I've found the enemy...

[detlef]

Seriously, the manner in which many of us choose to entertain ourselves is ruining the economy. Movies aren't much better, mind you, but I'll get to that.

 

First off, these guys are swindling us. Here's the latest in a long line of franchise owners bilking the taxpayers out of tons of money to get stadiums built.

 

Study after study shows that the city simply doesn't get the payback promised by these stadiums. Sure, the bars and restaurants right next to the parks make bank on game night, but that's at the expense of those that aren't nearby. So, at best, it's a net zero sum. At best because there's also the money being funneled into the park itself, that comes at the expense of every other business that could have profited from that money being spent there as opposed to going to the game. Other businesses, mind you, who were not given the luxury of having their spaces built out on the tax payer's dime (well, not entirely at least, there are often grants and incentives for businesses going into certain parts of town and such, but they pale in comparison to having the city build you a palace).

 

Now, let's think about that money. Spending money at a pro sports event is about as non-stimulative as it gets. Money flows uphill, that much is certain. No crime there and no surprise either. The trick is, that money needs to pass through as many hands as possible on it's way to the top. That generates the most economic activity and helps the most people. Well, giving your money to your local pro sports franchise sends it on a non-stop fast track to the highest income brackets; the players and the owners. Sure, dude at the turnstile makes something, as do plenty of others. However, if the 10s of 1000s or people who have chosen to spend the 100s of dollars each it takes to go to a game on other things, all those other local businesses would have to hire more people to meet the demand. So maybe that guy gets hired by them.

 

Now, same goes for film in terms of sending the money right to the top, but at least we're not also paying to build the studios.

 

These guys are just flat-out getting over on us and laughing all the way to the bank. They prey on the egos of politicians who are drunk on the cache of hosting these teams and the hopes that they get to host a ticker-tape parade (also, btw, extremely expensive and often publicly funded). They prey on the loyalty of their fans and perpetuate the myth that, in tough times, "we need these teams to make us feel good." Of course, drug dealers could say the exact same thing.

 

Thing is, in these times of need, what do they really give us? A fat tax bill to pay for their palaces, the demand that you have to pay top dollar for meaningless games if you want season tickets, and a $12 Budweiser. And the second these guys smell a better deal elsewhere, they're gone like that. Thanks, buddy. Sounds like the love is certainly flowing one way.

 

This doesn't even begin to address the less tangible elements like the effect idolizing sports stars and notion of chasing the dream of a big paycheck in pro sports at the expense of the, far more likely, eventuality of preparing oneself for a normal job, has on our culture.

 

If they dried up and blew away, would we just sit there with nothing to do? Or would we get off our asses and go to the park with our families. Would we spend all the money that we funnel into this industry on a nice meal, or a trip somewhere, or building a new deck to entertain our friends? If there was not a game on TV, would you never go down to the local watering hole?

 

It's as if we're just hooked on them like crack.

Edited August 26, 2010 by detlef

[Avernus]

plus sports are one of the biggest distractions as are movies and hollywood....

 

ESPN has turned into TMZ-Favre/Tiger because this is what the public likes talking about....this is the America(n/'s) Idol/Got Talent generation where people blank out to the TV for cheap entertainment instead of wondering why the economy is the way it is..

 

and I understand that we can't focus all of our attention to such serious matters and that we need to unwind, but the problem doesn't go away if you ignore it..

 

we need to get sports teams down to about 24 instead of expanding....get teams out of cities that don't go to the games...

 

..period

[Scooby's Hubby]

If there is AC then I am in. Actually, I cannot wait for some cooler weather so that I might actually be able to enjoy the park or take my kids fishing.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Interesting timing of your rant. This was in yesterday's Philadelphia Daily News. Now, the Phil's stadium was paid for by the Phils, but the benefit of the team playing well, and the subsequent increased revenue to the city, would be the same regardless.

 

 

Posted on Wed, Aug. 25, 2010

 

Thanks to a sea of red, city's seeing more green

By REGINA MEDINA

Philadelphia Daily News

 

medinar@phillynews.com 215-854-5985

 

A sea of red blankets the stands of Citizens Bank Park every home game, a testament to the special love carried by many a Phillies fan.

They buy season tickets, they pay seven bucks a beer and they fill the stadium whenever the Phils play (105 straight sold-out home games, as of last night).

 

Now, the city's coffers are feeling that Phillies love, too.

 

The Fightins' are credited with increasing the city's amusement revenue by $21.2 million, nearly a 26 percent increase over the last five years, according to the City Controller's Office's monthly economic report. The amusement tax is a 5 percent levy tacked onto tickets for concerts, movies and sporting events.

 

Not coincidentally, the Controller's Office also highlighted a 14.4 percent jump in liquor-tax revenue over the same period. The city took in nearly $43 million from that 10 percent tax in the fiscal year ending June 30.

 

All liquor taxes collected go straight to the Philadelphia School District, which has gotten $203 million in liquor-tax money over the last five years.

 

The city's higher take in the amusement tax came during the fiscal year that ended on June 30, which covered the 2009 World Series matchup against the Yankees. And we know how that turned out. The Fightins' still set a record of 3,600,693 tickets sold in the regular season and 369,456 in the postseason.

 

Comparatively, when the Phils beat the Tampa Bay Rays in 2008 to win the World Series, the amusement-tax revenue was higher at $21.6 million. That season, the Phillies sold 3,422,583 tickets in the regular season and another 321,602 in the playoffs.

 

The Controller's Office estimates that in the fiscal year that began July 1, amusement-tax revenue will total $21.1 million, City Controller Alan Butkovitz said.

 

"The success of Philadelphia's sports teams reaching the postseason has played a creditable role in generating more revenues for the City," he said in an e-mail.

 

"It's a win-win for the city of Philadelphia, and it will be even more rewarding when the Phillies reclaim the title as World Champions."

 

The Phillies were only too happy to help.

 

"We're very pleased that the Phillies' success in recent years has resulted in increased revenue for the city," said Mike Stiles, senior vice president of administration and operations. "None of this would be possible without the extraordinary support of our fans."

 

Read more: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/2010...l#ixzz0xj2CvJQo

Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

[Perchoutofwater]

I'm not sure if the cities get paid back or not. I'd like to see the studies and what they look at. I do know that a lot of people come in from out of the area that would not otherwise be there. I'll probably go to Dallas for two or three weekends, that I wouldn't otherwise go there because of the Cowboys. When I'm there I'll stay in a hotel for a night which gets taxed, I'll also probably go to a nicer restaurant while I'm there which, which will also get taxed. Additionally I'll probably go to maybe one or two concerts at Cowboy's stadium this year, which again will entail a hotel and a nice restaurant. So, I think you are mistaken when you say it is a zero sum.

 

Additionally most stadiums have deals with the local cops for security. They typically have a deal with that cities police department. This is extra work that the stadium pays for, and pays quite well. This extra work is very desirable for police officers. This allows the cities to pay their police officers less, as their deals with the stadiums offer very desirable supplemental income.

 

Obviously the building of the actual stadium itself is a boon to the local economy as it puts a lot of construction workers to work, and again that cost is taxed.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they are a great deal for the cities that help finance them, but I would think they do make them money over the long term, otherwise why would the cities agree to help finance them?

[BeeR]

Seriously, the manner in which many of us choose to entertain ourselves is ruining the economy. Movies aren't much better, mind you, but I'll get to that.

 

First off, these guys are swindling us. Here's the latest in a long line of franchise owners bilking the taxpayers out of tons of money to get stadiums built.

 

Study after study shows that the city simply doesn't get the payback promised by these stadiums. Sure, the bars and restaurants right next to the parks make bank on game night, but that's at the expense of those that aren't nearby. So, at best, it's a net zero sum. At best because there's also the money being funneled into the park itself, that comes at the expense of every other business that could have profited from that money being spent there as opposed to going to the game. Other businesses, mind you, who were not given the luxury of having their spaces built out on the tax payer's dime (well, not entirely at least, there are often grants and incentives for businesses going into certain parts of town and such, but they pale in comparison to having the city build you a palace).

 

Now, let's think about that money. Spending money at a pro sports event is about as non-stimulative as it gets. Money flows uphill, that much is certain. No crime there and no surprise either. The trick is, that money needs to pass through as many hands as possible on it's way to the top. That generates the most economic activity and helps the most people. Well, giving your money to your local pro sports franchise sends it on a non-stop fast track to the highest income brackets; the players and the owners. Sure, dude at the turnstile makes something, as do plenty of others. However, if the 10s of 1000s or people who have chosen to spend the 100s of dollars each it takes to go to a game on other things, all those other local businesses would have to hire more people to meet the demand. So maybe that guy gets hired by them.

 

Now, same goes for film in terms of sending the money right to the top, but at least we're not also paying to build the studios.

 

These guys are just flat-out getting over on us and laughing all the way to the bank. They prey on the egos of politicians who are drunk on the cache of hosting these teams and the hopes that they get to host a ticker-tape parade (also, btw, extremely expensive and often publicly funded). They prey on the loyalty of their fans and perpetuate the myth that, in tough times, "we need these teams to make us feel good." Of course, drug dealers could say the exact same thing.

 

Thing is, in these times of need, what do they really give us? A fat tax bill to pay for their palaces, the demand that you have to pay top dollar for meaningless games if you want season tickets, and a $12 Budweiser. And the second these guys smell a better deal elsewhere, they're gone like that. Thanks, buddy. Sounds like the love is certainly flowing one way.

 

This doesn't even begin to address the less tangible elements like the effect idolizing sports stars and notion of chasing the dream of a big paycheck in pro sports at the expense of the, far more likely, eventuality of preparing oneself for a normal job, has on our culture.

 

If they dried up and blew away, would we just sit there with nothing to do? Or would we get off our asses and go to the park with our families. Would we spend all the money that we funnel into this industry on a nice meal, or a trip somewhere, or building a new deck to entertain our friends? If there was not a game on TV, would you never go down to the local watering hole?

 

It's as if we're just hooked on them like crack.

Very well said (and we aren't even talking about wine, go figure ) but kindly exclude me from the "we." I haven't gone to a pro ball game in many years and the only reason I would ever have the tiniest interest is to see Manning play just once. But at those prices and everything else you have to put up with (obnoxious fans etc) I don't see it happening anyway.

[detlef]

I'm not sure if the cities get paid back or not. I'd like to see the studies and what they look at. I do know that a lot of people come in from out of the area that would not otherwise be there. I'll probably go to Dallas for two or three weekends, that I wouldn't otherwise go there because of the Cowboys. When I'm there I'll stay in a hotel for a night which gets taxed, I'll also probably go to a nicer restaurant while I'm there which, which will also get taxed. Additionally I'll probably go to maybe one or two concerts at Cowboy's stadium this year, which again will entail a hotel and a nice restaurant. So, I think you are mistaken when you say it is a zero sum.

 

Additionally most stadiums have deals with the local cops for security. They typically have a deal with that cities police department. This is extra work that the stadium pays for, and pays quite well. This extra work is very desirable for police officers. This allows the cities to pay their police officers less, as their deals with the stadiums offer very desirable supplemental income.

 

Obviously the building of the actual stadium itself is a boon to the local economy as it puts a lot of construction workers to work, and again that cost is taxed.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they are a great deal for the cities that help finance them, but I would think they do make them money over the long term, otherwise why would the cities agree to help finance them?

As far as the zero sum issue, in terms of the economy as a whole, it still is. You're either going to spend that money at a place near the stadium and a hotel or you're going to spend it near your home. None the less, I grant you that I failed to account for the outside money coming into the city. But there are still two very major drains on the extra money you bring to the city of Dallas when you go there for a game. One is the cost of paying for the stadium, the other is the money that ends up in Jerry Jones' and Tony Romo's pockets. One is a very obvious offset to the gains, the other, while less easy to track is still money that you can now not spend elsewhere. Assuming, of course, that your resources are finite.

 

And I'd be pretty surprised if the city gets it's money's worth considering these. Which brings up your last point? Why would they do it? Because they're stupid and ego-driven. You of all people should not be surprised by this. Here you hammer away at how pointless and wasteful government can be and then you assume that they must have good fiscal reasons for laying out mad-jack to subsidize stadiums?

[detlef]

Very well said (and we aren't even talking about wine, go figure ) but kindly exclude me from the "we." I haven't gone to a pro ball game in many years and the only reason I would ever have the tiniest interest is to see Manning play just once. But at those prices and everything else you have to put up with (obnoxious fans etc) I don't see it happening anyway.

Oh, and I'm with you here. I am about as passive a consumer as there is when it comes to pro sports. I don't go to the games, I don't buy the gear, I pretty much don't buy any of the products that advertise on Sunday, and I have never bought any special NFL packages on TV. I do pay for cable and I used to play FF. But that's about it.

[SEC=UGA]

Don't a good number of these movie studios get tax breaks that offset the cost of development/operation? Isn't that kinda the same as public bonds/monies being used to develop a sports stadium?

[tazinib1]

Don't a good number of these movie studios get tax breaks that offset the cost of development/operation? Isn't that kinda the same as public bonds/monies being used to develop a sports stadium?

 

 

Yes they do and it varies from state to state. It's called the Film Tax Incentive. Most states also give a sales tax break and extra incentives like hotel breaks etc etc. California is the lowest (thanks Arnold you POS) and Minnesota or Alaska (don't have exact figures) are the highest. So say you want to shoot Fargo II in Minnesota and have a $2million budget. You can get back up to 70% = $1.4million in tax incentives. Ridiculous? Yes and no. But I don't equate a subsidized sports complex with a movie tax incentiveo. But these outrageous tax incentives are what is driving productions out of Hollywood. Arnold is NOT a popular person with the common crew member. At any rate....getting off subject here so .....

 

 

I wonder what all them damned Romans think about this!!

[detlef]

Don't a good number of these movie studios get tax breaks that offset the cost of development/operation? Isn't that kinda the same as public bonds/monies being used to develop a sports stadium?

Fair enough, though assuming it's of the the same magnitude, that would just make me hate the film industry as much as I now hate major pro sports. I've certainly tired of the argument that we should allow one version of in justice to continue because someone can point to someone else doing something just as bad.

[wildcat2334]

as much as I love the NFL - they really don't get a dime from me, other than the NFL network, I guess.

 

NFL is an has always has beena better product on TV than live in person,anyway. I WILL NEVER purchase a jersey- ghey ghey ghey, the rest of their merchandise just sucks. So, I enjoy the NFL, my fantasy squads and spend my money on College Football instead ( a travesty for another day) - I end of going to quite a few Pac 10 games - I am one of the few that loves college football more than the NFL.......anyhoo

 

if College Football ever got smart and had a playoff - it would surpass March Madness as the best sporting event on the planet

[SEC=UGA]

as much as I love the NFL - they really don't get a dime from me, other than the NFL network, I guess.

 

NFL is an has always has beena better product on TV than live in person,anyway. I WILL NEVER purchase a jersey- ghey ghey ghey, the rest of their merchandise just sucks. So, I enjoy the NFL, my fantasy squads and spend my money on College Football instead ( a travesty for another day) - I end of going to quite a few Pac 10 games - I am one of the few that loves college football more than the NFL.......anyhoo

 

if College Football ever got smart and had a playoff - it would surpass March Madness as the best sporting event on the planet

 

+1