61–70 of 290 posts
The NFL is a unionized, state-supported, maximally regulated market with rigid spending requirements, price fixing, supply shortages... ... held up as the conservative free market jingoistic ideal.
I've never heard anyone claim the NFL is an example of a free market, even by fans of both.
No, 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.
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...
It's best understood as a turn-based strategy game with real-time elements during and between moves.
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…
If the citizenry of a municipality votes to spend their money to ensure that a local team stays, that is up to them. That said, they are idiots if they come away with a deal like St Louis did that doesn't even protect them from a potential team move and any politician who pushes it through without a vote isn't fit for their job.
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...
Football is what usually happens between the three sets of the marching band concert. It keeps the crowd occupied, even if it is an inferior form of entertainment.~ I also never understood the appeal of professional football games, with no band playing there at all . It feels like the "spectacle" type of gladiatorial games--the re-enactments of the Battle of Wherever, with condemned criminals portraying the Foovians…
Some people just enjoy the sport without all the ridiculous fanfare!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be ok with this argument only if the leagues were nationalized.
What is the need for nationalization before a city should foot the bill? This isn't to say that cities should pay for a stadium, but there are definitely dynasty franchises that are guaranteed to generate income for many years. Would I build a stadium for the Rams? Not likely. Would I build a stadium for the Patriots? Immediately.
Given the level of profitability to owners, the statistically insignificant economic impact of teams on cities, and the accumulated data to date continuing to support these conclusions drawn so far, city managers giving away valuable consideration as if they're supporting charity cases are simply using taxpayers to purchase extremely expensive political points.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2015/09/14/the-most-...
[2] http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/19/business/are-pro-sport...
[3] http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&c...
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…
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...
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.
That said, I make no argument it's a great choice. The public probably shouldn't be "investing" and like many would argue; it's a bit of overstep by the government to be managing team ownership. It's all murky but inextricable.
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…
HAHA - yet again, criticizing GS on HN results in downvotes. So now we have to worry about GS VC shills on HN as opposed to just eglin shills on reddit?