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!

Privatization of US Stadiums

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by qtlaw, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Relating to a recent thread, why should public funds continue to fund stadiums for NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL teams that have provided their owners the greatest rate of return the past 30 years? Its ridiculous, the owners have exploited the fans' sense of "ownership" in their teams by threatening to change the team names from San Francisco 49ers to "Santa Clara" 49ers or "Jersey City" Jets. The "money-multiplier" formula is flawed and not supported by history. Plus there are huge ancillary costs, added infrastructure and public security for the stadiums, which show that the stadiums are losers. In light of the declining state of the US' public education system, stadiums should not be a high priority.
  2. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    1) A federal law should be passed making it utterly illegal for public tax money to be used to construct professional sports facilities anywhere in the United States.

    2) Teams already playing in such facilities should be mandated by law to reimburse the local taxpaying municipality which funded the stadium for the complete cost of building the stadium, over a 10-year period. If they cannot or will not do so, the rent for them to play in such facilities should be increased to 75% of all revenues (gate receipts, concessions, parking).

    3) No franchise currently operating in a facility constructed with the use of public funds will ever be allowed to transfer its operations to any location in the United States. If you're playing in a tax-supported arena, either make it work or fold up your tents.
  3. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Do you know what the difference between Pittsburgh and Columbus is? Or Pittsburgh and Richmond?

    The Pirates and the Steelers

    Keeping pro teams in your area might seem like a financial waste, but look at what happens when they leave.

    Do you really think having the Browns back, no matter how crappy they might be, is better for Cleveland? Yes. No question.

    How important is major college athletics? Have you ever been to Syracuse? Have you ever wanted to go?

    Have you ever wanted to go see Albany, Binghamton or Rochester?

    It's all about PR and name recognition. The value sports gives a city when it comes to this is unmeasurable.
  4. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    I agree with point #3, but with a 20 year limit on the agreement.
  5. NoOneLikesUs

    NoOneLikesUs Active Member

    No. No. No.

    When there wasn't football it was a good three years. I wish those days would return.
  6. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    Richmond metro population growth, 1960-2006: 110%
    Private-sector job growth, 2000-07: 9.2%

    Columbus metro population growth, 1960-2006: 84%
    Private-sector job growth: 2000-07: 1.9%

    Pittsburgh metro population growth, 1960-2006: minus-12%
    Private-sector job growth, 2000-07: minus-0.1%

    Dear god, look what happens when those teams stay!
  7. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    Bob Cook debunks this point perfectly, 93Devil. There is nothing at all to support that argument, other than some completely vague talk of "a city's morale" and such. The whole "revilization of this part of town" argument has been shot down by a nubmer of people who are experts in economics and urban growth.
  8. Bill Brasky

    Bill Brasky Active Member

    Public funding of stadiums is nothing more than welfare for multi-millionaires and billionaires. They don't draw new residents to a city and they don't really attract new business (all they do is cause a shift in where restaurants, bars and hotels are located in a city).
    What's really aggrivating is places where people pony up for a new stadium and the team is still shitty. People in Pittsburgh ought to sue the shit out of the Pirates' owners for taking all that money and putting crap on the field.
  9. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    Show us some tourism numbers and you might have my vote.
  10. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    So many factors.

    Show me a steel mill on the James River, then we can compare unemployment rates.

    Gunny, Richmond is going to get a lot of Civil War tourists, so it is tough to compare that as well.

    My feeling is Pittsburgh would be less of a city without the Steelers. But I agree, the city should sue the Nuttings.
  11. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Huh? Because Richmond doesn't have as much unemployment, you can't compare unemployment rates?
  12. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    No, you cannot. Steel production moving overseas crippled the employment rate of the North in the 70s and 80s. Richmond and other southern states did not have this factor.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page