Should Stadiums Be Subsidized By Taxpayers?

[LivingLegend]

Are you asking should stadiums be funded by the guy who makes 50k a year or the multi billionaire who owns the team?

[LeMasta]

No. It's completely unfair, especially to those who don't even care to cheer for their local teams. These owners are billionaires. They should at the very least pay for the great majority of it. The fans are already spending hundreds and thousands on team merchandise and attending games.

[M4P]

Are you asking should stadiums be funded by the guy who makes 50k a year or the multi billionaire who owns the team?

Yep. You would think the answer would be obvious, but this is still an issue to this day. It's always interesting to understand the other perspective.

Personally I think it's assbackwards and should be illegal. The owners basically have a monopoly and can hold a city hostage if they're not willing to cave.

[jswede]

No. Absolutely not. Even considering this is idiotic. Build some dam facilities for kids instead.

Sent from my XT1575 using RealGM mobile app

.....aaaaaaand then you lose the team.

[The Laker Kid]

Nope. What do taxpayers get if they fund it? Worse traffic? Busier streets? It's not a public infrastructure that everyone uses.

[lordjeff05]

Just so we are clear, the subsidy isn't just at the state and local level. Staiduma are usually financed by tax free municipal bonds that cost taxpayers at the federal level billions of dollars. So when Miami votes for a new stadium, the people in Connecticut also subsidize it.

[Frank Dux]

I don't have a problem if a city has an agreement to loan money to a franchise in order to build a stadium, but what the NFL has been doing is criminal. They threaten to move teams if the public doesn't finance an arena, and have used L.A. for YEARS as leverage. The NFL can easily finance arenas, but they continue to rob taxpaying citizens who get little to no value out the arena. Can you imagine not even being a sports fan knowning your taxes are going to a stadium rather than scholarships, schools, and healthcare? It's complete madness.

You always hear the argument from the owners perspective that stadiums and arenas bring jobs to the area. These are some of the lowest forms of employment though. Seasonal jobs, minimum wage, part time for the most part. The rare exception is when a guy like Lebron James emerges, he actually stimulates the economy. I have a friend from Cleveland, her family owns a restaurant in the area, and she said that when Lebron left for Miami it really impacted the economy and her families restaurant took a huge hit.

I don't understand how cities can just write a check, get very little back, and watch billionaires collect revenue from concerts, games, etc. I think cities should be getting a huge cut in revenue until the city gets what it put in in the first place.

[Frank Dux]

Nope. What do taxpayers get if they fund it? Worse traffic? Busier streets? It's not a public infrastructure that everyone uses.

We get overpriced tickets that none of us can afford and minimum wage job opportunities.

[Green_teamer]

Ya **** the taxpayer fund everything. Well just print more money it's all good

[Cactus Jack]

No. Absolutely not. Even considering this is idiotic. Build some dam facilities for kids instead.

Sent from my XT1575 using RealGM mobile app

.....aaaaaaand then you lose the team.

Which is the problem. It should be a federal law put in place to prevent it. They can't use public funds of any kind anywhere. It would put an end to teams relocating.

[Boneman2]

Indiana taxpayers had no problem funding Lucas Oil Stadium and Bankers Life Fieldhouse as Indiana has the best credit rating out of all 50 states and consistently runs a budget surplus. If your state can't do the same then you're electing the wrong local/ state government officials.

[Patches Perry]

We're treading kind of politically here, but there are two answers for me. The over-arching question is should anything be subsidized by tax payers? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the stadium question.

No, people shouldn't be forced to pay for anything through force. It's ridiculous that people who don't even follow sports have to pay for other people's hobbies and a billionaire's ambition. This applies to any and every tax out there. But, yes, our current system is set up to where if the majority of people want to impose a tax on everyone to fund something in particular, then that's just the system operating the way it always does. I don't see why a stadium is any different.

[Winglish]

NO. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for privateers' profit ventures.

Sent from my SM-N900T using RealGM mobile app

[HotelVitale]

This isn't any different than a city of state offering tax breaks to corporations & companies to set up shop there. EG, Canada offers massive financial advantages to the games industry, which is why you find so much of the game industry going north of the border instead of staying in the US...If a city or state wants a particular type of business, and the NBA is a business, they will use their tax money to make an attractive offer. And in the case of the NBA, it's arenas.

Seems more complicated than that and the analogy breaks down at some point. There are only 30 teams and that limit isn't imposed by economic logic (like any other business) but by an outside body that's operating outside of free market logic. As a result, the NBA has all the power in the world to set up restrictions on how and when a team can move--if every city wants a team and there are only 30 to go around, in theory the NBA could use that leverage to disallow owners from robbing their cities blind. It would be crazy for a city or state to do that to a company--'you must stay in business here!'--but the rarity and the value of a NBA team makes it plausible.

There's also a practical limit on the amount of places a team can move to that increases the NBA's power. If Ford wants to move their F150 plant to find cheaper labor costs, they can go to Fort Wayne, Jackson, MS or Durango, Mexico or wherever else, and the only thing to worry about is whether or not the cheaper labor is worth moving costs. If a NBA team wants to move, though, there are basically about 10 cities that are reasonable options for them--anywhere else is probably too small to support a team. That means that it's not a general competition and again it would be easier and more plausible for the NBA to restrict how much to benefit/enrich an owner. (I know that the owners have as much of a seat at the table as anyone else and I'm not proposing a particular solution, just saying why the analogy of cities/countries attracting other industries doesn't work).

[Carlos_Danger]

Typically yes since these decisions are typically made by ELECTED officials.

You get the government you deserve.

[Pachinko_]

I don't know if Americans would care enough to show up to a referendum, but I think it's a big enough decision to justify a special state vote. Ideally.

In that case I'd vote yes, I think big modern stadiums are a nice thing and the citizens should pay for it (if they can afford it and if they vote yes).

But then the building should belong to the state and the state should collect rent. Or, if it's gifted to the team, the State should take part ownership of the team (just ownership, not management) and participate in profits. That's a fair deal.

[HotelVitale]

We're treading kind of politically here, but there are two answers for me. The over-arching question is should anything be subsidized by tax payers? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the stadium question. No, people shouldn't be forced to pay for anything through force. It's ridiculous that people who don't even follow sports have to pay for other people's hobbies and a billionaire's ambition. This applies to any and every tax out there. But, yes, our current system is set up to where if the majority of people want to impose a tax on everyone to fund something in particular, then that's just the system operating the way it always does. I don't see why a stadium is any different.

This isn't the main question for me, not even particularly relevant to my mind. I think every city should have libraries, tech access, and park systems, regardless of whether or not every single individual likes reading, computers, or playing sports. Those things are public goods and, while they happen to cost money to build and maintain and staff, they're owned and run by the city as a whole, and they're used/enjoyed and funded by the city's residents. They wouldn't really exist if the city didn't provide them, or they'd at least be far more restrictive places with limited access. (I think it's super naive (if philosophically interesting) to think that libertarian aliternatives would basically replace those systems and be just as good for an overall city).

On the other hand, while a team may be good for the city's culture and add to overall quality of life, paying for their stadium means paying to one particular person who owns the team. It would be one thing if pro teams were just inherent money losers that needed public funds to sustain themselves--but teams are extremely valuable commodities and folks are lining up to pay crazy prices for any team that goes up for sale. Just doesn't make sense for a city to give away its limited and valuable resources to pay more money to someone that's already extremely satisfied with what they have (and if they aren't, someone else would be happy to take it over for them).

[jokeboy86]

No and the majority of cities and states dont agree either. And if you think they do just recall how many times arena advocates vehemently oppose anytime someone wants to have a referendum on a ballot. They fear the results.

[Daddy 801]

Hell effing no.

[ravinaziankid]

Tax payers shouldnt be paying billionaires to build a stadium that only benefits their business. This is what happened in vegas with the raiders stadium and why so many people were against it but politicians can be bought and the stadium is getting built anyways.

Theres so many things that taxes could have gone towards like better education in vegas, but i guess vegas likes to be last place again for schools and education.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk