The Atlantic: How The Nfl Fleeces Taxpayers

[SkinsHokieFan]

You could say this for the NHL/NBA and MLB. But the NFL is just a pig

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/

 

 

How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

Taxpayers fund the stadiums, antitrust law doesn't apply to broadcast deals, the league enjoys nonprofit status, and Commissioner Roger Goodell makes $30 million a year. It's time to stop the public giveaways to America's richest sports league—and to the feudal lords who own its teams.

 

Last year was a busy one for public giveaways to the National Football League. In Virginia, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell, who styles himself as a budget-slashing conservative crusader, took $4 million from taxpayers’ pockets and handed the money to the Washington Redskins, for the team to upgrade a workout facility. Hoping to avoid scrutiny, McDonnell approved the gift while the state legislature was out of session. The Redskins’ owner, Dan Snyder, has a net worth estimated by Forbes at $1 billion. But even billionaires like to receive expensive gifts.

Taxpayers in Hamilton County, Ohio, which includes Cincinnati, were hit with a bill for $26 million in debt service for the stadiums where the NFL’s Bengals and Major League Baseball’s Reds play, plus another $7 million to cover the direct operating costs for the Bengals’ field. Pro-sports subsidies exceeded the $23.6 million that the county cut from health-and-human-services spending in the current two-year budget (and represent a sizable chunk of the $119 million cut from Hamilton County schools). Press materials distributed by the Bengals declare that the team gives back about $1 million annually to Ohio community groups. Sound generous? That’s about 4 percent of the public subsidy the Bengals receive annually from Ohio taxpayers.

 

 

 

Link for rest

[China]

I'm not sure how they wrangled that "nonprofit" status.  That's ridiculous.

[artmonkforHOF]

yep, pretty easy to pull in the big bucks when you dont pay tax, dont pay for the largest one-time expense- a stadium-and don't even offer guarenteed contracts.

 

The sad thing is, the public has been brainwashed for so long that using tax payer money for staidums is a good thing that people still defend using public money, as recently as this year, in the bankrupt city of Detroit no less.  As a side note, not a single one of the economic bumps the owners & NFL like to talk about ever actaully happen. 

 

Think about that for a second, a city is bankrupt, but people still think the city should pay for a new stadium for the Pistons, that is how much kool-aid has been drank.  Even more ironic, is in New Jersey, tax payers had still not finished paying for the Meadowlands when it was torn down to make way for a new stadium built with, you guessed it, more public money.  The only real reason for building that new stadium was a pretty weak one: to keep up with the Jones' (literally, as in keeping pace with Jerry Jones' mega-stadium). 

 

the keeping up with the Jones' syndrome is so strong, there are threads on this very board about the Skins getting a new stadium, when the one they are currently in was built in 1997 which should not be a long time in the lifespan of a 50,000 + seat stadium, regardless of what you might here.  (I swear, the next person to say FedEx is "old" I really hope has a daughter born in 1997, just so I, as a 35 year old man can say to them that I am running away with their 16 year old daughter to marry her, since ya know, she is "old" enough).

 

Yes brand new stadiums have wifi, & bigger brighter screens, and other features, but unless the existing stadium is falling into a state of disrepair, no stadium is too old to watch football in.  If that was the case, then the Rose Bowl, the Big House & Penn State's stadiums should have been torn down and rebuilt almost 10 times based on how old they are.

[Elessar78]

If that was the case, then the Rose Bowl, the Big House & Penn State's stadiums should have been torn down and rebuilt almost 10 times based on how old they are.

Fantastic example. All are pretty plain stadiums—it's something else that draws people. Jumbo screens are nice, maybe an insulated seat, maybe something to stop the wind... other than that, I don't really need much more of anything else. 

[Redskins Diehard]

is the money the skins got for Ashburn? or Richmond? if Richmond I have no problem with that.

[Larry]

is the money the skins got for Ashburn? or Richmond? if Richmond I have no problem with that.

 

Assume it was for Richmond. 

 

(Which makes things even more ironic.  This wasn't Rick Perry throwing taxpayer money at a big corporation, so he can steal the company from another state.  This was Virginia taking taxpayer money from NoVa, to bribe a business that was already in Virginia, to move out of NoVa.) 

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

yep, pretty easy to pull in the big bucks when you dont pay tax, dont pay for the largest one-time expense- a stadium-and don't even offer guarenteed contracts.

The sad thing is, the public has been brainwashed for so long that using tax payer money for staidums is a good thing that people still defend using public money, as recently as this year, in the bankrupt city of Detroit no less. As a side note, not a single one of the economic bumps the owners & NFL like to talk about ever actaully happen.

.

I can't speak on the NFL but there sure as hell was a bump from the Verizon Center. And it's coming (much slower) with Nats Park. I can't imagine a new Skins stadium downtown wouldn't provide some major changes.

[Larry]

I can't speak on the NFL but there sure as hell was a bump from the Verizon Center. And it's coming (much slower) with Nats Park. I can't imagine a new Skins stadium downtown wouldn't provide some major changes.

It might, in DC. because DC is effectively "across state lines" from both MD and VA. It would pull in big piles of money from the suburbs, and pour that money into the DC economy.

In, say, Detroit? Not sure how much it really helps. Yeah, eight times a year it pours money into the neighborhood of the stadium. But virtually all of that money comes out of the economies of the surrounding suburbs.

I don't believe for a minute that an NFL stadium CREATES jobs or money. But I certainly believe that it can REDISTRIBUTE it. And that CAN be a net positive.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

It might, in DC. because DC is effectively "across state lines" from both MD and VA. It would pull in big piles of money from the suburbs, and pour that money into the DC economy.

In, say, Detroit? Not sure how much it really helps. Yeah, eight times a year it pours money into the neighborhood of the stadium. But virtually all of that money comes out of the economies of the surrounding suburbs.

I don't believe for a minute that an NFL stadium CREATES jobs or money. But I certainly believe that it can REDISTRIBUTE it. And that CAN be a net positive.

Good point. We do have a very unique setup here

[Redskins Diehard]

Assume it was for Richmond.

(Which makes things even more ironic. This wasn't Rick Perry throwing taxpayer money at a big corporation, so he can steal the company from another state. This was Virginia taking taxpayer money from NoVa, to bribe a business that was already in Virginia, to move out of NoVa.)

I'm not following the irony?

As I remember the training camp discussion the team wanted to go away for camp. In previous years they have gone to Pennsylvania and Maryland. So maybe it wasn't stealing them from northern va...which wasn't going to continue...but instead stealing them from one of the other options.

Whatever the case I think 4 million was a pretty small price tag to get training camp to that part of the state and city. I dont remember seeing the final attendance numbers but when I was there one weekend the place was slammed. plenty of out of state cars(mostly Maryland and DC).

Good point. We do have a very unique setup here

I think there is a fundamental difference in the facilities as well. FedEx gets 10 games a year plus maybe another 10 events? nats park baselines at 81 games. verizon between caps, wiz, hoyas that has to be close to 100 events. and Verizon has far more concerts etc.

[Larry]

I think there is a fundamental difference in the facilities as well. FedEx gets 10 games a year plus maybe another 10 events? nats park baselines at 81 games. verizon between caps, wiz, hoyas that has to be close to 100 events. and Verizon has far more concerts etc.

I'd say that's more a difference between sports than between facilities. But I think it's a valid point. It's hard to create really good jobs from some neighborhood event which slams the neighborhood for eight hours, eight times a year.

That might be something that makes the Meadowlands rather an outlier among NFL stadiums. Two teams means that, for the same investment, the neighborhood gets 16 games a year, instead of eight in every other NFL stadium.

This might be an argument that what's really needed, as an engine of economic growth, is a more versatile facility. One that can be used throughout the year.

[CrabR]

I have been against taxpayers paying for any stadium.The owners are billionaires and the players are millionaires, built their own stadium

[JoeWolf990]

that article should be changed to "how professional sports leagues fleeces taxpayers"

Americans dont care. We dont care that we give corporations billions a year, and we damn sure dont care about the NFL robbing us blind.

[USS Redskins]

I understand John McCain is sponsoring a bill that would prevent blackouts on TV for games played at tax payer funded stadiums. I hope it passes but assume the NFL will pour money somewhere to get it killed.

 

I dont like the system but in the end the NFL isnt breaking any laws. Blame the politicians or maybe the fans... I also believe that a city should invest some money into a stadium. When FedEx was built, Cooke financed the stadium himself but asked for a pretty reasonable sum from the county to build roads, etc... to get to the facility. I dont know the particulars but assume PG county has done well over the years on that investment.

 

and look at Cleveland. They let the Browns go to Baltimore and it cost them over 1 billion to bring in another team to replace them, when it would have been just the cost of a stadium - around $400 million at the time.

[JoeWolf990]

They let the Browns go to Baltimore and it cost them over 1 billion to bring in another team to replace them, when it would have been just the cost of a stadium - around $400 million at the time.

there is a lot more to the original Browns leaving Cleveland than that.

[Riggo-toni]

Makes you realize what a decent scrupulous man JKC was...and what an IDIOT then-mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly was back when Cooke wanted to build a new stadium. He offered to pay for it himself if DC would extend a metro stop to the site, but Kelly insisted on a permanent share of parking revenues, quotas for DC residents among all stadium employees, and on and on. And all her haggling came after she'd offered a sweetheart giveaway deal trying to land a MLB team back to DC.

[Popeman38]

I can't speak on the NFL but there sure as hell was a bump from the Verizon Center. And it's coming (much slower) with Nats Park. I can't imagine a new Skins stadium downtown wouldn't provide some major changes.

Well DC is unique. MCI Center (now Verizon) and Jack Kent Cooke Stadium (now FedEx) were built entirely with private financing. There was no public monies used for either location. Nats Park, on the other hand, was funded by a mix of both public and private monies. And the change in Nats Park neighborhood has been astounding. You have multi-level housing buildings that would not exist in that neighborhood without the stadium.

[HOF44]

Not really that big a deal.  The big money is distributed to the teams and taxed as any corp would be, which is not much.  Also if they did strip the NFL office of it's tax exempt status they would just open an office in Ireland and play the same shell game all our other companies do. 

[GoSkins0721]

Back in 1973, a book titled "The Rape of the Taxpayers" was written. Part of the book included the story of Bob Short & his fleecing of the state of Texas to move my beloved Washington Senators to that godforsaken place. ****. My point is: this isn't a recent phenomenon. It's been going on for a while.

[btfoom]

There is one giant hole in this report - the taxpayers want the teams to stay where they are and will pay to keep them - the love the 'service' that having a team gives to them.

 

The teams don't steal the money, they ask for it and the elected officials pay up.  If the voters don't like it, they would vote in someone who would tell them NO - then it would be up to the team to decide whether to stay or not.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'd say that's more a difference between sports than between facilities. But I think it's a valid point. It's hard to create really good jobs from some neighborhood event which slams the neighborhood for eight hours, eight times a year.

That might be something that makes the Meadowlands rather an outlier among NFL stadiums. Two teams means that, for the same investment, the neighborhood gets 16 games a year, instead of eight in every other NFL stadium.

This might be an argument that what's really needed, as an engine of economic growth, is a more versatile facility. One that can be used throughout the year.

Actually it is also a difference in the facilities. Larger stadiums are typically not used for smaller draw events like concerts, moster truck shows, the circus, etc.  Those types of events introduce outside revinue into the area also.  Specifically related to the DC situation a dome and some artificial grass would probably open FedEx to more events.  Remember the uproar linking the concert in August to the field conditions in January? 

 

Meadowlands and neighborhood?  Have you ever been there?!  It is more isolated than FedEx. 

[Destino]

I have no issue with tax incentives.  I think businesses should pay virtually no income taxes in general so that doesn't bother me one bit.  That said I'm all for banning, nationally, all use of tax payer money for the construction of any privately owned structure outside of publicly owned related costs like providing highway access or extending utilities.  I'd even allow the waiving or assisting with costs of environmental studies and permitting needed to build it.  I'm not sure exactly how this money is being handed over but in general tax payers shouldn't be building assets for private companies or private citizens.  

 

The "creates jobs" excuse is a load of crap.  Use the same amount of money to build a shopping mall and you'd be creating jobs too doesn't mean I want the government running around building shopping malls for private owners.    

[Predicto]

I'm against all public financing of stadiums (this is probably the biggest reason I became a fan of the SF Giants).

 

However, at least a downtown baseball stadium or basketball arena provides a positive economic impact, because of how many days a year they host events (especially if they have limited parking so that people come by mass transit or walking).  Restaurants and local business do well, property values go up.  

 

Football stadiums are huge waste of resources from a public policy point of view.  Giant concrete caverns with 10-12 games a year, everyone drives, they have no collateral economic impact at all.  I was not sorry to see the 49ers leave San Francisco for the South Bay - having them in the City was not beneficial, and building them a new stadium would have been a waste of a billion bucks.

 

Wait until you get mcsluggo going on this subject.  This is one of his pet peeves as an economist.    

[Bang]

i don't get the notion of being robbed when they're giving us something we clearly want.

Robbery is taking your money and leaving you with nothing.. in this case they take our money, and every Sunday we get what we paid for, and we by and large don't feel cheated.

I don't much like holding up municipalities for tax money, but people want the team, so they buy it.

I don't much like it when states give away the treasury for a team to move in, and don't bother to ask the people if they'd like a say in the matter, ie the Ravens.

If we'd held a vote over that, i'd have a much nicer opinion of the team.

(I'd have voted yes.. but it's the principle of the matter. quarter billion dollars plus a publicly funded stadium and we get no vote? that's not right.)

~Bang

[Vilandil Tasardur]

That's the big thing though. We aren't being robbed because the alternative is the team leaving the city, and most of us don't want that.

 

Take for a moment, a situation in which the Redskins need/want a new stadium. Snyder is prepared to pay for some of it (and he could pay for all of it) but would rather not. DC offers to pay none. MD offers to pay half. VA offers to pay half. And then LA offers to pay all of the new stadium and a billion in incentive to move. As a fan, I'd be LIVID if Snyder even considered moving. But as a business man, I'd think long and hard about making that move. Why wouldn't you?

 

You might think it sounds preposterous. but Zygi Wilf faced a similar dilemma not too long ago. Nobody wanted state of Minnesota to pay for a new stadium, but the people were up in arms over the possibility of a relocation. You can't have it both ways.