CXLVII - Is this the 'Final Countdown' in Arizona?

[MeHateHe]

Ok first of I didn't address every study or the overall economic impact of sports:

No, but you did suggest that the Bills (as an example) generate economic impact by attracting people who might not otherwise come. Again, the research shows that to be a losing proposition,.

1) I specifically addressed Neil deMausse and one specific discussion I had with him about including in the income taxes generated off team payrolls. I am not saying that you could necessarily claim a positive return on investment for a city, but an accurate calculation should factor that in. I haven't read every study so I can't say how accurate they are are not. I was only addressing this one guy. However, I will say its usually the same few guys (Andrew Zimbalist, Roger Noll, etc.) who have carved out this niche for themselves.

Again, the research shows the investment doesn't pay off.

2) If you look at subsidies that big business in general gets from cities, sports subsidies are a drop in the bucket. New York was going to give $3 billion to Amazon. A company worth well over $1 trillion. There was no way NY was going to make that back on income taxes from the people working there and NYC was already busting at the seems so there was no need for them to give subsidies to anyone.

The feeding frenzy that happened when Amazon was playing cities against cities was a bit disgusting, TBF. But it is a perfect analogy to the sports industry. Why wouldn't the Raiders up and leave if Vegas is going to give them something that Oakland wants? Calgary caved because the Flames ownership was pretending that Houston or wherever was going to give them a better deal. If all governments stopped caving in to teams' owners, then the clubs would have to stand on their own two feet. Or don't we live in a free market anymore?

But see, even the Amazon deal, as bad as it was, was more easily justifiable, in terms of numbers of jobs created and money/resources brought into a jurisdiction with products then leaving that jurisdiction.

Me, I'm not in favour of subsidies at all. If corporations can't make it without government support, then the government support only comes if the government owns a share of the team.

3) Sports spending while it grabs headlines is very small relative to government budgets. Oakland doesn't suddenly have great schools and roads now that the Warriors and Raiders are gone. If Cleveland didn't build stadiums for the Browns, Cavs, Guards the city wouldn't be booming all of a sudden.

$50 million here, $50 million there, and next thing you know, you're talking about real money.

You're again claiming that public subsidies of sports teams is making a city boom. It's an illusion.

4) There is an intangible benefit to having major league sports in your city. For many people it improves the quality of life of the city. Sure LA was just fine without the NFL and NY probably would be too Miami could lose all 4 of its teams and not care. But for many other cities its a key amenity. When I was in Cleveland we had within a few months tax renewals for a sin taxes for the stadiums and the arts. The cigarette tax for the stadiums was 4.5 cents per pack and people were saying that was unfair. For the arts it was 30 cents per pack. The very same people screamed bloody murder about the first one and were fully behind the second. Both are entertainment but had different reactions.

I addressed this. Having major league sports makes people feel good about their city. It's a fair point, but it's not an economic point. The question is, what's the appropriate price tag for that?

5) As far as housing and other expenses in Canada goes, I know. I have literally been working on affordable housing initiatives for the last 2 years. However, if Canada's 9 major league teams (12 if you include MLS) left the country it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in housing costs.

Is the argument that teams can't survive without government support? If so, that sounds an awful lot like that socialism thing I hear people yelling about on the teevee. Is the argument that teams and their ultra rich owners are just going to go where the money is best, and will milk whatever city is stupid enough to pay the bill? That's probably closer to the truth.

If we keep bowing down to the demands of oil barons like Murray Edwards, then the demands are only going to come with higher dollar figures. Better for governments to start saying no on a regular basis, let the teams pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and use public money for a real, demonstrable public good.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

2) If you look at subsidies that big business in general gets from cities, sports subsidies are a drop in the bucket. New York was going to give $3 billion to Amazon. A company worth well over $1 trillion. There was no way NY was going to make that back on income taxes from the people working there and NYC was already busting at the seems so there was no need for them to give subsidies to anyone.

BAd argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Ciao]

There's no economic case for government subsidies for pro sports.

It's a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Tawnos]

There's no economic case for government subsidies for pro sports.

It's a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

It's a reasonable point of view for people to have, but what a lot of other people think is that the first and the second aren't really related to each other. Not everything the government does needs to be a net positive on a spreadsheet.

 

[Tawnos]

No, but you did suggest that the Bills (as an example) generate economic impact by attracting people who might not otherwise come. Again, the research shows that to be a losing proposition,.

Again, the research shows the investment doesn't pay off.

The feeding frenzy that happened when Amazon was playing cities against cities was a bit disgusting, TBF. But it is a perfect analogy to the sports industry. Why wouldn't the Raiders up and leave if Vegas is going to give them something that Oakland wants? Calgary caved because the Flames ownership was pretending that Houston or wherever was going to give them a better deal. If all governments stopped caving in to teams' owners, then the clubs would have to stand on their own two feet. Or don't we live in a free market anymore?

But see, even the Amazon deal, as bad as it was, was more easily justifiable, in terms of numbers of jobs created and money/resources brought into a jurisdiction with products then leaving that jurisdiction.

Me, I'm not in favour of subsidies at all. If corporations can't make it without government support, then the government support only comes if the government owns a share of the team.

$50 million here, $50 million there, and next thing you know, you're talking about real money.

You're again claiming that public subsidies of sports teams is making a city boom. It's an illusion.

I addressed this. Having major league sports makes people feel good about their city. It's a fair point, but it's not an economic point. The question is, what's the appropriate price tag for that?

Is the argument that teams can't survive without government support? If so, that sounds an awful lot like that socialism thing I hear people yelling about on the teevee. Is the argument that teams and their ultra rich owners are just going to go where the money is best, and will milk whatever city is stupid enough to pay the bill? That's probably closer to the truth.

If we keep bowing down to the demands of oil barons like Murray Edwards, then the demands are only going to come with higher dollar figures. Better for governments to start saying no on a regular basis, let the teams pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and use public money for a real, demonstrable public good.

we haven't lived in free market in the United States since at least the Gilded Age and governments have been giving subsidies at least as long. The United States economy is a corporate socialist system (though a somewhat poorly run one).

 

[Stumbledore]

we haven't lived in free market in the United States since at least the Gilded Age and governments have been giving subsidies at least as long. The United States economy is a corporate socialist system (though a somewhat poorly run one).

It's fascinating how much the United States relies on socialism yet the average American responds to the word 'socialist' like a vampire to a crucifix. Almost any basic undergrad course will tell you just how much Americans need socialism. Or as a syllabus at BU Mass phrased it:


https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-socialism-in-the-United-States
We have many socialist systems that work alongside many private capitalist systems. Many of them are quite popular too.
Examples include:

• public K-12 education, which functions alongside charter schools and private K-12s;
• public libraries, which function very well in an age of bookstores;
• public police forces, which work alongside private detectives and private security firms;
• public infrastructure like roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, making modern life as comfort-driven as it is today;
• public parks, with green spaces and recreation space for all
• municipal power is in many towns, akin to the TVA. My old hometown had a company run by the town, with rates about 2/3 what you'd expect from the nearby private power companies in neighboring cities and towns--also lower downtime and better service, despite more inclement weather; and
• Social Security, which is socialism for seniors. Who can still work for extra money if they must, but won't be totally destitute if they don't. Medicare helps seniors as well.

Socialism at its best is the community supporting community members when they need it, in the ways that they need it. Lots of people who demonize socialism point at its worst examples but ignore its successes, including its realized potential in mixed economies that use a lot of democratic socialism.
Capitalism has its good points, but helping the needy has never been one of them.

 

[patnyrnyg]

It's fascinating how much the United States relies on socialism yet the average American responds to the word 'socialist' like a vampire to a crucifix. Almost any basic undergrad course will tell you just how much Americans need socialism. Or as a syllabus at BU Mass phrased it:


What are some examples of socialism in the United States?
We have many socialist systems that work alongside many private capitalist systems. Many of them are quite popular too.
Examples include:

• public K-12 education, which functions alongside charter schools and private K-12s;
• public libraries, which function very well in an age of bookstores;
• public police forces, which work alongside private detectives and private security firms;
• public infrastructure like roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, making modern life as comfort-driven as it is today;
• public parks, with green spaces and recreation space for all
• municipal power is in many towns, akin to the TVA. My old hometown had a company run by the town, with rates about 2/3 what you'd expect from the nearby private power companies in neighboring cities and towns--also lower downtime and better service, despite more inclement weather; and
• Social Security, which is socialism for seniors. Who can still work for extra money if they must, but won't be totally destitute if they don't. Medicare helps seniors as well.

Socialism at its best is the community supporting community members when they need it, in the ways that they need it. Lots of people who demonize socialism point at its worst examples but ignore its successes, including its realized potential in mixed economies that use a lot of democratic socialism.
Capitalism has its good points, but helping the needy has never been one of them.

I am a public school teacher. MANY of my co-workers have spouses who work in the police/fire/sanitation dept. Some are constantly whining about socialism. It is hysterical and sad at the same time.

 

[MeHateHe]

For the record, I was being facetious when I referenced socialism, which is why I phrased it as I did. I know, I know, sarcasm doesn't register well in print. I was mostly flagging how outlandish it is that these ridiculously wealthy team owners pull out their pockets and cry poverty, and expect that the public sector will prop them up so they can make (more of) a profit. It's outlandish, because it's usually the same guys who bleat about government interference in 'their' free market - except when it benefits them.

 

[Stumbledore]

For the record, I was being facetious when I referenced socialism, which is why I phrased it as I did. I know, I know, sarcasm doesn't register well in print. I was mostly flagging how outlandish it is that these ridiculously wealthy team owners pull out their pockets and cry poverty, and expect that the public sector will prop them up so they can make (more of) a profit. It's outlandish, because it's usually the same guys who bleat about government interference in 'their' free market - except when it benefits them.

I think we've all just gotten bored with the lack of Coyotes news and are reduced to discussing any and all distractions that cross our path. Oh for the good old days of news coming every two weeks.

 

[MeHateHe]

I think we've all just gotten bored with the lack of Coyotes news and are reduced to discussing any and all distractions that cross our path. Oh for the good old days of news coming every two weeks.

No, YOUR mother wears army boots.

 

[Roadrage]

No, YOUR mother wears army boots.

What other boots would she wear if she was in the army?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

I have consistently believed that supporting building some kind of nba/nhl arena is a good investment for a municipality of a big enough size - especially if it's a well designed facility that works well with just the lower bowl.

Yes, pro sports will be the bellcow of that facility, but there are benefits beyond that when it comes to hosting all kinds of other events.

It's not like a football stadium, which might get 12 events in a year that actually use the capacity.

 

[MeHateHe]

I have consistently believed that supporting building some kind of nba/nhl arena is a good investment for a municipality of a big enough size - especially if it's a well designed facility that works well with just the lower bowl.

Yes, pro sports will be the bellcow of that facility, but there are benefits beyond that when it comes to hosting all kinds of other events.

It's not like a football stadium, which might get 12 events in a year that actually use the capacity.

Sure, if the municipality owns the facility and collects appropriate rents. What other private enterprise relies on government to build them a place to operate?

Jimmy Pattison is one of the richest people in Canada. He owns, among other things, one of the largest grocery chains in Western Canada, plus dozens of car dealerships, and radio stations and I think he still has a big ownership share in Canfor, one of the largest lumber companies in the world. If the Alberta government is contributing to the construction of an arena for Murray Edwards, why doesn't the BC government start building grocery stores for Jimmy Pattison?

Smaller communities build rinks for their junior hockey teams to play in. Think Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, etc. But those facilities are used as community hubs, hosting minor hockey game, etc. I think in PG, the arena is where folks (I was going to say 'old folks' but I suspect some of them are now younger than me) go and do their morning walks in the winter when it's too damn cold to walk outside.

That's an example of governments funding infrastructure for private businesses to use, but also for the benefit of the community the government serves.

 

[Stumbledore]

What other boots would she wear if she was in the army?

She wasn't. She was in the RAF.

 

[MeHateHe]

She wasn't. She was in the RAF.

In other words, she couldn't get into the Navy?

 

[Tawnos]

Sure, if the municipality owns the facility and collects appropriate rents. What other private enterprise relies on government to build them a place to operate?

Where have you been?

 

[Stumbledore]

In other words, she couldn't get into the Navy?

She'd never wanted to get into the Navy. Dad was a pilot so she joined the RAF. Well, technically, she joined the PMRAFNS. And if this post doesn't illustrate how badly we miss talking about hockey business, nothing will.

 

[aqib]

BAd argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.

No but when one is several multiples of the other you have to wonder why one is getting the attention.

 

[aqib]

1) No, but you did suggest that the Bills (as an example) generate economic impact by attracting people who might not otherwise come. Again, the research shows that to be a losing proposition,.

Again, the research shows the investment doesn't pay off.

2) The feeding frenzy that happened when Amazon was playing cities against cities was a bit disgusting, TBF. But it is a perfect analogy to the sports industry. Why wouldn't the Raiders up and leave if Vegas is going to give them something that Oakland wants? Calgary caved because the Flames ownership was pretending that Houston or wherever was going to give them a better deal. If all governments stopped caving in to teams' owners, then the clubs would have to stand on their own two feet. Or don't we live in a free market anymore?

But see, even the Amazon deal, as bad as it was, was more easily justifiable, in terms of numbers of jobs created and money/resources brought into a jurisdiction with products then leaving that jurisdiction.

Me, I'm not in favour of subsidies at all. If corporations can't make it without government support, then the government support only comes if the government owns a share of the team.

3 )$50 million here, $50 million there, and next thing you know, you're talking about real money.

4) You're again claiming that public subsidies of sports teams is making a city boom. It's an illusion.

I addressed this. Having major league sports makes people feel good about their city. It's a fair point, but it's not an economic point. The question is, what's the appropriate price tag for that?

5) Is the argument that teams can't survive without government support? If so, that sounds an awful lot like that socialism thing I hear people yelling about on the teevee. Is the argument that teams and their ultra rich owners are just going to go where the money is best, and will milk whatever city is stupid enough to pay the bill? That's probably closer to the truth.

6) If we keep bowing down to the demands of oil barons like Murray Edwards, then the demands are only going to come with higher dollar figures. Better for governments to start saying no on a regular basis, let the teams pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and use public money for a real, demonstrable public good.

I added the numbers to make it easier to respond.

1) The studies are generally aggregate all the sports deals all across the country. Each case will have nuances. Some teams have fan bases that are more regional than others. Roughly 20% of the Bills revenue comes from Canada. So in there particular case its true they draw people to the Buffalo area that wouldn't otherwise be there. In a place like Miami which is a big tourist hub its probably not the case.

2) Actually the Amazon deal was less justifiable for NYC than any sports deal. NYC already had companies coming in and expanding with ZERO tax incentives. Google was already expanding its presence without any incentives. They didn't need to do that deal and they never would have gotten back the money with the income taxes being generated from those jobs. If Amazon picked somewhere like say Cleveland or Detroit then yes the city should give them whatever they wanted because it would have transformed the city. Which goes to my overall point that you shouldn't generalize.

3) This is a stupid line that gets thrown around (deMausse throws it whenever I call him out about the relatively small amounts of sports subsidies)

4) Again it depends on the city. In some cities its a vital part of the culture and without it the cities will struggle. Ask any old Brooklyn Dodgers fan what losing the team meant for Brooklyn. Sure LA could lose both its NFL teams and not blink, but Cleveland and Buffalo would suffer a lot without their teams.

5) No but they will leave certain markets. Again NY and LA don't pay a dime for the NFL and the teams stay. The Bears will move to the suburbs and build the stadium themselves with maybe some infrastructure assistance. Other cities the teams will leave. Its why Oakland and San Diego don't have teams anymore. As long as their are more cities that want teams vs teams to go around that will always be the case.

6) Then the Flames leave. Then what? Concert tours bypass Calgary because Edmonton has a state-of-the art arena that can outbid them for concerts. Not saying Calgary will die but it becomes a less desirable place to be.

Do you think Oakland will suddenly be a boom town once the A's are out of there?

 

[MeHateHe]

6) Then the Flames leave. Then what? Concert tours bypass Calgary because Edmonton has a state-of-the art arena that can outbid them for concerts. Not saying Calgary will die but it becomes a less desirable place to be.

Do you think Oakland will suddenly be a boom town once the A's are out of there?

My kid asked me for a cookie. I said no because it would spoil her appetite for dinner. She asked my wife, who also said no, because we agree on these things. She then asked her grandma, who respected how hard it is to parent snotty kids, and understood that we already said no, so she also said no. Then she asked Grandma's new boyfriend, Dick. Dick didn't care, so he gave her a cookie.

Don't be a Dick. Don't give cookies to snivelling toddlers and then will learn a little self-reliance and quit coming back to municipal and state/provincial governments for handouts.

Edited to add: If the Coyotes saga has told us anything it's that as much as we want to believe that there are unlimited markets for hockey, there really aren't. If the current owner of the Coyotes thought there was an easy market to relocate to, do you really think they would be playing out of a college rink for the next three seasons? There aren't unlimited markets, but until governments start saying no to these guys, they're going to hang the threat of relocation over fans' heads and use that threat to continue to milk the public sector.

 

[Stumbledore]

My kid asked me for a cookie. I said no because it would spoil her appetite for dinner. She asked my wife, who also said no, because we agree on these things. She then asked her grandma, who respected how hard it is to parent snotty kids, and understood that we already said no, so she also said no. Then she asked Grandma's new boyfriend, Dick. Dick didn't care, so he gave her a cookie.

Tune in next week for another episode of Grandma needs Dick.

 

[aqib]

My kid asked me for a cookie. I said no because it would spoil her appetite for dinner. She asked my wife, who also said no, because we agree on these things. She then asked her grandma, who respected how hard it is to parent snotty kids, and understood that we already said no, so she also said no. Then she asked Grandma's new boyfriend, Dick. Dick didn't care, so he gave her a cookie.

Don't be a Dick. Don't give cookies to snivelling toddlers and then will learn a little self-reliance and quit coming back to municipal and state/provincial governments for handouts.

Yeah except that doesn't work when there are more cities that want teams than there are teams to go around. Over 200 cities submitted bids with lavish incentives for Amazon. Boston gave GE millions to get it to go there. Ohio actually offered Sears $400 million to move its HQ which is comical since Sears no longer exists.

So unless you're going to get everyone to agree not to make an offer then the game is going to happen. If you're fine with Calgary not having an NHL team and not having a venue that draws big entertainment acts, that's cool. However, people who like sports and the entertainment that comes with having an up-to-date arena feel differently. Now if you REALLY broke down the numbers you'll probably see it doesn't cost you a whole heck of a lot on an annual basis.
Rough calcs the city is spending $356 million on the arena. At 6% over 30 years that's $25 million per year. For context the total budget of the city is $4.9 billion. So that's .53% of the city's budget that's going for basically an amenity that people enjoy having. It averages out to about $20 per person. So what's really bothering you bro?

 

[TheLegend]

If that one cookie brings you a cookie factory that provides jobs, economical gains and the all around enjoyment of consuming more cookies then it’s called a good investment.

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

Are you guys really defending subsidizing pro sports? A plaything of the ultra wealthy who are employing the merely super wealthy

I wouldn't mind paying for the chance to see an nhl team play

 

[MeHateHe]

If that one cookie brings you a cookie factory that provides jobs, economical gains and the all around enjoyment of consuming more cookies then it’s called a good investment.

Sure. If it was a good investment. It's not and there has never been any good research to show it is a good investment.