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

#201

Post by rhino369 » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:07 AM UTC

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...

With taxes they are partners. That's the reasoning behind public financing.

I think a better alternative is just tax breaks. The team can build a stadium but gets huge tax cuts on everything for a certain period of time to justify the build cost.

I also don't understand why stadiums have such limited lifespans. Wrigely field in nearly 100 years old.

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

#202

Post by rhino369 » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:16 AM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #106

What I find fascinating that the most anti-government people (usually right wing) are usually for these deals and the more pro-government people (usually left wing) are against these deals. At least this is my observation. Scott Walker for example signed a stadium deal in Wisconsin and campaigns on small government.

Woe be to the Governor of Wisconsin who loses a sports franchise.

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

#203

Post by jarrettch » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:24 AM UTC

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 has it's dull games too. Watching teams park the bus or just kick the ball around to kill time. Thrilling stuff!

Also, as a fan of all sports, I have to say there is probably nothing more entertaining(at least to me) than the NFL Red Zone Channel. Almost no stop in the action, skip most replays, see all the big plays, often in real time. Of course playing fantasy football plays a big part in that.

Hockey is a great game to watch as well with pretty constant shots and action.

Lots of people I know don't understand how I like hockey or soccer. Some can't stand football. Some like watching sports I find boring, but I don't begrudge them or declare that a sport I find boring must be boring to everyone in the world and they're all somehow brainwashed or confused.

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

#204

Post by adventured » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #160

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…

What infuriates people is these deals are always sold to the public as some sort of net-positive redevelopment, instead of what's really happening, which is a transfer of tax money to team owners. With orchestras and ballets and performing arts centers everybody knows up front you have an ongoing financial liability. And the numbers are smaller.

> which is a transfer of tax money to team owners

It's primarily a transfer of money to players. In the next ten years players will earn around $50 to $55 billion in income. That's drastically beyond anything owners will either earn via operations or extract through capital gains via a sale.

Take the Houston Texans for example. They're stated as the 7th most valuable NFL franchise per Forbes, generating $114m in operating income (not net income) annually - the salary cap is $143m. Green Bay? Tenth most valuable, they only generate $63m in profit - every 10 to 12 years, the Green Bay players earn more total than the entire franchise is worth. The bottom 20 teams? Forget about it.

Most leagues are the same, the players overwhelmingly extract the value. The top 450 NBA players are set (with the new TV rights money) to earn more than all of the Fortune 500 CEOs combined in terms of salary (~$17 trillion in market cap of the companies those CEOs operate).

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

#205

Post by eitally » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #121

rconti wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think that statement requires more clarity. There are parts of the SE, like where I live (NC), where basketball is heavily favored over football. Even with the success of the Panthers this year, when it's ACC basketball season that's what people talk about.

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

#206

Post by munchbunny » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:30 AM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #160

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…

What infuriates people is these deals are always sold to the public as some sort of net-positive redevelopment, instead of what's really happening, which is a transfer of tax money to team owners. With orchestras and ballets and performing arts centers everybody knows up front you have an ongoing financial liability. And the numbers are smaller.

I think it's mostly the money. Non-profits, small amounts of money, and the programs are always running. If they're not putting on shows, they're often running programs all day, all week for kids and teenagers.

The big stadiums and sports teams don't come even close to such an intimate level of involvement with the community.

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

#207

Post by matwood » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:39 AM 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?

Football is great for tailgating and then watching on TV. Baseball is fun to go to in the summer and maybe watch on TV when the playoffs are on.

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

#208

Post by matwood » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:44 AM UTC

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.

> Chess is not a popular spectator sport.

ESPN made poker entertaining. I wish they would try with Chess. I would watch something with good commentators explaining the game as it unfolded.

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

#209

Post by rsync » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:47 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #182

rsync wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That stadium is a heated dome.

... unfortunately.

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

#210

Post by briandh » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 2:52 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

This rests on the premise that is is reasonable for taxpayer money to fund any cultural activities at all, "high" or "low".

In any case, even accepting this premise, the difference is that the examples of "high" culture you cite are, unlike professional sports stadiums, generally not promoted on the basis of claims that they will contribute to the economic development of their communities; rather, they are generally promoted on the basis of unfalsifiable claims that they will have a positive cultural and educational impact.