Hockey Stadiums

[dstidham 0]

I just had a discussion about the benefits of having the tax payers build a new staduim. One of the benefits was that if a stanley cup/ superbowl type event ended up in the city it would benefit the tax payers because the money would filter back into the community. Is this true? Does anyone know what the benefits are of having a new staduim (hockey or football)...

[Jason Harris 31]

If the agreement stipulated that the city would be compensated for any games played, and the payment was greater than the cost of public service, then, yes, the city would benefit when more games are played. However, my guess is the payments received is far less than the money spent to build the stadium.

Also, some agreements are too lopsided. I know that San Diego had a terrible deal with the Chargers that the city had to make up the difference in attendence when it fell below a certain threshold. And it fell below that threshold for years until the Chargers started winning last year.

That said, I don't have a problem with publicly financed stadiums, because it adds to the quality of life and allure of the city. There are people who choose to live in or around certain cities because they offer more sports/entertainment. That increases the city's labor pool -- hopefully for the best.

[JR Boucicaut 3803]

There was an article recently that spoke of this. It was about the NFL awarding the 2010 Super Bowl to New Orleans. Basically, cities do not come out on the winning end when they host these big sporting events.

[2048 0]

Cities generally have enough problems on their hands without worrying about entertaining their inhabitants. I really don't see a way for anyone to justify subsidies for stadiums when so few people get to enjoy their presence--specifically the people who would be most in need of the money the city gives to the people.

Also--is it really better if the city employs people by building a stadium than an office building, complex or simply increasing teachers' salaries?

[Jason Harris 31]

Cities generally have enough problems on their hands without worrying about entertaining their inhabitants. 

If cities don't attempt to entertain their inhabitants -- be it through parks, museums, zoos, arenas, etc. -- I guarantee they will have less inhabitants to worry about.

I really don't see a way for anyone to justify subsidies for stadiums when so few people get to enjoy their presence--specifically the people who would be most in need of the money the city gives to the people.

Actually, far more people enjoy the presence of the stadiums than those who attend. 70,000 attend the game; 500,000 watch the game on TV.

Also--is it really better if the city employs people by building a stadium than an office building, complex or simply increasing teachers' salaries?

It's probably better for them to increase teachers' salaries, but less likely to win the vote of the populace.

[LkptTiger 1]

There was an article recently that spoke of this.  It was about the NFL awarding the 2010 Super Bowl to New Orleans.  Basically, cities do not come out on the winning end when they host these big sporting events.

You're talking about "The Biz" column in ESPN a few weeks back? A very interesting read - definitely opened my eyes to some of the lopsided figures some people throw-out to entice others into a potentially losing proposition.

[Jim A 4]

it always amazes me when teams leave because a stadium referendum fails..a new team winds up there a few years later..ie..Charlotte Hornets

[JR Boucicaut 3803]

Lkpt - that'd be the one.

[2048 0]

Cities generally have enough problems on their hands without worrying about entertaining their inhabitants. 

If cities don't attempt to entertain their inhabitants -- be it through parks, museums, zoos, arenas, etc. -- I guarantee they will have less inhabitants to worry about.

I really don't see a way for anyone to justify subsidies for stadiums when so few people get to enjoy their presence--specifically the people who would be most in need of the money the city gives to the people.

Actually, far more people enjoy the presence of the stadiums than those who attend. 70,000 attend the game; 500,000 watch the game on TV.

Also--is it really better if the city employs people by building a stadium than an office building, complex or simply increasing teachers' salaries?

It's probably better for them to increase teachers' salaries, but less likely to win the vote of the populace.

We're not going to agree on this because I don't see the societal value of sports--at least not to a real city. There's entertainment for sure and it's great to entertain the people, but not at the cost of things that'll help them do more than waste hours in front of the tv and reading the sports pages.