The answer would be that one is more educational/worthwhile, of course. You'd essentially have to be a full blown solipsist to argue that there is no distinction between Shakespeare and NFL Football, for instance.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
John Oliver on cities spending money on stadiums
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
The answer would be that one is more educational/worthwhile, of course. You'd essentially have to be a full blown solipsist to argue that there is no distinction between Shakespeare and NFL Football, for instance.
That's not what is being suggested. It's a free market solution (that happens to include public funding, of course), not a government takeover, as people see it. Just as people who defend banks tend to argue the same thing.
It's pretty clearly a conservative ideology that is driving this argument, but that doesn't make it bad.
Shai-Tan
Banned
Most studies suggest that the economic effects are small and to put it into perspective creating outside economic activity similar to installing an average Walmart. A lot of people don't care about sports teams and wouldn't like to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a stadium but sports fans are very vocal. Public consciousness has risen about how bad a deal it is so some cities have rejected these crony capitalist funded stadiums.
So if the public vote for state-owned banks and factories, that's the free market at work? Conservative think tanks like the Cato institute are against stadium subsidies.
Cato are not just conservative, they're far libertarian.
And yes, that tends to be the argument. Who do you think defends the banks' intertwined nature with the government? Because it's not libertarians, I agree with that, but it's certainly not liberals, either.
They built the Philadelphia Union's stadium in Chester with something like 70% of the 125 million cost coming from the public, with hopes that it would revitalize the area. The Stadium is beautiful and is pretty full for every game, but it's still surrounded by decaying, abandoned factories and houses. The Stadium is right next to the bridge, so you can go over, go directly to the stadium while making minimal eye contact with the hellscape that is Chester, and get the fuck out without spending a dime on local businesses. Just a disaster all around.
Worked for St. Petersburg. lol
I was once pro-stadium, then staunchly anti-stadium and now I'm somewhere near the latter with caveats. These large venues can be an important community asset, but too often the terms are ridiculously in favor of team owners above all other considerations. Cities are basically being extorted because so few politicians want to be the one that lost their city a team.
Yeah, i can't argue against that. Sure doesn't help that it's a very high end arena
But it not free market if its the local government. Really seem like you have it backwards. Its just like funding a theater or Museum.
Just IMO, I don't mind some level of government involvement, especially when we're talking about non-NFL stadiums (AKA stadiums that get used more than a dozen times a year). But the huge subsidies that a lot of NFL stadiums seem to get are pretty ridiculous.
I'm still mad they didn't put it in the sports complex with the rest of the stadiums. I'd actually get to go to games.
I'm still mad they didn't put it in the sports complex with the rest of the stadiums. I'd actually get to go to games.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I actually don't mind local or state governments paying for stadiums in part. But mostly as long as it is basically a loan/bind situation. I'm not sure what the issue what that is as over time, all that is paid back plus interest.
But just a straight gift situation? Yeah not a fan.
But just a straight gift situation? Yeah not a fan.
Yes, it's historically a libertarian stance to be against government subsidies just because that's basically intervention. Conservatives since kind of adapted the (likely lucrative) stance of "because business!" that leads to awful, awful decisions.
It's gambling taxpayer money, basically. Liberals and Libertarians are largely against it. Of course, for different reasons.
Question: are there subsidized stadiums in other countries, like the UK?
I'm pretty sure you do. People aren't suggesting that state runs banks (or state run sports) are the solution when they propose $400m publicly funded stadiums. If the consequence of Saint Louis building a new sports stadium for the Rams was that the people of Saint Louis became the owners of the Rams, then yes, I definitely agree that this would be a liberal position.
But you'll note that in both cases, the banks and sports stay private. The risk is simply absorbed by the public, while the actual entity itself remains private.
im making dat skyline chili right now...MMMMMMMM.
FriedConsole
Banned
Some would say art would continue to exist when millionaires pay millions for art. You could easily argue that more people are entertained by sports teams than the rich white people that benefit from art subsidies.
I don't think either should receive government funding. It should be going towards health care and other social safety nets.
AEI is another example, then.
I don't think conservatives would agree that say, Obamacare, is the free market at work.
I don't think most conservatives are focused on banks being intertwined with government on the list of issues. They'd focus on not wanting regulation.
Like I said, you usually see state-sponsored sports in leftist countries and liberal academia is overwhelmingly in support of funding sports from government funds or funds that the government will not tax.
Crazymoogle
Member
Quebec City is the ultimate special case, though. A strong ownership option, rabid core fans and the political will to do whatever it takes to preserve the Quebecer culture. I can't sanction them spending public money on the building, but as bets go it seems far stronger than the huckster stadium deals in the US. Virtually any of those deals would be a much easier argument.
Really do not seem comparable. Banks money just help shareholders.
Stadium is something the comminty uses. Its also use for other local events. It improves quality of life for local residents.
Worst excuse for chili ever.
That is almost entirely false, as far as I can tell. I have absolutely never run in to a single economics professor (in my personal experience) or paper (in my personal academic economic readings) where a recognized liberal economist proposes state funded sports, as per the American model. There are absolutely no "liberal" countries where this is the case. Where do you get such a notion? I'm honestly curious.
How can you compare the capital wielded by arts organizations to that of professional sports? Leaving aside how much more sports organizations are making without governments paying for things, the costs are not comparable. The National Endowment for the Arts had a $146 million appropriation in 2014. The Yankees alone made half a billion gross.
If you had watched the segment or followed your local politics, you'd see that any improvement of quality of life is generally negated—such as Richmond closing schools due to health concerns, and not having enough money to pay for those necessary repairs, but still considers spending tens of millions on a stadium to attract a major league team. Arguing that use of public funds for major league sports is a net benefit is the same sort of nonsensical thinking people use to justify casinos.
The prototypical American liberal is not in favor of state-run businesses. Only the extreme left would be in favor of that.
Do you think Obamacare, which basically amounts to state subsidy and forcing the public to pay money to privately owned health insurance companies, is a conservative position? Can Obamacare only be a liberal position if the consequence of the law is that the state runs all health insurance companies?
DJ_Lae
Member
Yeah, it was a good segment (although the end ran a bit long) and the stats on stadiums not returning the economic investment wasn't particularly surprising. The crazy woman and the tasing for charity were nuts, though. Is that a common fundraising thing?
They're building a new arena here in Edmonton and I think the only way it was approved was that a few other large condo projects were tied to it. I think the arena itself is on track to cost $600 million or so.
And I had to look - yup, even in Canada, $138 million of that is from lease revenue.
They're building a new arena here in Edmonton and I think the only way it was approved was that a few other large condo projects were tied to it. I think the arena itself is on track to cost $600 million or so.
And I had to look - yup, even in Canada, $138 million of that is from lease revenue.
PinkCrayon
Member
Edmonton is building a 500 million dollar arena for the Oilers. Take a moment and let that sink in.
AstroNut325
Member
I have been against new stadiums for a long time now. Multiple studies, as referenced by the video, found no correlation between economic prosperity from new stadiums.
I don't buy the "it attracts tourists" and "it increases land value" claim. Please provide hard stats to substantiate this claim.
I don't buy the "it attracts tourists" and "it increases land value" claim. Please provide hard stats to substantiate this claim.
Shai-Tan
Banned
An old Econtalk discussed this
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/08/roger_noll_on_t.html
"First of all, it depends on the kind of facility. That, an arena that has multiple uses, say, it's going to have a basketball team and/or a hockey team, has other potential uses, like concerts and tractor-pulls, all kinds of stuff. And so a well-managed arena can be occupied 250-300 nights a year. And they can break even. And indeed, I don't think there are very many cities out there who regret having built an arena, unless the city next door also builds one. And then you have two that are half occupied. So, you can't really argue vociferously against building an arena. Baseball and football stadiums, however--there aren't any that have been substantially subsidized where the local community has received anything remotely resembling a reasonable return on investment. They are financial black holes. Especially football stadiums"
"So, the bottom line to it is: Cities should not subsidize baseball and football stadiums, if the goal is engine of economic growth or financial benefit. Now since I don't have anything against San Francisco subsidizing the opera, I can't say: Therefore it follows you shouldn't pay the money at all. But the decision to pay the money should be based purely on having it in the community because you like it. As opposed to: It's going to return some great financial bonanza.
Russ: Yeah. It's embarrassing to say, but it's a special interest group called sports fans. And the cronyism of the owner, who often is generating the political support for those subsidies. Political support is the sports fans plus the construction industry, construction unions, plus the banks who are going to handle the financing. You put all those together and you are typically up to 20-25% of the vote. Now you are going to get another big hunk of votes in order to get it past the electorate, and that's where the economic development argument comes from--is that if people vote purely on the basis of, shall we throw $1000 per capita at a sports team, they'll generally say no unless you can convince them they are going to get a return on it. And the way you get up to 50% support is to promise them that it's going to be an economic benefit.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/08/roger_noll_on_t.html
"First of all, it depends on the kind of facility. That, an arena that has multiple uses, say, it's going to have a basketball team and/or a hockey team, has other potential uses, like concerts and tractor-pulls, all kinds of stuff. And so a well-managed arena can be occupied 250-300 nights a year. And they can break even. And indeed, I don't think there are very many cities out there who regret having built an arena, unless the city next door also builds one. And then you have two that are half occupied. So, you can't really argue vociferously against building an arena. Baseball and football stadiums, however--there aren't any that have been substantially subsidized where the local community has received anything remotely resembling a reasonable return on investment. They are financial black holes. Especially football stadiums"
"So, the bottom line to it is: Cities should not subsidize baseball and football stadiums, if the goal is engine of economic growth or financial benefit. Now since I don't have anything against San Francisco subsidizing the opera, I can't say: Therefore it follows you shouldn't pay the money at all. But the decision to pay the money should be based purely on having it in the community because you like it. As opposed to: It's going to return some great financial bonanza.
Russ: Yeah. It's embarrassing to say, but it's a special interest group called sports fans. And the cronyism of the owner, who often is generating the political support for those subsidies. Political support is the sports fans plus the construction industry, construction unions, plus the banks who are going to handle the financing. You put all those together and you are typically up to 20-25% of the vote. Now you are going to get another big hunk of votes in order to get it past the electorate, and that's where the economic development argument comes from--is that if people vote purely on the basis of, shall we throw $1000 per capita at a sports team, they'll generally say no unless you can convince them they are going to get a return on it. And the way you get up to 50% support is to promise them that it's going to be an economic benefit.
Yes, Obamacare is a conservative solution, as is evidenced by Romneycare and by the fact that similar options were recommended by conservatives while Clinton was trying to reform healthcare. I think the objections to Obamacare are almost entirely related to political bias (i.e. they don't like Obama) and not to the actual content of the bill. I think conservatives would have found the bill far more palatable if a conservative had proposed it -- which they essentially had, several times, in the past.
Sports teams can become part of the identity of a city (and by extension, the people of the city and surrounding region) to such an extent that ideological consistency goes right out the window.
If Mike Ilitch wanted a literal Robocop to patrol the streets of Detroit, residents would have fallen over themselves to make sure he got it, lest the Red Wings be relocated.
Can you point me to a recognized conservative economist that proposed state funded sports, as per the American model? I'm honestly curious.
I did not suggest that there are liberal economists that support the notion, which is a straw man claim. I suggested that state-sponsored sports is very common in places considered leftist and/or liberal, which is absolutely true.
As much as I would like a Baseball stadium with a view, I love what they did in Philly. All 3 Stadiums/Arenas are super easy to get to either by driving (and very close to one of the bridges from New Jersey), or by public transit with a stop that's about a 4 minute walk to any of the stadiums, tons of parking, and easy to get in and out of. I love Xfinity Live as well, which is a great place to go to after games if you want to party.
gutter_trash
Banned
And to add that Videotron (Quebecor)'s main share holder is now leader of the opposition party provincialy.
Québec City just built a new one hoping for the Nordiques (hockey team) return. The province paid for half of it while the city paid for the other half, and it's a big media corporation (Vidéotron) which is paying for the management / rent.
IMO it's just stupid, they're not even sure if they'll ever get their hockey team back, and it costed 370M$CDN. It's not even in a place where tourists go.
He lobbied the government while he wasn't in politics for subsidies to the construction of this Amphithéâtre.
Now he wants to be Premier of Quebec while owning majority shares in Quebecor (Videotron)
Millionaires begging for corporate welfare
Hari Seldon
Member
I don't think this is a liberal/conservative issue. We are talking about local government officials who don't really operate in that realm. The sports teams are a political issue that matter A HUGE AMOUNT to a certain percentage of the population and having the team leave will guarantee NO votes in perpetuity for whatever political party doesn't save the team. Paying taxpayer money to save the team might piss off the majority, but only a little bit and for a little while.
Spending taxpayer money to save a sport team is almost doing a local politician with bigger ambitions a favor, even though logically it is a terrible thing to do.
Spending taxpayer money to save a sport team is almost doing a local politician with bigger ambitions a favor, even though logically it is a terrible thing to do.
It is a proposal by a liberal president and was passed by a liberal Congress. If you want to say your liberal friends are being as conservative as Obama, that is a fine argument, but that is a different context than saying they are paradoxically being conservative.
Up until very recently (i.e. the last year or so, when several major liberal causes have been championed), President Obama did not qualify as liberal by most objective metrics in the same way Nixon didn't classify as conservative by most objective metrics. He certainly had a D by his name, I'll give him that.
TarpitCarnivore
Member
That is definitely one of the best benefits of the Philly stadiums. The lot is huge, multiple exits and super easy off the highway. Now driving into a Rangers or Yankees game, that's a different story.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I have no idea about the Arizona situation, but this was in the comments:
Anyone more familiar with the situation know if this is spin, or if Oliver was overly critical?
Anyone more familiar with the situation know if this is spin, or if Oliver was overly critical?
The sad thing about that fan... She's at a Glendale city council meeting voicing her displeasure with the council... And she doesn't even live in Glendale.
She is also a founder of a coyotes PAC ...
gutter_trash
Banned
true
there lots of populist chest pumping trying to win over the lowest common denominator.
populism is not exclusive to left or right. Promising a shiny new object wins over votes from any side
Yes, increasingly so. Clubs even point out that in USA, the cities pay for it.
Everton threatened to move out of Liverpool to a neighbouring borough because they were offered a peppercorn rent on a field to build on, taxpayers and a hypermarket would build infrastructure, naming rights would be sold. A small part would be paid for by the club. It was ultimately rejected by the UK government as unsuitable.
Last month, it was announced that West Ham would have a £700m+ stadium given to them, they will pay £15m of a £272m conversion to make it suitable for their needs.
FriedConsole
Banned
First of all comparing the amount given to the NEA with the total gross of the Yankees is a terrible comparison. An apt comparison would be to the total subsidies for sport stadiums.
Again I am against all government subsidies for entertainment. You can rationalize art is "educational" because it gives you arbitrary Jeopardy knowledge or whatever but it is not going to find the cure for cancer where the money should be spent.
EatinOlives
Member
The hell? The two have absolutely nothing in common.
1) NPR focuses on spreading news, information, and cultural tidbits that are very rarely seen in mass media. People actively LEARN things through their extended reports and interviews. If you want to argue against lifelong education and development on culture that's your prerogative, but know it's incredibly shortsighted.
2) NPR's funding and funding of stadiums for sports teams are not even in the same universe. Not only does NPR take up a fraction of a percentage in funding, they also require frequent aid from sponsors at all times. Sports teams do NOT need the help they get from the cities the vast majority of the time. They only claim they do so they get even more money, but they can definitely foot the bill if there was absolutely no way to weasel money out of cities.
If you're trying to argue that NPR is little more than "entertainment" you truly have no idea what you're talking about.
TarpitCarnivore
Member
I'm not terribly familiar, but I don't think the team was threatening to leave. According to the Wikipedia article on the new arena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gila_River_Arena) they almost had no choice but to build one. Their old place barely fit the rink.
- Status