Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 290 posts

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#31

Post by cadlin »

ashark wrote: post #27
gist wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely. There is competition from other geographic areas. If a team can simply play one venue against another they do have the upper hand unfortunately.

Do any cities own their own teams? I was thinking about this the other day, and as someone who doesn't really follow sports I think I'd actually be more supportive of things like stadium building if the city were involved more heavily —namely, if the city owned the team(s), or at least a controlling share. I'd also be way more likely to care about and cheer for "our" team if they couldn't just pull up stakes and move…

The Green Bay Packers aren't owned by their city, exactly, but they're publicly owned and no individual can have more than 4% of the shares. They have 360,584 owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers#Community_ow...

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#32

Post by digikata »

bmelton wrote: post #10
draw_down wrote: post #2

No, 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 prof…

The economic effects of stadiums are often put forward as positive during the 'deal' phase of placing them, but many studies have reported only a small positive or negative effect on economic activity.

http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sport...

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#34

Post by elchief »

https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev...

"So does it makes sense for metro areas to use public funds to attract and retain major league sports franchises? The answer is definitely not if benefits are limited to increases in economic activity and tax revenue collection. A strong case can be made, however, that the quality-of-life benefits from hosting a major league team can sometimes justify the large public outlays associated with doing so"

Either way, there's always a risk of teams relocating, and this should be taken into account.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#36

Post by giarc »

I live in Calgary and our NHL arena is nearing the end of it's life. Our mayor, Naheed Nenshi, has been very vocal about public funding for arena's and is holding the owners group and the NHLs 'feet to the fire' so to speak.

>I have said for a long time — and continue to strongly believe — that public money must be for public benefit and not private profit. [0]

I don't think he's necessarily against using public money, but he's not willing to just throw money at a stadium just because the Calgary Flames and the NHL say it's a good idea, or because 'that's the way it's done'.

[0] - http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames/ma...

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#38

Post by danharaj »

Touche wrote: post #25
danharaj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of strategy between plays. Because the action isn't continuous it has a different flavor from a continuously played game like the other football. It's sort of a hybrid between a real-time game and a turn-based game, which is cool. I think it would be much more interesting if there were more time on the field, but i'm sure the NFL and their advertising partners love all that time that can be filled up wi…

That doesn't explain the popularity, strategy is invisible to the viewer. Chess is not a popular spectator sport.

It's not invisible. i'm not a serious sports fan, but when i'm around them they notice a great deal more detail than i do. a seasoned football fan can identify a play rather quickly. they know the styles and predispositions of their favorite players and coaches very well. they understand how field conditions and the state of the game influence the decisions made. it's rather fun to watch with a knowledgeable friend.

having some sort of depth is required for popularity, even if it is not sufficient. chess is not a popular sport for other reasons, probably the lack of money and the sheer marathon that is a high level game. soccer has been gaining ground in the US because moneyed interests have been pushing the sport and trying to build the franchises for years. the level of investment required for a nationally popular sport is steep. no one's going to put that money into chess any time soon. like all things in our world, capital is often the difference between "is" and "isn't", but other ingredients are also required.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#39

Post by jtuente »

Touche wrote: post #25
danharaj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of strategy between plays. Because the action isn't continuous it has a different flavor from a continuously played game like the other football. It's sort of a hybrid between a real-time game and a turn-based game, which is cool. I think it would be much more interesting if there were more time on the field, but i'm sure the NFL and their advertising partners love all that time that can be filled up wi…

That doesn't explain the popularity, strategy is invisible to the viewer. Chess is not a popular spectator sport.

The strategy is far from invisible to an informed viewer; many viewers are very vocal of their opinions of the topic, too. The reason chess isn't a popular spectator sport has more to do with the fact that all of the moves are very clearly defined, bishop moves at angles; knight moves in L's, and has no correlation to feats of extreme athleticism, the knight can't suddenly move into an unexpected direction.
Post reply on HN