Should the government help build sports stadiums?

[abcdefz]

Personally, I'm glad to read that more and more cities are refusing to fund sports stadiums. I know the argument is "pro sports brings revenue to the city," but I think it's bullshit to subsidize entertainment industries. It's bad enough to subsidize, say, some company wanting to relocate to your city, but at least there you can argue that the workers are much greater in number and that it's more likely to create a daily change in the economy instead of sporadic injections to restaurants and hotels.

Anyway, just curious to know what other people think, and whether Sony shouldn't lobby California and New York to offset its $250 million Spiderman 3 budget.

[QueenAdrock]

I think the government should be spending the money better ways. Like maybe giving the soldiers proper gear and protection, instead of sending them out to battle ill-prepared. To me, sports stadiums are just not high-priority at all.

[Otis Driftwood]

Only for clubs that DO need it to get more spectators but can't afford it on their own. I don't think having the government pay for a top clubs new arena makes much sense if they could afford it or break even within say 4-6 years. A smaller team with about 20k-35k seats that still has thousands of people that can't get in cause the stadium is packed should be helped, they can repay interest later...

[abcdefz]

Well, I'd be more enthusiastic about building a stadium for a state college or something, but even that is kinda iffy. I'd be pretty enthusiastic about subsidizing a low fee, public gymnasium facility -- encourage physical fitness rather than being a spectator.

I just think it's such bullshit to say you can't afford to build a stadium while paying your roster -- what? -- 80 to 130 million a year? Plus travel, etc.?

[kaiser soze]

No, because government support = citizens' tax dollars

bush did this in Texas I believe and we have seen how The New Orleans Saints have recieved better treatment than the people of New Orleans (maybe tax-free?)

The argument can be that revenue can be generated for an area that accepts a sports team, but this is a gamble because if the team sucks and the area doesn't have other resources, business that relies on the team will suffer and the residents continue to pay.

[Echewta]

We often fund things that most of us don't use and/or don't approve of.

Tax supported stadiums are lame though regardless of how many jobs it may create.

[abcdefz]

This is one where I'd say don't single Bush out. Stadiums since the '60's have largely been funded at taxpayer expense -- sometimes up to three quarters of the cost. At last, that sort of subsidy is being refused and public opinion is turning against it, but we're still talking about 30-40 years of many, many stadiums being built on the backs of millions of people who will never set foot in one.

[yeahwho]

In Seattle the Supersonics KeyArena opened in 1995, with $107 million ($75 million of it public subsidies) having been spent to tear down the old Coliseum to the crossbeams and erect what was called a state-of-the-art NBA arena. Nine years later, Sonics owner Howard Schultz (Starbucks CEO) was saying he wanted a $200 million expansion of the Key in order to keep the Sonics in town. After Clay Bennett's group (from Oklahoma) bought the team from Schultz last year, Bennett upped the ante and now wants a new, $500 million arena in Renton.

"The case may or may not be able to be made that KeyArena is a viable building today," Bennett said in a recent state Senate hearing. "While KeyArena may survive for a few years, certainly five, seven, 10 years from now, KeyArena will not be a state-of-the-art, viable, competitive, tier-one-market building."

Sports owners are grudgingly willing to operate at an annual loss, because they more than make up for it when they sell the team. Schultz's group bought the Sonics and Storm for $200 million in 2001 and sold the teams five years later for $350 million. Even considering the $60 million in operating losses claimed by the group over that time, that's a profit not many investments could match.

When it's all said and done we have allowed ourselves to subsidize a corporate entity for the privilege of seeing our cities name on the jersey. When really it should be the other way around. If you want to play in our town invest in it.

The Roman Colosseum held events for nearly 500 years (it had great luxury boxes). It has reached a point where a building is perceived as outdated before it needs repainting

[abcdefz]

Yup. It's ridiculous.

What do they think these stadiums are, anyway? Cell phones!?