Why Are Taxpayers Funding America's Extravagant Sports Stadiums?

I love Sports, but for a longtime I've been a bit peeved that Taxpayers help pay for the construction of Stadiums that are becoming more and more lavish, being rebuilt more and more frequently. With the money these highly successful Teams make with their Billionaire Owners, why are we subsidizing them?

Detroit goes Bankrupt but has no problem subsidizing the Red Wings new Arena..... The Billionaires should pay for it and pay Taxes which they avoid. The NFL pays No Taxes.

John Oliver does a better Job explaining with humor. Recommend watching the video before posting as all "bases" are covered.

Make them Pay, Make them Pay, Make them Pay, Make them Pay, Make them Pay,

a reply to: ugmold

Exactly, there is no excuse for these rip-offs.

The stadium in Baltimore cost more than $100 million and paid an annual operating cost of around $40,000 to the city which provided 90% of the funding.

It is up there with public sector unions as causes of municipal bankruptcy.

a reply to: ugmold
I have mentioned this before, but it is worth saying again, I guess.
Why does a 5 Billion dollar business like the NFL need taxpayer funded stadiums?

I understand that the areas around the stadiums get an economic boost from the the teams being in their locality, but it seems like a 'raping' of the taxpayer.

The NFL has the cities by the balls though. If you refuse to build them a modern super stadium, they will just pick up and go to another city that will be happy to build one with their citizen's dollars.

a reply to: ugmold

Great thread OP - I have the same disgust for Shell Oil and these other mega companies that actually get money back from the government in the form of tax subsidies etc.

These corporations could contribute so much to taxes and yet they get cut breaks. How does that make any sense? Where the hell is the outrage?

Lobbying by corporations and rich investors. Why use their money when they can lobby for yours?

Great Thread. Why did Rome build the Coliseum? I am with ya, the owners rake in billions and the athletes get paid millions and still get subsidies and we wonder why the ticket prices are sky high. I am a fan, but there is not enough money in my budget to afford to go to these events. You would think that professional teams onboard the NFL could be self-sustaining, and if not they fold up and go away. Same goes for NBA.

originally posted by: mapsurfer_
Why did Rome build the Coliseum?

Not a good analogy, addmission to the Colosseum was for the most part free.

Awesome video, I was laughing and crying at the same time.

They actually have a FISH TANK that wraps around behind home plate at the Marlins stadium?????

Subsidized by the taxpayers.

Infinity pools in luxury suites.......subsidized.......

Yet schools closing and infrastructure crumbling because they cant afford it.

Oh!!!! and when they invent HOLOGRAPHIC REPLAY displays the taxpayers HAVE TO BUY IT

Final days of Rome comes to mind, bread and circuses.

a reply to: ugmold

In England The Football Clubs themselves own 95% of all stadiums. There are no hand outs from the taxpayer. I am amazed that the tax payer in The U.S. is asked to fork out.

Here are a few examples of Football Club owned stadiums. The last example is The National Stadium owned by The Football Association.

a reply to: ugmold

The American public is being taxed to death! We're being double taxed and triple taxed! Billionaires and millionaires don't pay for their fair share. We have people in subsidized housing who don't even pay a dollar towards school taxes, yet have kids who benefit from it. Churches and non-profit groups benefit from being a non-taxable entity, yet can raise thousands of dollars from festivals, raffles and other money making events. They use the same city services as everyone else, yet taxpayers have to take on the burden of higher taxes just to cover the shortages on the tax roll.

I blame our politicians who keep on finding ways to pick our pockets.

Reading, PA has a minor league baseball stadium that boasts a swimming pool and picnic pavilion. First Energy Stadium has had a lot of taxpayer money put into upgrades over the years. Seats 9,000.
The ground that it sits on was purchased by the city and the city paid for the stadium to be built in the late 1940's.
Wikipedia: First Energy Stadium

a reply to: alldaylong

Damn, that second pic looks photo shopped. What stadium is that?

ETA: Turns out it is not a real stadium.

allow me to be contrarian.
sports events bring in a lot of money to the stadium area with diners, souvenir hunters, hotel guests, etc. lots of locals earn a little extra dinero working the events (tickets, food, cleanup, etc.).

plus there is the prestige factor. if you're selling your city to a potential client a major league team is a huge plus. Columbus OH is a large city, but few people think of it so (their only major league team is an obscure NHL franchise). Baltimore has the Orioles and Ravens, and *everybody* (read middle-age men, who dominate in the corporate world) knows about it.
hard to put a value on the positive impact that 'live from Baltimore' shots on national tv, and images of the inner Harbor and a table of steamed crabs etc., has on tourists etc.
cities don't need fountains or statues or such, but most have them. a stadium of course is a lot more $, but the people that live in that rarified environment (big-city mayors, gummint officials, corporate titans) are comfortable with.

I agree the investment may not be worth it, at least in terms of dollars only, but there is the aforementioned civic prestige. Baltimoreans were incensed at the loss of the Colts and demanded that their pols get back in the NFL, esp when 'second tier' cities like Jacksonville and Charlotte got teams. A *lot* of people in the area figure the Ravens and M&T Bank Stadium are worth every penny.
they may be wrong. I may be wrong. as I say, hard to put a dollar value on NFL cachet.

And let's not forget the NFL was a non profit until this year.
There are still some parts that remain non profit.

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: ugmold

It appears to me that its a complete rip off of the taxpayers. I believe, (speculate) the way it works is that the team owner and his big bucks pals either own or own options to own the property where the new stadium is to be built and all the surrounding land/buildings, etc. They bring in the city politicians and enrich them by giving them percentage interest in the acquired properties on the premise that the politicians, (ever corrupt) will approve taxpayer funded bonds to build the stadium. So all the 1% types get a big boost at taxpayer expense.

I"m a baseball fan and one of my big complaints is where they build the ball parks. They always seem to put them as near the Downtown area as possible. That means 1) no or restricted or expensive parking, then 2) the game is played in the summer months, the months of the Urban youth summer of fun, riots, demonstrations, etc. so the game goer has to navigate through a war zone to get to the games. Its horrible. I don't know why they don't build them out on the rings where the land is cheaper, parking is plentiful and the location is at least one bus transfer from the "no-go" zone.

a reply to: TonyS

The rationale to locate stadiums in downtown areas is to take advantage of existing mass transit infrastructure and entice people not to drive.

a reply to: works4dhs

Some economists who have studied this disagree.

“Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy,” Humphreys and Coates wrote in a report issued last month by the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

“The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area,” Humphreys and Coates noted in the report.

• a statistically significant negative impact on the retail and services sectors of the local economy, including an average net loss of 1,924 jobs;

SOURCE

The root problem is that the taxpayers aren't allowed to vote for or against a stadium or arena.

originally posted by: ugmold
Detroit goes Bankrupt but has no problem subsidizing the Red Wings new Arena..... The Billionaires should pay for it and pay Taxes which they avoid. The NFL pays No Taxes.

Not anymore.
NFL to End Tax-Exempt Status

Of course, it should also be mentioned that saying that the NFL pays no taxes is kind of a misnomer. It isn't that simple in reality.

In a letter to team owners, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said the move addresses a misunderstanding about the tax status of the $10 billion-a-year organization. The central league office, which coordinates and manages the league’s affairs, is listed as a nonprofit organization, but the NFL’s 32 teams already pay taxes on their profits, as well as on player salaries and merchandise sales.

“The effects of the tax-exempt status of the league office have been mischaracterized repeatedly in recent years,” Mr. Goodell said in the letter. “The fact is that the business of the NFL has never been tax-exempt.”

Though there are some caveats to this that we should take into account.

However, by forgoing its tax-exempt status, the NFL will no longer be required to disclose the salaries of its commissioner and other top executives. Mr. Goodell received $35 million in salary and bonuses in 2013.

You know all those referendums to build anew stadium are voted on publicly, yes? The citizens vote to accept a half cent sales tax increase or whatever, and it goes to the construction costs. What's the big deal?

If people didn't want it, they should have gone out and voted against it. They either wanted the stadium built or they were too lazy to go vote.