Stadium Discussion

[NYCFCFan10]

Disclaimer: Haven't watched the video.

Yeah but this is just you sitting in a chair doing a thought experiment. People have studied this for years - publicly funded stadiums do little to nothing to boost the local economy. Entertainment spending is generally fixed, so money spent at the stadium is money not spent elsewhere, resulting in a net zero gain.

Yes, yes, I've heard the "stadiums do little to nothing to boost the local economy" thing before. I've never actually looked at the hard numbers behind that study, so I'll have to take their word for it.

However, when people come from way out of town for events, they obviously have to be spending money on the local economy. They have to sleep somewhere. They have to eat somewhere. So while it might not be a gold rush, its still something bring people to your city. That is always a positive to me.

 

[sbrylski]

Yes, yes, I've heard the "stadiums do little to nothing to boost the local economy" thing before. I've never actually looked at the hard numbers behind that study, so I'll have to take their word for it.

However, when people come from way out of town for events, they obviously have to be spending money on the local economy. They have to sleep somewhere. They have to eat somewhere. So while it might not be a gold rush, its still something bring people to your city. That is always a positive to me.

But that's taken into account. Maybe if you built a stadium in the middle of nowhere, the context would be different. But we are always talking about building a new stadium in the middle of an already vibrant city with ample entertainment options. Marginal returns of a stadium effort must shrink and shrink fast.

In other words, those tourists are likely already going to find a reason to come to your city. You probably also overestimate the number of out-of-region fans that visit stadiums.

 

[mgarbowski]

If stadiums and sports arenas actually drew in enough extra people that it made an appreciable difference in hotel and restaurant business, then the local hotel and restaurant industry would voluntarily make contributions to their construction. They don't. In fact they tend to hate public subsidies because more often than not they get the brunt of the cost via hotel taxes which they have to pass on to the supposed visitors. But of course they charge every visitor, not just the ones coming mostly to see a game. Of which there are comparatively none. And the hotels and retruants know that the public subsidies don't benefit them.

When the public subsides flow directly to two industries (1) the teams and (2) the construction industry, and those two industries are at the forefront of any lobbying effort to approve the subsidies, you have to think you're a special brand of smart to argue the real benefit goes to a third-party industry. And guess what, you're probably not that special brand of smart.

The amazing thisng is that the industries looking for the handouts manage to bamboozle so many uninterested citizens who should be more wary and know better.

Another thought experiment: why not subsidize hotels, taxis, and restaurants so more visitors can come and have more money to spend on our theaters, museums, and sports arenas? It makes exactly as much sense, yet nobody argues for that. Because it actually doesn't make any sense, in either direction.

 

[sbrylski]

When the public subsides flow directly to two industries (1) the teams and (2) the construction industry, and those two industries are at the forefront of any lobbying effort to approve the subsidies, you have to think you're a special brand of smart to argue the real benefit goes to a third-party industry. And guess what, you're probably not that special brand of smart.

<drops mic>

Another thought experiment: why not subsidize hotels, taxis, and restaurants so more visitors can come and have more money to spend on our theaters, museums, and sports arenas? It makes exactly as much sense, yet nobody argues for that. Because it actually doesn't make any sense, in either direction.

Hell, we should just subsidize ticket prices. How many tickets would $200MM buy? At $50 on average for a ticket, that would be four million tickets.

If everyone can go to the games for free, more people would go and they would spend more money on food and booze as part of the trip.

/s

Stadium subsidies are just another form of trickle down economics that's, for the most part, complete bullshit.

 

[Kjbert]

They should build it in Brooklyn for a number of reasons. If they do, I'll drop my tickets but that's where it should be built.

 

[mgarbowski]

<drops mic>

Yeah, didn't mean to come out so harsh, especially towards NYCFCFan10 in particular. Believe it or not this was edited to make it nicer.

Stadium subsidies are just another form of trickle down economics that's, for the most part, complete bullshit.

Interesting, depending on your political and economic POV, you can make the case you just asserted, but you can also argue rationally that trickle down and eliminating stadium subsidies go hand in hand. Further explanation gets filed under Way Off Topic, but I thought it worth noting.

 

[sbrylski]

Yeah, didn't mean to come out so harsh, especially towards NYCFCFan10 in particular. Believe it or not this was edited to make it nicer.

No, I thought it was a great comment.

Interesting, depending on your political and economic POV, you can make the case you just asserted, but you can also argue rationally that trickle down and eliminating stadium subsidies go hand in hand. Further explanation gets filed under Way Off Topic, but I thought it worth noting.

Any time the solution is "give money to rich people because it will benefit someone else," I'm going to lump that under trickle down economics.

 

[NYCFCFan10]

If stadiums and sports arenas actually drew in enough extra people that it made an appreciable difference in hotel and restaurant business, then the local hotel and restaurant industry would voluntarily make contributions to their construction. They don't. In fact they tend to hate public subsidies because more often than not they get the brunt of the cost via hotel taxes which they have to pass on to the supposed visitors. But of course they charge every visitor, not just the ones coming mostly to see a game. Of which there are comparatively none. And the hotels and retruants know that the public subsidies don't benefit them.

When the public subsides flow directly to two industries (1) the teams and (2) the construction industry, and those two industries are at the forefront of any lobbying effort to approve the subsidies, you have to think you're a special brand of smart to argue the real benefit goes to a third-party industry. And guess what, you're probably not that special brand of smart.

The amazing thisng is that the industries looking for the handouts manage to bamboozle so many uninterested citizens who should be more wary and know better.

Another thought experiment: why not subsidize hotels, taxis, and restaurants so more visitors can come and have more money to spend on our theaters, museums, and sports arenas? It makes exactly as much sense, yet nobody argues for that. Because it actually doesn't make any sense, in either direction.

I disagree.

Its sort of like Disney on a smaller scale.

You mean to sit there and tell me, you don't think that Real Madrid and Barcelona have raised the profile of the cities they reside in? Manchester United hasn't raised the profile of the city they reside...next to ?

They're advertising. Immense advertising. God knows how many thousands or even MILLIONS of people have gone to Manchester for United (and maybe City now) over the years? Who the hell would pick Manchester as a vacation destination otherwise?

You don't think Green Bay's benefited from having the Packers? Or South Bend for having Notre Dame football?

No one is going to see the taxis or the hotels or even the restaurants there, so your analogy is total crap.

 

[BxLio91]

Manchester isn't comparable to NYC though.

 

[sbrylski]

I disagree.

Its sort of like Disney on a smaller scale.

You mean to sit there and tell me, you don't think that Real Madrid and Barcelona have raised the profile of the cities they reside in? Manchester United hasn't raised the profile of the city they reside...next to ?

They're advertising. Immense advertising. God knows how many thousands or even MILLIONS of people have gone to Manchester for United (and maybe City now) over the years? Who the hell would pick Manchester as a vacation destination otherwise?

You don't think Green Bay's benefited from having the Packers? Or South Bend for having Notre Dame football?

No one is going to see the taxis or the hotels or even the restaurants there, so your analogy is total crap.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but your conclusion is wrong. We have empirical data from tons of stadiums around the world, and what you are arguing might seem to make sense, but it's not reality.

See, you're a sports fan. When I say San Francisco, you say 49ers. When I say Boston, you say Celtics. When I say London, you say Arsenal, Chelsea, and Tottenham.

My girlfriend wants to move to London. And guess what, she's never heard of Arsenal, Chelsea, or Tottenham. I've taken many vacations and trips with my family over the last three decades. Exactly zero of them were to attend a stadium.

The reasons people travel or hold certain cities in high regard are so vast. Sports are only a very small subset, and the quality of their stadiums an even smaller reason with that subset. Yet, these stadiums cost an insanely disproportionate amount of money to construct. Not to mention, the cities get no revenue back, and the owners could already pay for them themselves.

 

[Seth]

thousands or even MILLIONS of people have gone to Manchester for United (and maybe City now) over the years?

I'm definitely planning on going to Manchester some year to see City play. See? It works.

 

[mgarbowski]

I disagree.

Its sort of like Disney on a smaller scale.

You mean to sit there and tell me, you don't think that Real Madrid and Barcelona have raised the profile of the cities they reside in? Manchester United hasn't raised the profile of the city they reside...next to ?

They're advertising. Immense advertising. God knows how many thousands or even MILLIONS of people have gone to Manchester for United (and maybe City now) over the years? Who the hell would pick Manchester as a vacation destination otherwise?

You don't think Green Bay's benefited from having the Packers? Or South Bend for having Notre Dame football?

No one is going to see the taxis or the hotels or even the restaurants there, so your analogy is total crap.

I should havbe gone with the original harsher version.
Out.

 

[NickA]

There is no other city like New York. Boroughs surrounding Manhattan are ridiculously high right now. Rent's are at an all time high. The city will look at the footprint and how much tax revenue they'll make. If a mixed use complex or any type of affordable housing brings in more...we lose. It needs to be a joint venture or guaranted usage for the city to blink an eye. Like I said...we aren't a pimple on NYC's ass. We have to give them something to get something. Otherwise we are out of the city.

 

[The Toe]

There is no other city like New York. Boroughs surrounding Manhattan are ridiculously high right now. Rent's are at an all time high. The city will look at the footprint and how much tax revenue they'll make. If a mixed use complex or any type of affordable housing brings in more...we lose. It needs to be a joint venture or guaranted usage for the city to blink an eye. Like I said...we aren't a pimple on NYC's ass. We have to give them something to be something. Otherwise we are out of the city.

the only place in the City where rent is reasonable is in the Bronx, and maybe wayyyy out in Queens.

 

[adam]

Everyone loves a new stadium (well everyone on this forum). But no private entity deserves it for free. If a city pays for it, it should own it and all revenue streams that stem from it. The team should be a tenant. It's only logical. You don't just give away hundreds of millions to a billion dollars to anyone (unless they have the cure for cancer or world hunger). This system is obsurd. Any argument to the contrary is just plain poppycock.

 

[LionNYC]

Everyone loves a new stadium (well everyone on this forum). But no private entity deserves it for free. If a city pays for it, it should own it and all revenue streams that stem from it. The team should be a tenant. It's only logical. You don't just give away hundreds of millions to a billion dollars to anyone (unless they have the cure for cancer or world hunger). This system is obsurd. Any argument to the contrary is just plain poppycock.

But this is America.

 

[Gotham Gator]

The stadium subsidy discussion is interesting, but I am not sure of its relevance to our situation.

We don't need government money to help build a stadium here. What we need is political cover. New York is so poorly governed, with so many competing interests holding veto rights, that it is nearly impossible to get anything done. We need the Mayor to step forward and help with the politics. Otherwise, there will always be someone obstructing progress because they want something in return.

 

[Kjbert]

The stadium subsidy discussion is interesting, but I am not sure of its relevance to our situation.

We don't need government money to help build a stadium here. What we need is political cover. New York is so poorly governed, with so many competing interests holding veto rights, that it is nearly impossible to get anything done. We need the Mayor to step forward and help with the politics. Otherwise, there will always be someone obstructing progress because they want something in return.

I don't think that the team is looking for funds to actually build the stadium. But, like everyone else, I'm sure they would want help in new infrastructure. That could mean a better train stop, better lighting walking to and from the parking garages, an improvement for the off ramp from the Major Deegan, etc. And tax breaks for utilizing land that is paying tax right now.

 

[The Toe]

"We want to be in one of the boroughs. In a short time we will have some updates to share but at the moment we are focused on playing here."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/33535637

 

[Davo15]

Decent article. While I don't think we've had an immense impact on making the game more mainstream yet I think the guy with the "Foot fairies" quote is way off base. I have a friend (who happens to be an Energy drink supporter) who's wife teaches in the city and he said when he's gone to see her at work he's seen a lot of kids in kits (mostly ) Euro. I think that with growing Latino population and other factors my generation (I'm 35) will bet he last where that kind of attitude is even remotely prevalent. Not saying soccer will be King in this country but it will not be scoffed at.

Sorry that this is a non stadium based response but that was the more interesting stuff in the article to me.