Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by jimbokun » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

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…

"If you live in the midwest..."

Unless you live in St. Louis, then it's baseball.

"...or the south (southwest of the country)"

I think you mean the southeast?

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

#122

Post by tamana » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

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.

The mayor derives personal benefit from being involved in the stadium. (Throw out a pitch, meet players, etx) It's corruption.

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

#123

Post by scythe » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:21 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #51

elchief wrote: post #34

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 th…

That report or whatever it is is really low quality. I just read the "How hosting a professional sports team contributes to quality of life" (page 71) section, and it reads like a middle schooler's homework. It is devoid of facts and has questionable logic and very questionable conclusions. Honestly it is junk. Essentially their entire quality of life argument boils down to "BUT SPORTS ARE AWESOME!!!" then just pull…

>Formally, the quality-of-life benefit to a particular fan who attends a sports game is the amount above the admission price they would have been willing to spend to attend the game. For instance, if someone is willing to spend $30 to attend a game that only costs $20, they receive a $10 quality-of-life benefit. Adding up the individual quality-of-life benefits of all residents who attend games yields the total metro area’s quality-of-life benefit from game attendance.

Nope, this is real economic theory. It's not something the Fed invented out of thin air, and it's used in a wide variety of fields. Of course, there is a (widely-acknowledged) epistemic problem in assuming a person's desire for something is proportional to the happiness they will receive from it -- this is called "the theory of revealed preferences", and it is used primarily because all of the alternatives people have been able to think of so far (for assessing happiness) are even worse.

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

#124

Post by JackFr » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:21 PM UTC

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 billionaires, and they are not part of a league with a multi-billion dollar budget.

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

#125

Post by nols » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:23 PM UTC

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.

The NFL gave up nonprofit status last year, and its status as one was a bit of a misunderstanding. All the teams (except the Packers) were taxed for-profits, as was the merchandising, TV deals, etc. Basically all the revenue streams were already taxed, and now that they're not non-profit the NFL can be a lot more opaque about its finances.

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

#126

Post by bavcyc » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:23 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #60

Touche wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...

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

If you are in a town with soccer (football) then you might follow the local team rather than learn about the other sports.

College sports are also fun to follow.

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

#127

Post by tamana » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:23 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #60

Touche wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...

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

How about neither? Pursue what you enjoy and find meaningful.

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

#128

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:24 PM UTC

rst wrote: post #88

scoofy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems extremely anti-competitive. I wonder if that rule could be challenged.

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?

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

#129

Post by jowiar » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:26 PM UTC

derekp7 wrote: post #111

jowiar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with basketball as a spectator sport is that the marginal importance of any particular small piece of the game is small, and predictable. There may be awesome feats of athleticism and skill, but they really don't count for a lot, and by the end of the game, you could remove any one (or more) of them and the result of the game would have been the same. When you think about what makes, say, movies exciting,…

Basketball gets its popularity from the fact that it is really easy for people to play it themselves (every recess in school has a few hoops in use continuously, and every other driveway has a hoop in it or above the garage).

And every city has plenty of public courts. Soccer in the US has always been more of an organized sport and less of a street/pickup sport. It's more "something you haul the suburban kids to" than "toss a couple objects on the ground, call them a goal, and kick the ball at it". Baseball used to be a street sport here, but really isn't anymore (but it is in the Caribbean).

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

#130

Post by tosseraccount » Wed, Feb 03, 2016, 11:26 PM UTC

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…

Clarification: The corporate structure of the Green Bay Packers is shrouded in a mystery that would make a venture funded Silicon Valley company blush.

There are are multiple classes of stock. The later issued ones are indeed basically paper trinkets bought by rabid "cheese heads" so they could claim "ownership".

There is apparently no reason the owners of the few voting shares couldn't change the bylaws.

Rumor is that the NFL had to step in the 1980s (90s ?) and force the Packer owners to run a better shop (and stop paying themselves dividends). Same rumor mill reports they had to step in and force the New York Giants (who were paralyzed by two incompetent owners that owned 50% each) to run a better ship.

Note that this intervention turned around the fortunes these two teams which had earned reputations for gridiron incompetence. Miracle in the Meadowlands? Bart Starr coach?

Both the Packers and Giants have been very competitive, well run franchises since.