Corporate Welfare In Sports

[Groovenstein]

Louisiana's putting together a bailout for the New Orleans Saints NFL franchise.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=2071914

I know this happens all the time, but it is frustrating, and every so often I like to point out recent examples of this junk. It's sad that so many comments I read, people I talk to, etc. think it's "crazy" or "anarchy" for a sports business to pay for its own facilities. And most of the people I've read and heard that oppose government-financed stadiums do so for reasons like "that money could be used for schools."

Of course I fault the government officials. I'm wondering if I shouldn't also fault the owners. They do, after all, get fleeced in the tax department, so this might arguably be considered repayment. I think the "Question of Scholarships" logic (discussed in other threads) would probably apply here.

I'd like to take a moment to praise Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots NFL franchise, for paying for his own stadium.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/30/200...8&datatype=Misc

"Gillette Stadium was financed by private debt backed by revenue from the new stadium."

To the rest of you, aargh.

[Styles2112]

That's why Green Bay is kind of cool. When they decided that they wanted to renovate Lambeau, they had to ask the city people (Brown county) if they would accept a tax to redo Lambeau. They had to show the people exactly what they would do for them (all the improvements and such) and the people voted in favor. The PEOPLE made the decision to upgrade the stadium, and, in my opinion, it was a great decision, as Lambeau is now one of the best places to visit in the nation.

[Eric Mathis]

Of course I fault the government officials.  I'm wondering if I shouldn't also fault the owners.  They do, after all, get fleeced in the tax department, so this might arguably be considered repayment.  I think the "Question of Scholarships" logic (discussed in other threads) would probably apply here.

"Getting back" what one "puts in" has been used by some members of this forum to justify accepting certain government benefits. See Accepting Government Funds

What I find troubling is that virtually every form of wealth transfer could be absolved by this argument, and we'd end up with such sanctimony as this: "Food stamps should be abolished as soon as I finish getting my fair share of them."

Edited June 3, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[Toolboxnj]

Well, good thing the plan to build The Jets' a stadium on the West-side of Manhattan was killed as it would have cost the taxpayers nearly $3 billion dollars in a feeble attempt to get the Olympics in 2012. If you want an example of the abuse of government power, corporate welfare and lobbying efforts one only had to point to that fiasco.

The Giants, a team in the same market as the Jets, will be self-financing their own stadium in New Jersey which is expected to cost about $750 million. It will all be privately financed with perhaps $100 million from the state for transportation improvements. Why did the Jets need a $3 billion stadium on the most expensive real-estate in New York City? It was scary that the Jets were "this close" to getting it, as if it weren't for the lobbying efforts of Cablevision (who wanted to maintain their "monopoly" on conventions) and a couple Democrats who were scared off of the idea the taxpayers of NYC would have been royally screwed.

The Mets and Yankees are also getting new stadiums without much taxpaper support. The city will only spend money to improve parks and transportation in the area, not on the stadiums themselves. And although an O'ist would not even be happy about the government spending in this area, it's a far cry from spending $3 billion on the west-side of Manhattan.

[RationalEgoistSG]

That's why Green Bay is kind of cool.  When they decided that they wanted to renovate Lambeau, they had to ask the city people (Brown county) if they would accept a tax to redo Lambeau.  They had to show the people exactly what they would do for them (all the improvements and such) and the people voted in favor.  The PEOPLE made the decision to upgrade the stadium, and, in my opinion, it was a great decision, as Lambeau is now one of the best places to visit in the nation.

And this makes the use of taxpayer money to fund the stadium right? So when the PEOPLE of Athens made the decision to put Socrates to death it was a great decision because it rid the city of unruly decent and made it a better place to live?

What about all of the taxpayers in the Green Bay area that did not want their money to be stolen from them by the government for the renovation of the stadium?

The right of the individual to his property is inalienable, even if a majority of people in his area vote to take away his rights in some way.

Thus I do not see why you accept this situation as worthy of praise. It is as condenmable as the other situations mentioned in this thread.