NFL and YOUR MONEY

[Roadrunner]

NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers.

If you're a U.S. taxpayer then you're subsidizing the wildly profitable National Football League, regardless of whether you're a fan.

(1) -- The NFL is the most profitable pro sports league in the U.S., raking in an estimated $1 billion in profits on $10.5 billion in revenue last season
(2) -- Stadium construction: Twenty new NFL stadiums have opened since 1997 with the help of $4.7 billion in taxpayer funds. Two more stadiums now under construction in Minneapolis and Atlanta are being built with $700 million in government funds.
(3) -- Taxpayers paid for most of the University of Phoenix Stadium, which opened in 2006 and is home to this Sunday's Super Bowl -- to the tune of about $300 million.
(4) -- Teams even get tax breaks on the money they actually do spend on construction. Most of that spending is financed with tax free municipal bonds, which were originally created by Congress to help fund roads and schools.
(5) -- Tax breaks for the NFL's biggest customer: Corporate America: NFL teams sell between $1.5 billion to $2 billion worth of luxury and high-end club seats a year, according to Bill Dorsey, the chairman of the Association of Luxury Suite Directors. A single suite can cost as much as $750,000 a season. Almost all suites and club tickets are bought by corporate clients, which write the cost off as a business entertainment expense.
(6) -- Sponsors also spend about $190 million a year for the right to plaster a local venue with their logo, according to research firm IEG. Even when corporate names are hung on city-owned stadiums, the teams keep all those profits, not the cities. And companies can deduct all of those expenditures as marketing expenses.
(7) --
Not for profit: The NFL's not for profit status strikes critics as particularly unseemly, given its financial might. But it's categorized that way because the league's profits are distributed to each of the teams, rather than kept by the league itself.

The league probably only saves about $10 million a year as a non-profit, according to Richard Phillips, research analyst with Citizens for Tax Justice, which is a rounding error for a league as profitable as the NFL.

NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers - Jan. 30 2015

Just circuses for the masses.

Domestic tranquillity has been kept for 50 years by providing bread and circuses to the masses, on borrowed Chinese money.

Now that our historic black President has left black America in worse shape than before he took office, that tranquillity is being tested.

Of course, can't blame Obama, hence the trumped up outrage over what are really black punks getting killed being punks.

I wonder what the NBA gets, and how big it is compared to MLB and NFL?

Can we at least get a blood sport on TV?

I'd find the NBA Finals interesting if the winners ate the losers.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That's the game. They convince folks that an NFL franchise or a new stadium will generate more revenue for their state so they talk us suckers into spending money to make money. Problem is the new money they make is from the same people who are suckered into the initial investment! And guess who profits most in the end? That's right, the government. It's just like a lottery.

I don't really see govts making money from the NFL. There's some belief that a franchise will encourage biz to come in or stay and grow, but we have places like AnnArbor Madison Wis and Silicon Valley that aren't tied to the NFL

The OP is from an Alabama fan, and if there was ever an example of people paying to watch the spice, that's it. The NFL is really no different. People want to watch, so they pay for the spice. There's an econ spinoff effect, but that's hardly the point. Hollywood employs people and so do firearm mafters ... but they exist because people want to consume their spice.

In 99% of the cases you are correct. This Roshan Marweeks idiot is wrong.

Whomever makes the money off of publicly financed arenas and stadiums are the master lease-holders who, in essence, rent out the stadiums for things like concerts, tractor pulls, etc... In most cases the team owner of the NBA/NHL, NFL, or MLB franchise is that lease-holder. There are a couple of exceptions around the world of sports but for the most part that is the only way the anchor franchise is able to make money; through ancillary revenue streams.

One of the reasons that LA hasn't gotten an NFL team yet (it's a complicated recipe of real estate values, ego, ownership, and NFL bravado) is because the real estate prices in the LA area are such that a stadium will cost upwards of 1.5 to 2 billion to build if done right. You can short-arm the size somewhat or trash-up the place but if it's going to hosts multiple super-bowls it is going to have to be big; if it is going to attract casual fans, it will have to have amenities. So you're looking at about $2 Billion. So that drives up two things; the value of the master lease and the need to get as many events in there as possible. NFL Bravado and owners' ego dictate that each team is a kingdom unto itself; be it the Texans who have never competed for anything except how pathetic they can be or the dynastic Patriots. So having one team move into the Stadium in LA would not suffice in terms of packing it full of events on one hand, and having the two teams would leave one of them in a permanent junior-class status. The wise thing to do would be to move the Rams and the Raiders back to LA, let them share the stadium, let USC have it during Saturdays in the fall; run as many rodeos and concerts in and out of there as possible and let the money flow. It would likely never happen because it either has to be a Rams stadium or a Raiders stadium....with either the Davis's or the Rosenblooms (I think they own the Rams) getting most of the money. What could make the entire thing work is for one of the counties out there to give up free land to the enterprise and just, in essence, take the hit; thus dropping the price and making the other parts work easier. So far that hasn't happened.

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

 

[HenryBHough]

I once thought the majority of Americans weren't gullible.

Any lingering suspicion of that vanished with the words: "If you like your......".

 

[candycorn]

That's the game. They convince folks that an NFL franchise or a new stadium will generate more revenue for their state so they talk us suckers into spending money to make money. Problem is the new money they make is from the same people who are suckered into the initial investment! And guess who profits most in the end? That's right, the government. It's just like a lottery.

I don't really see govts making money from the NFL. There's some belief that a franchise will encourage biz to come in or stay and grow, but we have places like AnnArbor Madison Wis and Silicon Valley that aren't tied to the NFL

The OP is from an Alabama fan, and if there was ever an example of people paying to watch the spice, that's it. The NFL is really no different. People want to watch, so they pay for the spice. There's an econ spinoff effect, but that's hardly the point. Hollywood employs people and so do firearm mafters ... but they exist because people want to consume their spice.

In 99% of the cases you are correct. This Roshan Marweeks idiot is wrong.

Whomever makes the money off of publicly financed arenas and stadiums are the master lease-holders who, in essence, rent out the stadiums for things like concerts, tractor pulls, etc... In most cases the team owner of the NBA/NHL, NFL, or MLB franchise is that lease-holder. There are a couple of exceptions around the world of sports but for the most part that is the only way the anchor franchise is able to make money; through ancillary revenue streams.

One of the reasons that LA hasn't gotten an NFL team yet (it's a complicated recipe of real estate values, ego, ownership, and NFL bravado) is because the real estate prices in the LA area are such that a stadium will cost upwards of 1.5 to 2 billion to build if done right. You can short-arm the size somewhat or trash-up the place but if it's going to hosts multiple super-bowls it is going to have to be big; if it is going to attract casual fans, it will have to have amenities. So you're looking at about $2 Billion. So that drives up two things; the value of the master lease and the need to get as many events in there as possible. NFL Bravado and owners' ego dictate that each team is a kingdom unto itself; be it the Texans who have never competed for anything except how pathetic they can be or the dynastic Patriots. So having one team move into the Stadium in LA would not suffice in terms of packing it full of events on one hand, and having the two teams would leave one of them in a permanent junior-class status. The wise thing to do would be to move the Rams and the Raiders back to LA, let them share the stadium, let USC have it during Saturdays in the fall; run as many rodeos and concerts in and out of there as possible and let the money flow. It would likely never happen because it either has to be a Rams stadium or a Raiders stadium....with either the Davis's or the Rosenblooms (I think they own the Rams) getting most of the money. What could make the entire thing work is for one of the counties out there to give up free land to the enterprise and just, in essence, take the hit; thus dropping the price and making the other parts work easier. So far that hasn't happened.

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

You said the government(s) profit from these stadiums. That is rarely the case (if ever).

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That's the game. They convince folks that an NFL franchise or a new stadium will generate more revenue for their state so they talk us suckers into spending money to make money. Problem is the new money they make is from the same people who are suckered into the initial investment! And guess who profits most in the end? That's right, the government. It's just like a lottery.

I don't really see govts making money from the NFL. There's some belief that a franchise will encourage biz to come in or stay and grow, but we have places like AnnArbor Madison Wis and Silicon Valley that aren't tied to the NFL

The OP is from an Alabama fan, and if there was ever an example of people paying to watch the spice, that's it. The NFL is really no different. People want to watch, so they pay for the spice. There's an econ spinoff effect, but that's hardly the point. Hollywood employs people and so do firearm mafters ... but they exist because people want to consume their spice.

In 99% of the cases you are correct. This Roshan Marweeks idiot is wrong.

Whomever makes the money off of publicly financed arenas and stadiums are the master lease-holders who, in essence, rent out the stadiums for things like concerts, tractor pulls, etc... In most cases the team owner of the NBA/NHL, NFL, or MLB franchise is that lease-holder. There are a couple of exceptions around the world of sports but for the most part that is the only way the anchor franchise is able to make money; through ancillary revenue streams.

One of the reasons that LA hasn't gotten an NFL team yet (it's a complicated recipe of real estate values, ego, ownership, and NFL bravado) is because the real estate prices in the LA area are such that a stadium will cost upwards of 1.5 to 2 billion to build if done right. You can short-arm the size somewhat or trash-up the place but if it's going to hosts multiple super-bowls it is going to have to be big; if it is going to attract casual fans, it will have to have amenities. So you're looking at about $2 Billion. So that drives up two things; the value of the master lease and the need to get as many events in there as possible. NFL Bravado and owners' ego dictate that each team is a kingdom unto itself; be it the Texans who have never competed for anything except how pathetic they can be or the dynastic Patriots. So having one team move into the Stadium in LA would not suffice in terms of packing it full of events on one hand, and having the two teams would leave one of them in a permanent junior-class status. The wise thing to do would be to move the Rams and the Raiders back to LA, let them share the stadium, let USC have it during Saturdays in the fall; run as many rodeos and concerts in and out of there as possible and let the money flow. It would likely never happen because it either has to be a Rams stadium or a Raiders stadium....with either the Davis's or the Rosenblooms (I think they own the Rams) getting most of the money. What could make the entire thing work is for one of the counties out there to give up free land to the enterprise and just, in essence, take the hit; thus dropping the price and making the other parts work easier. So far that hasn't happened.

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

You said the government(s) profit from these stadiums. That is rarely the case (if ever).

Sales taxes on all tickets and merchandizing. What's more the Maryland Stadium Authority, commissioned by the MD gov, owns and operates both Baltimore stadiums. Add FedEx Field and the efforts made by the MD gov and its taxpayers to facilitate that stadium and you've got government in the business of being in business where it should be none of their business.

 

[Nutz]

NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers.

If you're a U.S. taxpayer then you're subsidizing the wildly profitable National Football League, regardless of whether you're a fan.

(1) -- The NFL is the most profitable pro sports league in the U.S., raking in an estimated $1 billion in profits on $10.5 billion in revenue last season
(2) -- Stadium construction: Twenty new NFL stadiums have opened since 1997 with the help of $4.7 billion in taxpayer funds. Two more stadiums now under construction in Minneapolis and Atlanta are being built with $700 million in government funds.
(3) -- Taxpayers paid for most of the University of Phoenix Stadium, which opened in 2006 and is home to this Sunday's Super Bowl -- to the tune of about $300 million.
(4) -- Teams even get tax breaks on the money they actually do spend on construction. Most of that spending is financed with tax free municipal bonds, which were originally created by Congress to help fund roads and schools.
(5) -- Tax breaks for the NFL's biggest customer: Corporate America: NFL teams sell between $1.5 billion to $2 billion worth of luxury and high-end club seats a year, according to Bill Dorsey, the chairman of the Association of Luxury Suite Directors. A single suite can cost as much as $750,000 a season. Almost all suites and club tickets are bought by corporate clients, which write the cost off as a business entertainment expense.
(6) -- Sponsors also spend about $190 million a year for the right to plaster a local venue with their logo, according to research firm IEG. Even when corporate names are hung on city-owned stadiums, the teams keep all those profits, not the cities. And companies can deduct all of those expenditures as marketing expenses.
(7) --
Not for profit: The NFL's not for profit status strikes critics as particularly unseemly, given its financial might. But it's categorized that way because the league's profits are distributed to each of the teams, rather than kept by the league itself.

The league probably only saves about $10 million a year as a non-profit, according to Richard Phillips, research analyst with Citizens for Tax Justice, which is a rounding error for a league as profitable as the NFL.

NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers - Jan. 30 2015

Just circuses for the masses.

Domestic tranquillity has been kept for 50 years by providing bread and circuses to the masses, on borrowed Chinese money.

Now that our historic black President has left black America in worse shape than before he took office, that tranquillity is being tested.

Of course, can't blame Obama, hence the trumped up outrage over what are really black punks getting killed being punks.

I wonder what the NBA gets, and how big it is compared to MLB and NFL?

Welcome to USMB...the Premier hate site on the interweb where racists douche bags can turn any topic into a hate thread.

 

[Nutz]

The OP puts up a story about the NFL and prompts the next poster to break out the sheet and hood. WTF is wrong with you boy?

I'm a woman and I have no clue as to your sheet and hood comment, August. Read the OP and address it or don't read the OP and address it but knock off the personal attacks. You look small enough as it is.

Typical racist...you chide the poster questioning why another poster went off topic on a racial rant but say nothing to the racist who originally went off topic. I have figured you out, Jeremiah...you are a racist c()nt trying to deceive everyone with your pseudo-Christian bullshit. You are going to burn in hell, bitch. Burn slowly for your perversion of the word, your deception and your hate.

Stupid fucking whore, go iron a hood or something...you have been exposed.

 

[Nutz]

That's the game. They convince folks that an NFL franchise or a new stadium will generate more revenue for their state so they talk us suckers into spending money to make money. Problem is the new money they make is from the same people who are suckered into the initial investment! And guess who profits most in the end? That's right, the government. It's just like a lottery.

I don't really see govts making money from the NFL. There's some belief that a franchise will encourage biz to come in or stay and grow, but we have places like AnnArbor Madison Wis and Silicon Valley that aren't tied to the NFL

The OP is from an Alabama fan, and if there was ever an example of people paying to watch the spice, that's it. The NFL is really no different. People want to watch, so they pay for the spice. There's an econ spinoff effect, but that's hardly the point. Hollywood employs people and so do firearm mafters ... but they exist because people want to consume their spice.

In 99% of the cases you are correct. This Roshan Marweeks idiot is wrong.

Whomever makes the money off of publicly financed arenas and stadiums are the master lease-holders who, in essence, rent out the stadiums for things like concerts, tractor pulls, etc... In most cases the team owner of the NBA/NHL, NFL, or MLB franchise is that lease-holder. There are a couple of exceptions around the world of sports but for the most part that is the only way the anchor franchise is able to make money; through ancillary revenue streams.

One of the reasons that LA hasn't gotten an NFL team yet (it's a complicated recipe of real estate values, ego, ownership, and NFL bravado) is because the real estate prices in the LA area are such that a stadium will cost upwards of 1.5 to 2 billion to build if done right. You can short-arm the size somewhat or trash-up the place but if it's going to hosts multiple super-bowls it is going to have to be big; if it is going to attract casual fans, it will have to have amenities. So you're looking at about $2 Billion. So that drives up two things; the value of the master lease and the need to get as many events in there as possible. NFL Bravado and owners' ego dictate that each team is a kingdom unto itself; be it the Texans who have never competed for anything except how pathetic they can be or the dynastic Patriots. So having one team move into the Stadium in LA would not suffice in terms of packing it full of events on one hand, and having the two teams would leave one of them in a permanent junior-class status. The wise thing to do would be to move the Rams and the Raiders back to LA, let them share the stadium, let USC have it during Saturdays in the fall; run as many rodeos and concerts in and out of there as possible and let the money flow. It would likely never happen because it either has to be a Rams stadium or a Raiders stadium....with either the Davis's or the Rosenblooms (I think they own the Rams) getting most of the money. What could make the entire thing work is for one of the counties out there to give up free land to the enterprise and just, in essence, take the hit; thus dropping the price and making the other parts work easier. So far that hasn't happened.

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

You said the government(s) profit from these stadiums. That is rarely the case (if ever).

Sales taxes on all tickets and merchandizing. What's more the Maryland Stadium Authority, commissioned by the MD gov, owns and operates both Baltimore stadiums. Add FedEx Field and the efforts made by the MD gov and its taxpayers to facilitate that stadium and you've got government in the business of being in business where it should be none of their business.

He is right...no sports team should receive subsidies or tax breaks. The NFL is doing fine on its own.

 

[Nutz]

The OP puts up a story about the NFL and prompts the next poster to break out the sheet and hood. WTF is wrong with you boy?

Pay no attention to that c()nt Jeremiah...she is a tool for the racists of USMB. I think she blows them off on demand...god told her so.

 

[candycorn]

I don't really see govts making money from the NFL. There's some belief that a franchise will encourage biz to come in or stay and grow, but we have places like AnnArbor Madison Wis and Silicon Valley that aren't tied to the NFL

The OP is from an Alabama fan, and if there was ever an example of people paying to watch the spice, that's it. The NFL is really no different. People want to watch, so they pay for the spice. There's an econ spinoff effect, but that's hardly the point. Hollywood employs people and so do firearm mafters ... but they exist because people want to consume their spice.

In 99% of the cases you are correct. This Roshan Marweeks idiot is wrong.

Whomever makes the money off of publicly financed arenas and stadiums are the master lease-holders who, in essence, rent out the stadiums for things like concerts, tractor pulls, etc... In most cases the team owner of the NBA/NHL, NFL, or MLB franchise is that lease-holder. There are a couple of exceptions around the world of sports but for the most part that is the only way the anchor franchise is able to make money; through ancillary revenue streams.

One of the reasons that LA hasn't gotten an NFL team yet (it's a complicated recipe of real estate values, ego, ownership, and NFL bravado) is because the real estate prices in the LA area are such that a stadium will cost upwards of 1.5 to 2 billion to build if done right. You can short-arm the size somewhat or trash-up the place but if it's going to hosts multiple super-bowls it is going to have to be big; if it is going to attract casual fans, it will have to have amenities. So you're looking at about $2 Billion. So that drives up two things; the value of the master lease and the need to get as many events in there as possible. NFL Bravado and owners' ego dictate that each team is a kingdom unto itself; be it the Texans who have never competed for anything except how pathetic they can be or the dynastic Patriots. So having one team move into the Stadium in LA would not suffice in terms of packing it full of events on one hand, and having the two teams would leave one of them in a permanent junior-class status. The wise thing to do would be to move the Rams and the Raiders back to LA, let them share the stadium, let USC have it during Saturdays in the fall; run as many rodeos and concerts in and out of there as possible and let the money flow. It would likely never happen because it either has to be a Rams stadium or a Raiders stadium....with either the Davis's or the Rosenblooms (I think they own the Rams) getting most of the money. What could make the entire thing work is for one of the counties out there to give up free land to the enterprise and just, in essence, take the hit; thus dropping the price and making the other parts work easier. So far that hasn't happened.

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

You said the government(s) profit from these stadiums. That is rarely the case (if ever).

Sales taxes on all tickets and merchandizing. What's more the Maryland Stadium Authority, commissioned by the MD gov, owns and operates both Baltimore stadiums. Add FedEx Field and the efforts made by the MD gov and its taxpayers to facilitate that stadium and you've got government in the business of being in business where it should be none of their business.

He is right...no sports team should receive subsidies or tax breaks. The NFL is doing fine on its own.

In the first place, the same taxes on tickets the MSA was getting from the new stadiums; it was getting from the old stadiums. There is no upside to building new stadiums outside of team attraction/retention and if that is the root cause of politicians wanting to do it; there are much easier ways to do it since there are no guarantees of ticket sales.

As for sports teams not receiving subsidies, I disagree to a very small extent. If you have a team, you don't realize it but an NFL team represents 50-70 extremely high paying jobs between the players and coaches and senior management. The economic activity generated by an NFL team is massive. And I'm speaking of local activity in terms of everything from real estate to luxury purchases to services....

By sheer roster sizes, the NBA, NHL, and MLB have no such impact.

I would estimate that NFL teams equal a greater real impact to the cities than one each of the other teams. Put another way, the Falcons likely return a greater impact to Atlanta Metro than the Thrashers, Hawks, and Braves. The Braves may have an edge on sheer number of games.

 

[Nutz]

In 99% of the cases you are correct. This Roshan Marweeks idiot is wrong.

Whomever makes the money off of publicly financed arenas and stadiums are the master lease-holders who, in essence, rent out the stadiums for things like concerts, tractor pulls, etc... In most cases the team owner of the NBA/NHL, NFL, or MLB franchise is that lease-holder. There are a couple of exceptions around the world of sports but for the most part that is the only way the anchor franchise is able to make money; through ancillary revenue streams.

One of the reasons that LA hasn't gotten an NFL team yet (it's a complicated recipe of real estate values, ego, ownership, and NFL bravado) is because the real estate prices in the LA area are such that a stadium will cost upwards of 1.5 to 2 billion to build if done right. You can short-arm the size somewhat or trash-up the place but if it's going to hosts multiple super-bowls it is going to have to be big; if it is going to attract casual fans, it will have to have amenities. So you're looking at about $2 Billion. So that drives up two things; the value of the master lease and the need to get as many events in there as possible. NFL Bravado and owners' ego dictate that each team is a kingdom unto itself; be it the Texans who have never competed for anything except how pathetic they can be or the dynastic Patriots. So having one team move into the Stadium in LA would not suffice in terms of packing it full of events on one hand, and having the two teams would leave one of them in a permanent junior-class status. The wise thing to do would be to move the Rams and the Raiders back to LA, let them share the stadium, let USC have it during Saturdays in the fall; run as many rodeos and concerts in and out of there as possible and let the money flow. It would likely never happen because it either has to be a Rams stadium or a Raiders stadium....with either the Davis's or the Rosenblooms (I think they own the Rams) getting most of the money. What could make the entire thing work is for one of the counties out there to give up free land to the enterprise and just, in essence, take the hit; thus dropping the price and making the other parts work easier. So far that hasn't happened.

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

You said the government(s) profit from these stadiums. That is rarely the case (if ever).

Sales taxes on all tickets and merchandizing. What's more the Maryland Stadium Authority, commissioned by the MD gov, owns and operates both Baltimore stadiums. Add FedEx Field and the efforts made by the MD gov and its taxpayers to facilitate that stadium and you've got government in the business of being in business where it should be none of their business.

He is right...no sports team should receive subsidies or tax breaks. The NFL is doing fine on its own.

In the first place, the same taxes on tickets the MSA was getting from the new stadiums; it was getting from the old stadiums. There is no upside to building new stadiums outside of team attraction/retention and if that is the root cause of politicians wanting to do it; there are much easier ways to do it since there are no guarantees of ticket sales.

As for sports teams not receiving subsidies, I disagree to a very small extent. If you have a team, you don't realize it but an NFL team represents 50-70 extremely high paying jobs between the players and coaches and senior management. The economic activity generated by an NFL team is massive. And I'm speaking of local activity in terms of everything from real estate to luxury purchases to services....

By sheer roster sizes, the NBA, NHL, and MLB have no such impact.

I would estimate that NFL teams equal a greater real impact to the cities than one each of the other teams. Put another way, the Falcons likely return a greater impact to Atlanta Metro than the Thrashers, Hawks, and Braves. The Braves may have an edge on sheer number of games.

Most players don't even live in the same town they play. Not even the same state. Have you ever tried to get a professional sports team to support a local youth league...they don't do it. Only on a national level.

 

[Sonny Clark]

In 99% of the cases you are correct. This Roshan Marweeks idiot is wrong.

Whomever makes the money off of publicly financed arenas and stadiums are the master lease-holders who, in essence, rent out the stadiums for things like concerts, tractor pulls, etc... In most cases the team owner of the NBA/NHL, NFL, or MLB franchise is that lease-holder. There are a couple of exceptions around the world of sports but for the most part that is the only way the anchor franchise is able to make money; through ancillary revenue streams.

One of the reasons that LA hasn't gotten an NFL team yet (it's a complicated recipe of real estate values, ego, ownership, and NFL bravado) is because the real estate prices in the LA area are such that a stadium will cost upwards of 1.5 to 2 billion to build if done right. You can short-arm the size somewhat or trash-up the place but if it's going to hosts multiple super-bowls it is going to have to be big; if it is going to attract casual fans, it will have to have amenities. So you're looking at about $2 Billion. So that drives up two things; the value of the master lease and the need to get as many events in there as possible. NFL Bravado and owners' ego dictate that each team is a kingdom unto itself; be it the Texans who have never competed for anything except how pathetic they can be or the dynastic Patriots. So having one team move into the Stadium in LA would not suffice in terms of packing it full of events on one hand, and having the two teams would leave one of them in a permanent junior-class status. The wise thing to do would be to move the Rams and the Raiders back to LA, let them share the stadium, let USC have it during Saturdays in the fall; run as many rodeos and concerts in and out of there as possible and let the money flow. It would likely never happen because it either has to be a Rams stadium or a Raiders stadium....with either the Davis's or the Rosenblooms (I think they own the Rams) getting most of the money. What could make the entire thing work is for one of the counties out there to give up free land to the enterprise and just, in essence, take the hit; thus dropping the price and making the other parts work easier. So far that hasn't happened.

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

You said the government(s) profit from these stadiums. That is rarely the case (if ever).

Sales taxes on all tickets and merchandizing. What's more the Maryland Stadium Authority, commissioned by the MD gov, owns and operates both Baltimore stadiums. Add FedEx Field and the efforts made by the MD gov and its taxpayers to facilitate that stadium and you've got government in the business of being in business where it should be none of their business.

He is right...no sports team should receive subsidies or tax breaks. The NFL is doing fine on its own.

In the first place, the same taxes on tickets the MSA was getting from the new stadiums; it was getting from the old stadiums. There is no upside to building new stadiums outside of team attraction/retention and if that is the root cause of politicians wanting to do it; there are much easier ways to do it since there are no guarantees of ticket sales.

As for sports teams not receiving subsidies, I disagree to a very small extent. If you have a team, you don't realize it but an NFL team represents 50-70 extremely high paying jobs between the players and coaches and senior management. The economic activity generated by an NFL team is massive. And I'm speaking of local activity in terms of everything from real estate to luxury purchases to services....

By sheer roster sizes, the NBA, NHL, and MLB have no such impact.

I would estimate that NFL teams equal a greater real impact to the cities than one each of the other teams. Put another way, the Falcons likely return a greater impact to Atlanta Metro than the Thrashers, Hawks, and Braves. The Braves may have an edge on sheer number of games.

If that's the case, then subsidies aren't needed.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

In 99% of the cases you are correct. This Roshan Marweeks idiot is wrong.

Whomever makes the money off of publicly financed arenas and stadiums are the master lease-holders who, in essence, rent out the stadiums for things like concerts, tractor pulls, etc... In most cases the team owner of the NBA/NHL, NFL, or MLB franchise is that lease-holder. There are a couple of exceptions around the world of sports but for the most part that is the only way the anchor franchise is able to make money; through ancillary revenue streams.

One of the reasons that LA hasn't gotten an NFL team yet (it's a complicated recipe of real estate values, ego, ownership, and NFL bravado) is because the real estate prices in the LA area are such that a stadium will cost upwards of 1.5 to 2 billion to build if done right. You can short-arm the size somewhat or trash-up the place but if it's going to hosts multiple super-bowls it is going to have to be big; if it is going to attract casual fans, it will have to have amenities. So you're looking at about $2 Billion. So that drives up two things; the value of the master lease and the need to get as many events in there as possible. NFL Bravado and owners' ego dictate that each team is a kingdom unto itself; be it the Texans who have never competed for anything except how pathetic they can be or the dynastic Patriots. So having one team move into the Stadium in LA would not suffice in terms of packing it full of events on one hand, and having the two teams would leave one of them in a permanent junior-class status. The wise thing to do would be to move the Rams and the Raiders back to LA, let them share the stadium, let USC have it during Saturdays in the fall; run as many rodeos and concerts in and out of there as possible and let the money flow. It would likely never happen because it either has to be a Rams stadium or a Raiders stadium....with either the Davis's or the Rosenblooms (I think they own the Rams) getting most of the money. What could make the entire thing work is for one of the counties out there to give up free land to the enterprise and just, in essence, take the hit; thus dropping the price and making the other parts work easier. So far that hasn't happened.

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

You said the government(s) profit from these stadiums. That is rarely the case (if ever).

Sales taxes on all tickets and merchandizing. What's more the Maryland Stadium Authority, commissioned by the MD gov, owns and operates both Baltimore stadiums. Add FedEx Field and the efforts made by the MD gov and its taxpayers to facilitate that stadium and you've got government in the business of being in business where it should be none of their business.

He is right...no sports team should receive subsidies or tax breaks. The NFL is doing fine on its own.

In the first place, the same taxes on tickets the MSA was getting from the new stadiums; it was getting from the old stadiums. There is no upside to building new stadiums outside of team attraction/retention and if that is the root cause of politicians wanting to do it; there are much easier ways to do it since there are no guarantees of ticket sales.

As for sports teams not receiving subsidies, I disagree to a very small extent. If you have a team, you don't realize it but an NFL team represents 50-70 extremely high paying jobs between the players and coaches and senior management. The economic activity generated by an NFL team is massive. And I'm speaking of local activity in terms of everything from real estate to luxury purchases to services....

By sheer roster sizes, the NBA, NHL, and MLB have no such impact.

I would estimate that NFL teams equal a greater real impact to the cities than one each of the other teams. Put another way, the Falcons likely return a greater impact to Atlanta Metro than the Thrashers, Hawks, and Braves. The Braves may have an edge on sheer number of games.

And that would mostly be fine if the public that is compelled to fund those stadiums were only the public who reap the benefits. Like bowl games where the locale promote the event and gain with the peripheral spending that goes on around the event. But with pro sports franchises and stadiums the entire state is subject to essentially subsidizing the team and its stadium and even less of the citizenry of the state share in the merchandizing which is where lots of the profit comes from.

 

[candycorn]

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

You said the government(s) profit from these stadiums. That is rarely the case (if ever).

Sales taxes on all tickets and merchandizing. What's more the Maryland Stadium Authority, commissioned by the MD gov, owns and operates both Baltimore stadiums. Add FedEx Field and the efforts made by the MD gov and its taxpayers to facilitate that stadium and you've got government in the business of being in business where it should be none of their business.

He is right...no sports team should receive subsidies or tax breaks. The NFL is doing fine on its own.

In the first place, the same taxes on tickets the MSA was getting from the new stadiums; it was getting from the old stadiums. There is no upside to building new stadiums outside of team attraction/retention and if that is the root cause of politicians wanting to do it; there are much easier ways to do it since there are no guarantees of ticket sales.

As for sports teams not receiving subsidies, I disagree to a very small extent. If you have a team, you don't realize it but an NFL team represents 50-70 extremely high paying jobs between the players and coaches and senior management. The economic activity generated by an NFL team is massive. And I'm speaking of local activity in terms of everything from real estate to luxury purchases to services....

By sheer roster sizes, the NBA, NHL, and MLB have no such impact.

I would estimate that NFL teams equal a greater real impact to the cities than one each of the other teams. Put another way, the Falcons likely return a greater impact to Atlanta Metro than the Thrashers, Hawks, and Braves. The Braves may have an edge on sheer number of games.

If that's the case, then subsidies aren't needed.

I agree. The problem is that in the competitive marketplace and a league that has shown no will to keep teams in their current markets, the less you spend on a stadium supposedly equals the more you can spend on your team; the more teams your city has supposedly increases the standard of living in your city.

Subsidies in a true sense are not needed for any of the major league sports. However, if you want your team to stay put, you swallow the nonsense argument and guarantee sell-outs for X number of years, put up public money, etc...

 

[candycorn]

What does any of that have to do with taxpayers covering the overhead for a private entity?

You said the government(s) profit from these stadiums. That is rarely the case (if ever).

Sales taxes on all tickets and merchandizing. What's more the Maryland Stadium Authority, commissioned by the MD gov, owns and operates both Baltimore stadiums. Add FedEx Field and the efforts made by the MD gov and its taxpayers to facilitate that stadium and you've got government in the business of being in business where it should be none of their business.

He is right...no sports team should receive subsidies or tax breaks. The NFL is doing fine on its own.

In the first place, the same taxes on tickets the MSA was getting from the new stadiums; it was getting from the old stadiums. There is no upside to building new stadiums outside of team attraction/retention and if that is the root cause of politicians wanting to do it; there are much easier ways to do it since there are no guarantees of ticket sales.

As for sports teams not receiving subsidies, I disagree to a very small extent. If you have a team, you don't realize it but an NFL team represents 50-70 extremely high paying jobs between the players and coaches and senior management. The economic activity generated by an NFL team is massive. And I'm speaking of local activity in terms of everything from real estate to luxury purchases to services....

By sheer roster sizes, the NBA, NHL, and MLB have no such impact.

I would estimate that NFL teams equal a greater real impact to the cities than one each of the other teams. Put another way, the Falcons likely return a greater impact to Atlanta Metro than the Thrashers, Hawks, and Braves. The Braves may have an edge on sheer number of games.

Most players don't even live in the same town they play. Not even the same state. Have you ever tried to get a professional sports team to support a local youth league...they don't do it. Only on a national level.

Source for "most players don't live in the same state"?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Many players live elsewhere in the offseason, sure (offhand, Pedro Martinez lived in Santo Domingo), but they live near where they play during the season!