• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Public Funding of Sports Stadiums

Will their be more rejections of publicly funded sports arenas in the future?

  • Total voters
    16
Cold Highway

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
With Long Islanders saying No to a new stadium of the NY Islanders of the NHL last week, do you feel that a tide is turning in regards to publicly funded sports arenas? Is this a beginning of people saying no of being the primary burden of major sports leagues or is this a drop in the bucket. As it stands (in my research) now the next stadium fights would be the Metrodome (Minnesota Vikings), Ralph Wilson Stadium (Buffalo Bills) and the possible relocation of the Oakland A's if they don't get a new deal.
 
The tide will start to turn. Then teams will relocate to get their deals, and it will turn back again.

Something will happen in Minnesota. There's a deal on the table using the site of an abandoned munitions plant. Ralph Wilson Stadium was renovated a few years ago. Those are the ones I can comment on because I'm a native of Buffalo, and a resident of Minneapolis. I have no idea about Oakland.
 
Cold Highway said:
With Long Islanders saying No to a new stadium of the NY Islanders of the NHL last week, do you feel that a tide is turning in regards to publicly funded sports arenas? Is this a beginning of people saying no of being the primary burden of major sports leagues or is this a drop in the bucket. As it stands (in my research) now the next stadium fights would be the Metrodome (Minnesota Vikings), Ralph Wilson Stadium (Buffalo Bills) and the possible relocation of the Oakland A's if they don't get a new deal.
Click to expand...

I sure hope more and more see the folly of carrying the expense of the stadiums and not getting to share in the profits.
 
rocket88 said:
The tide will start to turn. Then teams will relocate to get their deals, and it will turn back again.

Something will happen in Minnesota. There's a deal on the table using the site of an abandoned munitions plant. Ralph Wilson Stadium was renovated a few years ago. Those are the ones I can comment on because I'm a native of Buffalo, and a resident of Minneapolis. I have no idea about Oakland.
Click to expand...

Oakland's fight has been going on since mid 2000, however I do not know the lease information on their current building but once in awhile the issue comes up in the sports media.
 
Cold Highway said:
With Long Islanders saying No to a new stadium of the NY Islanders of the NHL last week, do you feel that a tide is turning in regards to publicly funded sports arenas? Is this a beginning of people saying no of being the primary burden of major sports leagues or is this a drop in the bucket. As it stands (in my research) now the next stadium fights would be the Metrodome (Minnesota Vikings), Ralph Wilson Stadium (Buffalo Bills) and the possible relocation of the Oakland A's if they don't get a new deal.
Click to expand...

I don't see why a multi-billion dollar industry can't pay for their own stadiums and upgrades. :shrug:
 
I have never done any research into this …... Just applied common sense, if there was a profit to be made from building a stadium, then I believe that the sports industry themselves would do it. Simply by asking that the cities build them a new stadium tells me there is little if any profit to be made.
 
The whole concept is a scam. It only works because its easy to find chumps if you have an entire country to choose from. Its pathetic how wealthy corporations expect the government to give them handouts, and even more pathetic how governments are so willing to get on their knees. You invest in a stadium, you get a share of profits. Anything less is ripping off the taxpayer.
 
Y'all should look up the deal for the Cowboys Stadium in Arlington. It was barely approved by voters on the basis of cost, they claimed the money would come from increased tourism. Then the stadium was about 10x more than predicted and Arlington will be paying on it for years while the city deteriorates just like the last city to house the stadium did.
 
tessaesque said:
Y'all should look up the deal for the Cowboys Stadium in Arlington. It was barely approved by voters on the basis of cost, they claimed the money would come from increased tourism. Then the stadium was about 10x more than predicted and Arlington will be paying on it for years while the city deteriorates just like the last city to house the stadium did.
Click to expand...


I'll never get used to driving out to the airport and Texas Stadium not being there.
 
they should also start taking more financial responsibility in light of riots and other things that happen which is turning their presence into a more negative thing as of late.
 
The Barbarian said:
I have never done any research into this …... Just applied common sense, if there was a profit to be made from building a stadium, then I believe that the sports industry themselves would do it. Simply by asking that the cities build them a new stadium tells me there is little if any profit to be made.
Click to expand...

Less than two months ago I read an article about a rather lengthy study conducted on the subject. The research determined that if all things work out well the best you can do it break even. I have never voted in favor of a stadium or stadium upgrade. It's a fools game. Athletes make too much money and team owners rake in the bucks. The fans get hosed. Most teams would be hard pressed to leave and find another city these days. Cities and states are broke. The fans are hurting. In fact, I've pretty much given up on most pro sports. They've been tarted up now to the point where much of it is hype.
 
yes, the commoners are going to rise and revolt.... Yawn.

If a city council approves it, people need to take their ire out on them, not owners or players.
 
I cannot understand how these stadiums need government assistance when they charge upwards of $30 per ticket... not to mention the ridiculous prices I have to pay for food/beer. I'd prefer they say screw it and have the games at their practice fields and I'll just watch the games on TV. I get a much better view of what is going on anyways plus I don't have to pay for a ticket PLUS I can enjoy my special dipping sauce in the comfort of my lazyboy.
 
Catawba said:
I sure hope more and more see the folly of carrying the expense of the stadiums and not getting to share in the profits.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Publicly-funded sports teams are a net drain on the local economy.
 
I do not support public funded stadiums. Especially the high salaries paid to players, coaches, and owners.
Yet some in CA think it is a good investment. didn't think LA had a team?
L.A. City Council advances plan for new NFL stadium - CNN

With all the talk about evil CEO's and rich people, you would think the general public would be fed up with tax payer money going to help pro team owners and the contracts many players get.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Y'all should look up the deal for the Cowboys Stadium in Arlington. It was barely approved by voters on the basis of cost, they claimed the money would come from increased tourism. Then the stadium was about 10x more than predicted and Arlington will be paying on it for years while the city deteriorates just like the last city to house the stadium did.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it works. Denver went big in its efforts to attract major league baseball in the early 1990's. Given conventional wisdom was the MLB was going to put its new NL franchises in Miami and Tampa, it offered up a new stadium completely paid for by taxpayer's, plus it would allow the new team to have 100% of the concession revenue. The stadium was to be financed with a 1/10 of 1% increase in the sales tax in six metro counties. The tax was approved by voters in five of the six counties (interestingly, Denver, which was the one of the two "blue" counties, was the only county to say 'no'). On the strength of this unique deal, MLB passed over Tampa and awarded its NL franchise to Denver.

The Colorado Rockies set (and still hold) almost every major league attendance record during their initial year of 1993. Coors Field became a catalyst for Denver's revitalization of its downtown, which today is the center of nightlife in the metro-area and an incredibly hot real-estate market. The stadium bonds, which were to be paid off in 20 years, were paid off in seven as the increase sales tax exceeded expectations.... and in fact, substantially financed the football stadium. Though they appeared to have given away the store, Coors Field was one of Denver's best moves since..... well, until Denver International Airport.

Coors Field is an incredible example of how government can work.

http://www.thursdayassociates.net/Texts/coorsfield.html
 
upguy: " increase sales tax exceeded expectations.... and in fact, substantially financed the football stadium."

So tax dollars went to a baseball and football stadium. What else did the increased sales tax go for? If nothing, then what good was the increase?
 
mike2810 said:
upguy: " increase sales tax exceeded expectations.... and in fact, substantially financed the football stadium."

So tax dollars went to a baseball and football stadium. What else did the increased sales tax go for? If nothing, then what good was the increase?
Click to expand...

I sorry, I thought that would be pretty obvious, If sale tax exceeded all expectations, then the underlying driver of the sales tax, the receipts of the various local businesses (hotels, restaurants, bars, souvenir shops, parking, other retail stores) exceeded expectations. The stadium had a substantial economic impact on the downtown area.... an impact that exceeded all expectations with everyone (in Denver, at least) the winner.
 
Last edited:
Cold Highway said:
With Long Islanders saying No to a new stadium of the NY Islanders of the NHL last week, do you feel that a tide is turning in regards to publicly funded sports arenas? Is this a beginning of people saying no of being the primary burden of major sports leagues or is this a drop in the bucket. As it stands (in my research) now the next stadium fights would be the Metrodome (Minnesota Vikings), Ralph Wilson Stadium (Buffalo Bills) and the possible relocation of the Oakland A's if they don't get a new deal.
Click to expand...

Sadly I think this is a drop in the bucket.The reason I say this is because people love their sports teams so they will get threatened with the team leaving to another state or city that will financially prop them up with tax payer dollars and elected officials sell these things as money makers for the tax payers. Personally I think any form of corporate welfare should be illegal all across country that means tax payer assistance for stadiums, and tax cuts.

Tax payers should not be propping stadiums especially when those tax payers are going to get charged for usage. Its like making everybody pay for a house and to maintain that house and then telling everyone who is paying for it that if they want to use it then they have to pay for it again.
 
mike2810 said:
I do not support public funded stadiums. Especially the high salaries paid to players, coaches, and owners.
Yet some in CA think it is a good investment. didn't think LA had a team?
L.A. City Council advances plan for new NFL stadium - CNN

With all the talk about evil CEO's and rich people, you would think the general public would be fed up with tax payer money going to help pro team owners and the contracts many players get.
Click to expand...

An NFL return to LA has been in the works for a few years now but it's been more or less just talk. League expansion isn't as easy as some would like to believe as right now both the NBA, NHL and possibly MLB have had team contraction rumors spreading for at least two years. LA as it stands still remains to be a "threat" for other owners to use in order to get a new building.
 
Public money should be used for things which benefit society in general. Its most debatable if professional sports stadiums really benefit anyone other than the businessmen and their followers....however, if a good profit can be made...why not...but the profits(say 50%) should be returned to the public...I think its a good concept that athletics carry the academics(the way many colleges operate...)
 
Professional sports are a training course in irrational jingoism. Waste of time, money, and energy.
 
I don’t know, but I hope it will grow into a bigger movement.
 
The Chicago Cubs are trying to get $400 million to rennovate a stadium that hasn't had baseball played in for over 100 years now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom