Public Financial Support of Sports Teams

But it isn't the tax payers that own the Packers, it's a non-profit corporation that was formed in 1923 and currently has shareholders in all 50 states and Canada. That aside, we're not the ones you need to convince about municipal team ownership, it's the NFL and other leagues. The only reason the Packers have the 96 year old corporate setup they've got is because they were grandfathered in when the new private ownership rule went into effect in the 80's that only allows one owner or a small owners group per team. And one owner must own more than 30% of the team. NFL rules... Convince them your municipal ownership plan is sound...

 

The idea that government should own any type of entertainment is just silly. Government should be as small as possible, of course.

But getting back to stadiums and such, it is the weak link in the whole broken pro sports system. No politician wants to be the guy who let the *ers leave town, and every politician wants to be the guy who got an expansion team because the leagues sell the idea that pro sports makes mid-major towns (Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Columbus, Raleigh, Portland, Ottawa, etc, etc, etc) "big league". So they come up with the voodoo economics idea that having a team brings in all this money that rolls over 8 or 20 times. It does not work that way. Any team you wish to name could cease to exist tommorrow and the economy of the city involved would be less effected than if two McDonald's closed in that town.

 

So you think thing would be much better when all professional sports franchises are owned by the state?

 

I'm sure there is a list of stadiums that still had bonds owed on them after they were torn down.

 

While I’m firmly against public money for stadiums I have to say I completely disagree with your two McDonald’s statement. Staples center alone in Los Angeles created the environment needed to get investors to spend billions of money in that area of downtown and brings a lot of jobs and tax dollars. That does happen. Without that they would never have spent money the way they have. A crown jewel does create investment that otherwise wouldn’t exist. At least not there.

 

At least not there is the point.

First, what I was really talking about was the voodoo economics of saying that $$ roll over many dozens of times. You pay the bartender, who pays her hair dresser, who buys a new skirt, where the store owner then pays the clerk, who buys a new hat, and blah, blah, blah. That is voodoo.

But as to the "entertainment district" the idea that people in LA would stand around flush with cash wishing someone would build something for them to spend it on without a taxpayer basketball arena is, also, voodoo.

 

I’d say more it did create investment in that area that otherwise wouldn’t have been spent in that area. And you could make the argument it may have created more spending in general in that case because of the amount of money foreign investors have dumped in the area they otherwise probably wouldn’t have spent in Los Angeles at all.

The new rams stadium and Clippers stadiums will do the same. Bring massive spending to an area that otherwise would have been left alone.

Not sure if they will create more spending over all in the economy for california but for the city I know those stadiums will increase monumentally how much will be spent in Inglewood.