And I like this (longer piece). Ed goes out of his way to show cities without professional sports teams somehow (GASP!) magically grow anyway!
And if I recall correctly, isn't it the major cities of the country with multiple professional sports teams that have the highest unemployment rates? If I recall places like North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming don't have double digit unemployment rates.
And if I recall correctly, isn't it the major cities of the country with multiple professional sports teams that have the highest unemployment rates? If I recall places like North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming don't have double digit unemployment rates.
6 comments:
I've always hated professional sports teams begging with their cup for a new stadium when they pay millions in payroll for guys to throw a ball around.
I always wondered how if this is such a great deal, why can they not get the financing themselves?
Ok, you can make the argument that gov't subsidizing the cost of a hockey arena or a basketball arena could bring economic benefit to a community say $15k fans downtown at 30-40 games a season.
You could also make the argument that government assistance for a baseball team at 81 dates at 40K in attendance can bring economic benefit as well.
I don't agree with those positions, but you can at least make the argument and maybe even defend it.
But with a $600 million subsidy for a much more expensive stadium, with the team getting all the revenue generated by sky boxes, naming rights and concessions, etc. and drawing 45,000 for only 10 dates a year, there is absolutely no way you can make that argument of economic growth - it is totally indefensible.
This is why I don't watch the NFL - their business model is based on raping the taxpayer and holding them hostage by threatening to move the team to LA or some other place.
It is simple extortion - nothing more, nothing less.
Hmmm, paying money to help a business buy something it cannot currently buy, but could certainly benefit from and then paying back some to the lending entity...
This sounds like a job for investment banks who will require REAL interest payments, not governments that give money out for free.
If the idea isn't economical in the private sector, it certainly won't fly in the public sector.
"isn't it the major cities of the country with multiple professional sports teams that have the highest unemployment rates?" Of course -
it's a matter of bread and circuses.
The tools of politics are simple and crude, and haven't changed in five millenia.
You might be interested in the original quote from Juvenal: "… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses".
This is insanity! You Yanks are trillions of dollars in debt. This is exactly the type of unnecessary spending, that needs to be cut.
Giving tax dollars to millionaire sport team owners, and in a game which is played by millionaire athletes, is madness.
How about fixing the roads and bridges, before spending on luxury stadiums. I seem to rememeber, a bridge recently collasping in the Minnesotoa area. Giving tax money to sports teams, is bad economics and immoral.
It's because you don't have "purple Pride" You wouldn't understand.
(Actually, look it up, and you'll see the dumbest people on the face of the planet).
Post a Comment