Sports are a form of entertainment....entertainment can and does drive spending.... and spending can contribute to more jobs and more tax revenue. Seems fair that sports are, in turn, a public concern.
That isn't to say that building a stadium or hosting the Olympics is inherently a profitable affair.
What is the need for nationalization before a city should foot the bill? This isn't to say that cities should pay for a stadium, but there are definitely dynasty franchises that are guaranteed to generate income for many years. Would I build a stadium for the Rams? Not likely. Would I build a stadium for the Patriots? Immediately.
Generate the lion's share of income for who? If a city's citizens are ponying up tax revenue to support a team, then the city should do it right, and be a shareholder in the team, and capture a proportional share of the lion's share of the income that flows to the team's owners. Forbes has a good breakdown of the profitability of the teams to their owners [1]. PBS Marketplace has a good overview of how much of that profitability makes it to the city [2]. You can read many papers examining the economic impact of letting a sports team walk, here is one [3] such paper.
Given the level of profitability to owners, the statistically insignificant economic impact of teams on cities, and the accumulated data to date continuing to support these conclusions drawn so far, city managers giving away valuable consideration as if they're supporting charity cases are simply using taxpayers to purchase extremely expensive political points.
What of all the employees of the stadium? Of all the travel to and from the stadium? Of the merchandising deals? And any other numerous subsequent results... what does the money that goes to the employees or third-parties count as? They don't get paid in company scrip.
That's akin to saying that the money for any government funded project only go to the party directly responsible for building/supporting it, and all of the consequences from the initial project are inherently zero.
As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, public money funds all sorts of entertainment and cultural endeavors, from operas to art museums to 5K fun runs and so on and so on.
Last I was aware, there was no evidence that this investment provided any return.
Not that it matters because that still wouldn't justify a huge investment by the public into a private entity without any ownership stake.
If the idea was really to create something resembling a grant to private organizations to create business that stimulates the economy, you would rationally have some kind of process around for screening candidates based on merit and be more diversified in your awards.
I'd like to believe it's anything other than a kind of blackmail where these organizations use their media power (== public opinion) with impunity to bully municipalities into providing them the tax revenue of citizens, wasting money that could otherwise be used for individual or public good, but that's all I can make out of it.
That isn't to say that building a stadium or hosting the Olympics is inherently a profitable affair.
reply