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

141–150 of 290 posts

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

#141

Post by jsprogrammer »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #128
rst wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFL got Congress to write them a specific exemption in the anti-trust laws, so it's very, very doubtful.

I've heard about an exemption for baseball , although that came from judicial corruption rather than being a legislative effort. Confirm that there's a specific legislative exemption for football too?

[1] 15 U.S. Code § 1291 - Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of professional football leagues

[2] 26 U.S. Code § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1291

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501

There are also a few more places the Code references football: https://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/football?f[0]=bundle...

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

#142

Post by ansible »

georgefrick wrote: post #4

Money 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...

That's disallowed by the NFL, as mentioned in the Green Bay Packets thread.

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

#143

Post by vermontdevil »

beastman82 wrote: post #22

I'm from St. Louis. The Cardinals also bilked > $500M towards their new stadium despite being the most profitable MLB team. The mayor went around telling everyone it was a good idea. Of course the touted economic benefits are usually an order of magnitude above reality. IMO basically capitalized on a huge inferiority complex.

$500M? The stadium cost $365M and most of it private money. The county loaned $45M for improvements.

Busch Stadium had a final cost of $365 million when it opened in 2006. Of that cost, $45 million (12%) came from a long-term loan from St. Louis County. Private financing came in the tune of $90.1 million in cash from the Cardinals, $200.5 in bonds paid by the team, and $9.2 million in interest earned on the construction fund the Cardinals held. The stadium has a seating capacity of 46,861 and is owned by the St. Louis Cardinals. The stadium does not have a roof, or its own named expressway. I was unable to determine who paid for the cost overruns of $20.2 million.

http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2009/05/28/miller-park-vs-busch-st...

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

#144

Post by jpindar »

JackFr wrote: post #124

It's not an unreasonable position for a municipality to chose lose money on a stadium. They typically lose money on symphony orchestras, ballets and performing arts centers. That one is considered low culture and the other considered high culture is not relevant is we assume that the people are being ably represented. But what seems to infuriate people is that orchestras and ballets are typically not owned by billion…

Don't forget the "stupid jocks picked on me in school so fuck them" factor.

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

#145

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

jimbokun wrote: post #108
joelrunyon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't fathom how football still exists today as a popular sport Your first three points make sense, but don't lead to this conclusion at all. People are not going to rationally say "football leads to traffic so I'm not going to watch it anymore." Football is entertaining, which is why it has an audience. Whether or not the negatives you outlined above are funded by the gov't is an entirely different matter.

Football is very boring. I used to enjoy it, at least when the Steelers are playing. Then I got into soccer, eventually getting a more expensive cable package to watch the Premier League. Now when I watch football again, I am painfully aware of the time between plays, the incessant commercials, and now the ever increasing number of "official reviews". Seems like every 3rd or 4th play, an official has to leave the fie…

Soccer flows, but still seems boring.

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

#146

Post by flying_kangaroo »

brandonmenc wrote: post #95
Touche wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> explain the popularity Besides the hits, 1. The short season You're always left wanting more. There's an order of magnitude fewer NFL games compared to the NBA, MLB, or NHL. And it's convenient - you can follow pro football and have most of the year off and, during the season, most of the week off. 2. The action Yeah, the ball is only in play for a few minutes, but there are 60-70 plays per game - that's a lot of p…

> There's an order of magnitude fewer NFL games compared to the NBA, MLB, or NHL

Strongly agree. I've tried many a time to 'get into' baseball, but every day is just way too much. It also tends to increase the importance of each individual game, which (ignoring the quasi-nihilistic "it's just a sport, man") is another reason for the popularity.

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

#147

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

rconti wrote: post #109
sampo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who recently moved to the US, should I first try to learn about American football, or about baseball?

Where do you live? First of all, we need to get around the inaccurately named regions of the US. If you live in the midwest (the middle of the country; from top to bottom) or the south (southwest of the country), football without a doubt. If you live anywhere else, you can pick and choose. To me, baseball is a lot more intellectually stimulating and has a lot more interesting strategy, but the more I learn about foot…

Ironically, many former football players will never be intellectually stimulated because of CTE.

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

#148

Post by gozur88 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #110
nhebb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be repeated elsewhere. "The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires clubs to be wholly owned either by a single owner, or small group of owners, and requires that at least one owner owns a 1/3 stake in the team. The Packers are granted an exemption to this rule, as they have been a publicly owned corporation since before the rul…

The first thing I'd do is to take away the tax exempt status of the NFL.

I don't think it will matter. The NFL doesn't make money - the teams make money.

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

#149

Post by rsync »

stevefeinstein wrote: post #52
onetwotree wrote: post #42

The Green Bay packers have an interesting approach to this problem, although it requires a fanatical fan base and special ownership provisions, and the fact that the team can't leave Green Bay (without a vote by the shareholders, who are all fans, which will never, ever, happen). When they want to improve their stadium, they issue stock and sell more season tickets. This works because Packers stock cannot be sold or…

Well, it's a good thing they've locked in a team, because no one in their right mind would build one in Green Bay Wisconsin today when there are fools in warmer climates literally throwing money at anyone who will move a team.

They are just finishing the new stadium in Minneapolis, which is colder, on average, than green bay[1] ...

[1] average low temp in MPLS, in January, is 8F, as compared to 9F in Green Bay.

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

#150

Post by v64 »

jimbokun wrote: post #108
joelrunyon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't fathom how football still exists today as a popular sport Your first three points make sense, but don't lead to this conclusion at all. People are not going to rationally say "football leads to traffic so I'm not going to watch it anymore." Football is entertaining, which is why it has an audience. Whether or not the negatives you outlined above are funded by the gov't is an entirely different matter.

Football is very boring. I used to enjoy it, at least when the Steelers are playing. Then I got into soccer, eventually getting a more expensive cable package to watch the Premier League. Now when I watch football again, I am painfully aware of the time between plays, the incessant commercials, and now the ever increasing number of "official reviews". Seems like every 3rd or 4th play, an official has to leave the fie…

> It's starting to all seem like Farmville. Something terribly boring, that somehow the general public has convinced itself is a lot of fun.

Is it really such a crazy idea that people like things that you don't? I like football and don't like soccer. Some people have fun playing Farmville. There's no objective criteria for entertainment, everyones' brain is tickled in different ways by different activities.

Post reply on HN