Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
1–10 of 290 posts
Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
#2No, that's not why. Cities shouldn't do it because sports are not a public concern.
Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
#3The article seems to focus on "because they might leave" but the real reason is this line:
> Even before the team decided to leave, the city's stadium revenues didn't cover its payments, leaving the city with annual shortfalls.
Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
#4Money a city gives towards a stadium should be returned in the form of shares in the team. Otherwise no deal. St. Louis should be selling their shares to LA for a profit right now...
Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
#5No, that's not why. Cities shouldn't do it because sports are not a public concern.
Sports are a form of entertainment....entertainment can and does drive spending.... and spending can contribute to more jobs and more tax revenue. Seems fair that sports are, in turn, a public concern.
That isn't to say that building a stadium or hosting the Olympics is inherently a profitable affair.
Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
#6No, that's not why. Cities shouldn't do it because sports are not a public concern.
Sports are a form of entertainment....entertainment can and does drive spending.... and spending can contribute to more jobs and more tax revenue. Seems fair that sports are, in turn, a public concern. That isn't to say that building a stadium or hosting the Olympics is inherently a profitable affair.
I'd be ok with this argument only if the leagues were nationalized.
Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
#7No, that's not why. Cities shouldn't do it because sports are not a public concern.
Sports aren't an inherent public concern, but the idea is that there will be a future return.
I don't claim that building a stadium/arena for a professional sports team will generate profit for the city. It's supposed to be an investment. The city foots the bill for the stadium. The team generates revenue over X years to cover the costs, and it also provides jobs for the city's residents. It's an idealistic win-win.
Again - this doesn't always work as intended.
Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
#8No, that's not why. Cities shouldn't do it because sports are not a public concern.
The explanation I heard is that professional sports are a key element of "urban pacification." It makes sense to some extent, in a panem et circenses kind of way.
Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
#9So what happens to the Edward Jones sponsorship?
Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team
#10No, that's not why. Cities shouldn't do it because sports are not a public concern.
And yet cities and states are often in the business of luring large employers to their area, and tax advantage is almost always the bait.
Everybody complains about sweetheart deals that so often go along with the seduction of an employer into their area, but almost nobody complains about the jobs. Perhaps in San Francisco the situation is reversed, but almost anywhere else is happy to accept your runoff, even if profitability isn't in the short term agenda.
More jobs means more people employed which in turn drives up employee competition, and hence wages, which equate to increased tax revenues and better quality of living.
I think that the stadium deals tend to be overboard, but not only is it not a net negative, it is at least more straight-forward plot than the backroom deals done as enticement for businesses.