Public Financial Support of Sports Teams

Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by James Long, Jul 26, 2019.

  1. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    49,408
    1,753
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The DISH vs Fox Sports issue spawned the public policy discussion that follows this post.
    The channel dispute can be discussed in the original thread.


    DISH Promise | MyDISH | DISH Customer Support

    We are currently experiencing a dispute with FOX Regional Sports Networks, currently owned by The Walt Disney Company, and your programming is impacted by these negotiations. We understand missing your favorite team play is very frustrating.

    The fact is, only FOX Regional Sports Networks can choose to remove their content from DISH customers. FOX Regional Sports Networks are asking for an unreasonable price increase, by asking subscribers to pay for sports channels that they may not even receive.

    The fact is, sports are the most expensive programming out there, and players’ salaries have increased in recent years. That money has to come from somewhere, making sports the most expensive part of customer’s bills. As networks, like FOX Regional Sports Networks, make risky investments on expensive sports rights, they are looking to make back that money with increasing prices, reflecting right on your bill.

    DISH made every attempt to extend the contract so our customers would not be impacted but FOX Regional Sports Networks refused this offer. We appreciate your patience while we continue to work with FOX Regional Sports Networks to bring back your channels.

    When will my access to my FOX Regional Sports Network return?
    These channels will return as soon as our deal is accepted or extended by FOX Regional Sports Networks. Our ask is to continue to negotiate with FOX Regional Sports Network in private while you still have access to your channel. We continue to ask FOX Regional Sports Networks for the ability to do so, and to restore their channel.
     
  2. SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,355
    135
    Jan 20, 2003
    This is why, in every sports strike, when the owners lose, and, excepting the NHL they always lose, we lose. Destroying the player unions must happen.
     
  3. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,560
    1,417
    Nov 13, 2006
    The unions have nothing to do with it. It’s the owners pushing for and having channels negotiate against each other for the rights. If it wasn’t for the unions the price would be the same but owners would make a lot more and players less. It wouldn’t change the size of the paychecks for the players in this particular case. The strikes are generally about the players wanting a big slice of the pie the owners are getting because of the people watching the players. No one pays to see a game because of its owner.
     
  4. SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,355
    135
    Jan 20, 2003
    Actually they have everything to do with it. When athletes were paid a upper middle class wage, sports were far more affordable. It was reported a couple years ago that the QB for the Dallas Cowboys in the early 1970s made about what a mid-career federal government lawyer made. A solid upper-middle class living. The highest paid baseball player in 1975, the last year of the wonderful Reserve Clause, made $240,000. Which is just over a million dollars today. Mike Trout makes THIRTY FOUR TIMES THAT.

    And sports were much more affordable. Tickets were more affordable. RSNs did not exist, and games were on free OTA TV. Concessions were more affordable. Parking was more affordable. Everything. The idea that these owners were charging the same and keeping it for themselves is just not accurate. Rather they were small businessmen, charging a fair price, paying a fair wage, and earning a fair profit.

    Which is why, while I am a sports fan, the death of the "everybody pays for ESPN, its immitators, and their RSNs" model of cable/dish replaced by "only fans pay" model of OTT, will mean that players will make far less. Hopefullly, like the NHL owners, the other big 4 owners will use this openning to totally crush these unions, which is the key to sports affordiablity.
     
  5. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,560
    1,417
    Nov 13, 2006
    You don’t seem to get how the money flows. The players want more pie after the owners and leagues went out and created more revenue streams and git higher licensing fees. They didn’t get more money before that.

    I’m not generally a fan of unions, they have good and bad but I’ve seen to much on the wrong side for me to think they are good overall. But this just isn’t a union problem. You are dreaming if you think a non union setup would change how much these owners are demanding for the rights to carry these games.

    You also seem to miss that many of the owners have changed and these days most owners are billionaires who have a team for a hobby. Problem is billionaires want as much profit as possible for even a hobby... and mega new stadiums and so forth.
     
  6. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,873
    131
    Apr 22, 2002
    Kansas City KS
    I've always been against the idea of a city / government entity paying for a stadium for any sport so the team owner can save the cost of the stadium. It should be part and parcel of team ownership - the team AND the facility they play / practice in. This way - the team can decide what other events they would like to make more money with.
     
    cielohajames2005 likes this.
  7. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz New Texan

    10,932
    154
    Mar 23, 2002
    Richardson,...
    In my personal opinion, the athletes of that time were better role models that young kids could look up to at that time. Not anymore. Although I can argue in favor of the higher salaries for NFL players due to an average short career and the injuries which last for decades beyond the conclusion of their playing career.

    On this, I have to say.... take off your rose-colored glasses. Until 1973, the NFL did not allow the "home" games of a local team to be broadcast even if the game was a sellout. It was not until the 2015 that the NFL suspended the blackout rules requiring that a game be sold out 72 hours prior to game start time in order to be broadcast in the local market. For baseball and basketball, only select games were broadcast in the home market, and I remember that the Sacramento market, being a secondary market for the As and Giants, would only broadcast a subset of those games.
     
  8. Aug 2, 2019 #8 of 28
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,560
    1,417
    Nov 13, 2006
    Agree 100%. They should even have to pay for city infustructure updates to make it useable and have proper access.
     
  9. Aug 2, 2019 #9 of 28
    NYDutch

    NYDutch DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    463
    63
    Dec 28, 2013
    Do you place any value on the tourist money that stadiums and their events bring into a city?
     
  10. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    24,560
    1,417
    Nov 13, 2006
    The people who own these teams are billionaires. They can afford it so they don’t need tax money. If they couldn’t Stan and Steve wouldn’t be privately financing multi billion dollar stadiums in Los Angeles right now. La which has higher costs to build than many other places. Chase center in San Francisco is also a billion dollar stadium privately financed.

    The only help AEG got when they built staples was some sort of tax deferral on a parking structure.

    Love the money the stadiums bring in but they don’t need public funds to build it. Otherwise they are getting less money. The way they financed the Vegas stadium is hilarious. What a joke.

    They don’t need the money.
     
    scooper and TheRatPatrol like this.
  11. NYDutch

    NYDutch DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    463
    63
    Dec 28, 2013
    They didn't become billionaires by spending their own money... ;)
     
  12. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,873
    131
    Apr 22, 2002
    Kansas City KS
    Well - I feel in this case - they should. And apparently, I'm not the only one....
     
    TheRatPatrol likes this.
  13. NYDutch

    NYDutch DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    463
    63
    Dec 28, 2013
    And I don't disagree with you. But I'd bet they do... :)
     
  14. Chihuahua

    Chihuahua Legend

    265
    10
    Sep 8, 2007
    In fact, in olden times, not only were the local NFL team's games not televised to the home market, but that market did not get to receive any NFL games on that day, period. When Chicago had two NFL teams (this was before the Cardinals moved to St. Louis in 1960), since the Bears or Cardinals played at home, the Windy City was devoid of NFL football on TV.
     
  15. Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    347
    89
    Dec 7, 2017
    If all of the teams were municipally owned then all profits would go to the state. Screw the billionaire owners of today. The Green Bay Packers have the right idea. No complaint building new arenas and stadiums if all the profits benefit the tax payers. It would behoove each team to try and be the best they could be. Think about the TV profits. Ie. The Arizona Cardinals, diamonbacks, Coyotes, Suns, should be owned by the state of Arizona with an appointed Sports commissioner (experienced in sports franchise operations). Maintain current GM's etc. Nothing changes except the owners. That would be us.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  16. NYDutch

    NYDutch DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    463
    63
    Dec 28, 2013
    Shouldn't that concept then extend to the rest of the entertainment industry? With all productions of concerts, movies, etc., being owned by the public and all profits accruing to the benefit of the tax payers? Why stop at just the sports entertainment segment...
     
  17. Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    347
    89
    Dec 7, 2017
    First of all, I don't care about the rest of the rest of the entertainment industry. Secondly, we already have an established example with the Packers. Last I checked the only way to get a season ticket for the Packets is to inherit it. If we had municilply owned sports franchises you would have a tremendous loyalty fan base. Why would you not route for the team that you own?
     
  18. NYDutch

    NYDutch DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    463
    63
    Dec 28, 2013
    Who anyone roots for is irrelevant. It's what they're willing to see their tax dollars spent on that counts...
     
  19. NYDutch

    NYDutch DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    463
    63
    Dec 28, 2013
    Well, it only took a quick search to find out that the Packers are not municipally owned, but rather are owned by a non-profit corporation owned by the shareholders. I wonder how much benefit the municipal coffers actually see from a non-profit...
     
  20. Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    347
    89
    Dec 7, 2017
    The point isn't who owns them. It's that it's not a individual or company that owns them. Just think how much money would go into the New York state coffers if the state of New York ie the tax payers, owned the Yankees and the Mets and the Knicks and the Nets and the Rangers and the Giants and the Jets and their WNBA team and their soccer team and the state minor league baseball teams. If the government officials were smart and wanted to get re-elected, a good chunk of that money would go towards reducing the tax burden on the citizens ( voters). I do believe that the situation in Green Bay caused a stipulation by all owners in all major leagues not allowing the sale of said team to any municipality. Don't you wonder why they did that?
     

Share This Page

spam firewall