General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should artists be paid a living wage? [View all]JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 12:20 PM - Edit history (2)
The top leagues can afford to shell out the money for a stadium for a team an owner couldn't realistically do it(team is a family business rather than just one of many businesses they own) so it is not really a matter of sustaining themselves more of a matter of . The leagues like most businesses are interested in maximizing profits for itself and all of it's teams. A long time ago, leagues could have easily said no team can ever move. There is a very specific reason why they choose not to, to increase their bargaining power over the city they reside in. With a legitimate threat to move(NFL loves LA for this reason), that unbelievably affects the amount of funding they can negotiate and if they don't, they have another city that is more than willing to agree to their terms. Why put out your own money when you can get someone else to cover hundreds of millions of costs for you? Businesses, no matter the product they sell, aren't generally known for the kindness of their hearts(if they are, it is usually a cover for a tactic). If it was simply a matter of fan support leading to losses they would simply move or sell the team to recoup their losses and often times those that purchase a team choose to relocate.
The reason why, perhaps stretching, I see it as an open market transaction is the city is purchasing a building(large portion of costs) so that they can see a team play in their city wearing the city name & also hosts other events. In my view, rather than the government regulating or have some of restrictions, it is actually the player. It breaks down when you consider it is the government making the purchase but anyone besides the owner & city(or state) could make the purchase if they wanted to & had the resources(which brings another question as to what an open market is, people with no money aren't players in the market working on the idea "open" means open to anyone. Also they would have to deal with a city approving a building a built and where(which an owner would also have to deal with) which makes it less open). Which a millionaire (or group) offers $300 million(calling their bluff) to convince Oklahoma City group that owned the Sonics to convince them to keep the team in Seattle(late in that particular situation was proved that they had no interest in staying in Seattle and used a rather non-transparent strategy including the settlement deal(that assured their move) which was betting on Seattle to not approve renovations for KeyArena which would have brought the city (out of the OKC owners' pockets) $195 million. They won that bet and paid just $45 million that was the upfront amount from the settlement(that whole Sonics thing wasn't a typical case from all factors of a franchise relocating). However, a millionaire getting involved like that is highly unusual.
Technically it isn't open but when you get technical it still wouldn't if the ownership covered all costs with city approving location(how would noise pollution affect nearby neighborhoods) and sort of thing and there probably isn't a true open market.
Now I should point out I haven't said if I agree or disagree with any of the practices involved(suggesting that the city should pay), just that it is the way it is. Personally, I say it depends. I understand completely how messed up & dishonest the tactics are but even then they have a lot of hold over me because of the reality my favorite team going elsewhere. I'd would say with any subsidization, if we're being honest here the governments subsidize all kinds of shit, what is the value to the city? In most cases it doesn't benefit from an economic standpoint, teams hire mostly millionaires who don't even live in the city they work for and the more rich you are, the more likely you are to hoard and therefore limiting the multiplier effects that come in to play. Though with something like sports, there is a value (say that about art as well) that isn't economic but is the largest factor in deciding whether a team leaves or stays(regardless if it is economically viable or not). If they can somehow pull it off, a city can great a deal, San Diego had a great deal with the Qualcomm stadium which they completely own. The Chargers paid the city to play there in lease agreements, the city made modifications to comply with ADA and agreed to cover lost ticket sales as a result(seat reduction) if under 60,000 which led accusations that Chargers were purposely trying to sell less tickets(you can do that by raising the price) and had to be sued one time for payments owed. Chargers are the team now playing the build or watch us leave game but they actually don't seem as quite evil as other teams when they play that game.
I would have voted for the Cardinals proposal to build a stadium in a dirt area in northwest Mesa but it lost narrowly and in that same area was a bland shopping center that featured a 24-hour Wal*Mart(which was subsidized). It wasn't a good deal based on the amount the team requested(I think it would be good based on national championship games, Super Bowls, international soccer, etc. would have been rare cases) but the team leaving somewhere else is a risk I personally wouldn't risk. Myself, knowing what I know about these tactics & threats I would still lean that way so imagine the kind of bargaining power they have. Of course you stand-up to that by not giving them what they want but another city will give them want they want. In any case, subsidization in these cases should go to public vote and feel that is the fairest way.
In-case my main point is lost, like I said, it is not a case of the businesses sustaining themselves but more of a case they could, but they don't want to.
edit-I'm forgetting one key detail of the stadium costs. There is also little motivation for owners to incur the costs of constructions because they also deal with the costs the come with operating a franchise & stadium maintenance, upkeep, and other costs associated with operating a stadium. I believe they should offer to cover a larger portion of costs than they typically do but they aren't going to do this. Also I'm incorrect on my statement about San Diego but there was something I've read about a city with a generous deal in a book that wasn't biased towards one point of view or the other(mentions how vast majority it is bad for the city) that I don't have anymore. It is currently a bad deal for both teams(for the city largely because of rising maintence costs due to not dealing with problems) and would end up worse for the city if the team does leave.