this.
  9. boundforboston

    boundforboston Well-Known Member

    Patrick: Great work on the column. I really enjoyed it. I was wondering whether the government's sponsorship of NASCAR and other sports really yielded no prospects. You wrote: "On the House floor, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) lamented that “it is irresponsible and outrageous to think this Congress would be willing to borrow money from China to pay one race car driver and his team $26 million for delivering zero recruits!” I would think advertising is a strong way to gain recruits, but I could be wrong, of course.
  10. Bamadog

    Bamadog Well-Known Member

    Great, great piece. Thoroughly enjoyed it. The part about fines and the resultant tax writeoffs was particularly illuminating and informative.

    It expanded marvelously on the corruption of the bowl games and how these charities, like the Sugar Bowl, didn't give a dime to actually help anyone, except themselves.

    It's evil, it's corporate welfare and it's the fat cats gaming the system.

    I've railed on this for years. It's corruption, pure and simple. Billionaire owners getting you and I to pay for their ever-ridiculous palaces to the greater glory of the athlete.

    The Miami stadium deal was particularly disgusting. Another is how taxpayers are paying for stadiums that have been imploded or are sitting vacant.

    But our political class, right and left, is 100% bought and paid for by these mobsters. One can only hope people will wake up, draw a line and say enough.
  11. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    and yet there are still those that will support the owners in labor disputes
  12. silent_h

    silent_h Member

    I wondered this myself, and it's the one place I could be convinced that I'm wrong. The Pentagon does need recruits. And that does take outreach/advertising.

    Thing is, does a pricey NASCAR sponsorship give you the best bang for the buck? Is military service sellable the way beer, motor oil and GoDaddy are? Or is it more of a corporate vanity thing, like DuPont sponsoring a car?

    I'd like to see some sort of professional cost-benefit analysis for the Pentagon's marketing budget. I suspect that may not exist.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page