Should Cities Invest in Major League Sports?

[GAOnMyMind]

Is it good policy for a city to invest tax money in building stadiums and arenas for major league sports? Specifically I mean the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL.

[andremurra]

Yes, unless that city has a major university with a good sports program. I dont think Statesboro needs to invest in Major League even when it gets big. College sports are such a good deal for the host city. No investment needed.

[skylinefan]

I use to think that cities investing in major league sports teams was a good idea until DC expended over 600 million dollars to build a palace for the Washington Nationals. DC has substandard schools, poor social services for the mentally ill and myriad other problems which 600 million dollars could have gone a long way towards solving. The city government put so much effort into this that if they had just put half the effort into improving schools there would not be a proposal from our current mayor for the city to take over its failing schools. Seems to me our priiorties are upside down where we provide corporate welfare for millionaires but cannot properly train our kids for life.

[sunshine]

Yes, they should. It is just similar to people with no children has to pay taxes to build school, people dont own a professional team has to pay to build arena. Both will do good to the community. Social problem will always be there no matter how much money the government pour into it.

I dont have kids and I have to pay for school tax, it might as well spend it on arenas so I can enjoy it.

[MadVlad]

Here's the deal, if I were to wait for a person or Corporation to come to Hartford, build an arena and move a team here, I'd die teamless. It's easy for big cities to tell owners to screw off and build their own arena, but smaller cities would be out of luck. Also, arenas are used for more than just pro sports teams. Another Hartford example, the UConn Huskies would reap great benefits from having a bigger, newer, up-to-date arena in downtown Hartford. That is a cost that the State would be smart to involve itslef with to keep a highly successful team successful...

[sunshine]

Hartford is like a bedroom community for Boston, New Jersy, and New York. You already have the Celtics, Nets & Knicks nearby. If another team add in this close proximity will diminish the fan base of all those three teams. I can named a lot more bigger size cities deserving a new NBA team instead of Hartford.

[MadVlad]

Hartford is like a bedroom community for Boston, New Jersy, and New York. You already have the Celtics, Nets & Knicks nearby. If another team add in this close proximity will diminish the fan base of all those three teams. I can named a lot more bigger size cities deserving a new NBA team instead of Hartford.

[skylinefan]

Building and maintaining schools and providing adequate social services is a solemn responsibility of Government not building 600 million dollar stadiums for multi-millionaires. I understand that during the negotiations for the Nationals Stadium the wininng owners group was snickering behind the backs of the mayor and city government about what a sweet deal they were able to get from the city. Not only is the city paying for the Stadium the Nationals and Baseball both control the broadcast rights, a percentage of parking revenue etc. At the same time this winter we had 5 or 6 schools without heat and working boilers. Now imagine what 600 million dollars would do for a small school system of 50,000 students.

[feilong]

I voted yes

[ohioaninSC]

I think it depends how the city plans to invest the tax dollars in it. It worked ok for Cleveland to pass a sin tax (alchohol & cigs) to build the Gateway Sports area, Jacobs Field & Gund Arena(Now Quicklen Loans Arena, ugh), b/c several new bars and restaraunts opened up in that part of DT. Whenever I went to see my beloved Indians in that stadium, I'd always go to one of those places b4 the game for a few adult beverages and a meal, and again afterwards. But, when I went to games at the Mistake by the Lake, my family and I wanted to get in and out as soon as possible, b/c nothing was going on down there, and it didn't seem all that safe, though I'm sure it was.

While I was attending Ohio State, Columbus, while not directly financing the building of Nationwide Arena, for the Blue Jackets, used eminent domain to help Nationwide Insurance secure the land for the building of that arena. But, the caveat was that Nationwide had to develop the area around the stadium. What has become of it is a thriving area called the Arena District on the northern edge of Downtown. While I bemoan that fact that they did put in a lot of parking decks, they have also put a lot of mixed use into the area. There are some nice office buildings, several restaraunts, and bars, a movie theater, a small concert venue, and several apt buildings and condos going in as well. It's also next to the Convention Center, and Short North area, which has more bars, restaraunts, and art gallerys, along w/ more residential development. The development spawned by this area is leading to more development on its fringes spreading into areas that didn't have much and were rundown, w/ a lot of good infill now. BTW, for being dominated by the Buckeyes football and now basketball teams, the CBJ have done pretty well in a "College Town".

http://www.arena-district.com/

http://www.columbusunderground.com/phpBB2/urban.php

I do like the new Bobcats Arena. I've been to several games and concerts there. While, the old Coliseum was more conveniant for me to get to from Rock Hill, SC, since it was in SW Charlotte, it also had only 1 restaraunt/bar really close to it, so you'd go there to the event, and leave just like that, and not spend any money. When I go to Uptown to the new arena, I usually go to bar/restaraunt before hand, and afterwards and spend money there I otherwise wouldn't have, just like I did in C-bus in the Arena District, and in Cleve w/ Gateway.

[TexasStar]

Here in Dallas the headline the past few years has been about the Dallas Cowboys stadium that wound up in suburban Arlington. A few years ago Dallas bit the bullet to build the American Airlines Center for the NBA Dallas Mavericks and the NHL Dallas Stars. Between the two teams that's about 90 event days a year including pre-season games. That activity is a strong driver for surrounding development. So the money paid for the AAC looks like a good investment when you look at the massive Victory development that is rising around it today.

But, football gives you about a dozen event days at best. (Not a good driver of year-round activity.) And when the Superbowl is awarded or the Cotton Bowl is held, it will be played only 25 miles from downtown. So Dallas will still get the largest benefit, just as if the city has forked over hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds to build the stadium.

Only, without actually spending a dime.

So, at least in the case of football, maybe cities should let the 'burbs pay the cost if they find one willing to do so.

[krylonics]

From the things I have read it doesn't seem like a good investment of tax payers money. That is unless you are willing to pay a huge price for some civic pride. The benefit to the rest of the community is probably negligible. I know once I dropped over a hundred bucks for my daughter and I to see a game I would not be stopping off at a local restaurant for an after game dinner.

[yankeeblue]

Yes. More imporantly cities and States should invest in ML Sports if the selected city is ripe enough to hold down a team or teams.

Look at the state I currently reside in, North Carolina. Who would have thought a successful NFL and NHL franchise would have taken hold in such a college sponsored state? Who would have believed that with old alliances to teams like the Redskins and Cowboys that the Panthers would have succeed? And pile that on top of the Charlotte Bobcats! Once a team left, the NBA gave that city another one. That should say something.

No one but the city of Charlotte and Raleigh, would have heard it tho in this thread perhaps.

I've been pushing for NC to bring in a MLB team. Charlotte, maybe. Raleigh, hell yes. (Bias since I live in Raleigh ) But the math adds up for either city or MSA.

What I don't understand is this. Why can't cities or states balance ML Sports and the responsibilities of maintaining our schools, roads, medical workers, and infastructure? Everything can be achieved by balancing needs with wants, and the present demands with future plans.

I think Raleigh/Charlotte are perfect examples of what can be right with this process. And what can be horribly wrong when big business gets it way.

[Minneapolitan]

Look at the state I currently reside in, North Carolina. Who would have thought a successful NFL and NHL franchise would have taken hold in such a college sponsored state? Who would have believed that with old alliances to teams like the Redskins and Cowboys that the Panthers would have succeed? And pile that on top of the Charlotte Bobcats! Once a team left, the NBA gave that city another one. That should say something.

No one but the city of Charlotte and Raleigh, would have heard it tho in this thread perhaps.

[TennBear]

NC is pushing 9 million people. With that said, there's enough people to support sports at all levels. Also, IMO the Hurricanes franchise is hardly a success. Before they won the Stanley Cup, attendance was low as was viewership and the organization was losing money. A year after winning the Cup, they still can't manage to sell out every game. A successful organization fills seats on a regular basis - whether the team is winning or losing.

[Minneapolitan]

Yes, and the North Stars left the Twin Cities and went to Dallas to become the Stars. NHL Hockey is a mess. They priced themselves above what the cities that would support them could handle and went into areas that did not tradionally follow the sport. The NHL should just retrench, but they have could themselves in the cost cycle that they created to try to show themselves as a major league sport. Don't blame NC, blame the people that run the NHL.

[TennBear]

Again, IMO, the Hurricanes franchise is hardly a success. This has to do with the league, the ownership and lack of fan support.

Also, in case you didn't already know, the Twin Cities area got an expansion team back in 2000 and has sold out every game since the opener. The team, which has not won a Stanley Cup, currently has 16,000 season ticket holders in an arena that seats just over 18,000. IMO, the Wild has been a successful organization and the arena has been a great investment for the city of St. Paul. Before the Xcel Center opened neighborhoods near the arena were dead. Now streets, restaurants and bars are packed before and after games, concerts and other events.

[ainulindale]

Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL hockey team) needed a $290 million arena to stay in the city. While the government foolishly passed up the opportunity for full private funding for the arena opting to fit a significant portion of the bill, I still think it's worth it. A local university estimates the hockey team brings in over $100 million a year to the city--this is a significant part of our economy and would be damaging to lose. Hockey is also the least popular of the all the major sports; they have 82 games per year (I assume 41 at home) with an average attendance this year of 17,000; I can only imagine how much money a major basketball or baseball team would bring to a city. I think if a city has to fit the bill to keep a major sports team, it's well worth it.

[Justadude]

Under certain conditions, a pro team is a good investment. For a city in need of downtown revitalization, or a growing metro in need of identity, a pro franchise can provide a major spark to civic progress and the overall appeal of the city.

Problems start to arise when a city feels entitled to big-league sports just because it has crossed some arbitrary population mark. Just because a city is big does not mean it needs big league sports. Even moreso, it doesn't mean that multiple sports will thrive or even survive. North America is full of examples of failed franchises whose cities hardly shed a tear as they left.

I think a real sticking point should be that pro arenas, if they must be built by taxpayers, should be built primarily as multi-purpose venues that fit into a larger development vision. That provides some insurance should the franchise not do very well.

[shwoz]

Hartford is like a bedroom community for Boston, New Jersy, and New York. You already have the Celtics, Nets & Knicks nearby. If another team add in this close proximity will diminish the fan base of all those three teams. I can named a lot more bigger size cities deserving a new NBA team instead of Hartford.

[zvyozd]

What I don't understand is this. Why can't cities or states balance ML Sports and the responsibilities of maintaining our schools, roads, medical workers, and infastructure? Everything can be achieved by balancing needs with wants, and the present demands with future plans.

I think Raleigh/Charlotte are perfect examples of what can be right with this process. And what can be horribly wrong when big business gets it way.

[El Norte]

Most of the time tax payers appove these expenses via voting.

[ShapeShifter]

Because the Bobcats are rocking it hardcore!

I remember playing Sim City years ago. Even when I used the unlimited funds cheat, the last thing I would always plop down in the city (before the Godzilla) would be a sports arena.

I understand the concept that sports are helpful for instilling a sense of regional unity and pride, but I find it sickeningly and sadly indicative of today's society when mongoloids are willing to paint their faces and spend hundreds-thousands of dollars on sports-related entertainment every year while letting their children flounder in decrepit, unsafe, underfunded schools with underpaid teachers.

How are those 1970's textbooks treatin' ya, Jimmy? Go Panthers!

[aboutmetro]

Having worked for a city government, and then for an arena, I have a couple of perspectives on the topic. As the question is phrased with the word 'invest', I'd tend to agree. The trouble with the deals has been that city and sometimes state governments have tended to give away the farm and continued to subsidize stadiums while the owners and players become millionaires. That's a great deal if you can get it. We all know the arguments for the cache of having majors so we won't re-hash those. The rest of this assumes that assertian is valid.

There's a tipping point between where the cities are risks for teams in terms of spectator audience, and where cities are 'no-brainers' for filling up stadiums/arenas and making money. Assuming a city is a risk for a team in terms of potential ticket sales, and needs to offer incentives for the teams to be financially vialble, then it should be treated as an 'investment' as the topic suggests. Where, there is a verifiable record of financial responsibility and once an organization is profitable, the organization at the very least assumes responsibility for venue maintenance, preferably through rents. Ideally, the organizations might even own the stadium - particularly baseball and maybe football since those are single-use basically dedicated to the team. Hockey and b'ball share their venues with each other, concerts, conventions, etc. I'm not for any kind of draconian cap on player salaries, but an across the board paradigm shift is needed to get the burden off of the taxpayers backs and onto the team owners'.

The trouble with all of this is that these things become politicized and egos get involved where a city sees the major sports as moving into the big leagues as cities. Atlanta has it, so Charlotte must have it. So they get very hungry and loose their negotiating edge. Cities and even colleges are now looking at sports from a bottom line perspective and often opting to not spend the money. The more that happens, and the more educated taxpayers are about how the deals can be more favorably structured, the more balanced the deals will become.

[dallasbrink]

Here in Dallas the headline the past few years has been about the Dallas Cowboys stadium that wound up in suburban Arlington. A few years ago Dallas bit the bullet to build the American Airlines Center for the NBA Dallas Mavericks and the NHL Dallas Stars. Between the two teams that's about 90 event days a year including pre-season games. That activity is a strong driver for surrounding development. So the money paid for the AAC looks like a good investment when you look at the massive Victory development that is rising around it today.

But, football gives you about a dozen event days at best. (Not a good driver of year-round activity.) And when the Superbowl is awarded or the Cotton Bowl is held, it will be played only 25 miles from downtown. So Dallas will still get the largest benefit, just as if the city has forked over hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds to build the stadium.

Only, without actually spending a dime.

So, at least in the case of football, maybe cities should let the 'burbs pay the cost if they find one willing to do so.