Should privately owned teams receive public tax $?

[Shawn]

Exactly, they see it, but they aren't going to change anything, they all become millionaires "working for the people", give me a big F***ing break. it's the reason we only see two parties on any election of note, they gerry rig the rules to ensure that one of the parties is always in power and that it's impossible for a any thought that doesn't adhere to their doctrine to get on a ballot or to even be part of a debate. I believe the American people would eliminate both parties if given the chance, but it will never happen.

So, I just go and vote for gridlock, Executive branch one party, Congress the other party, if they're fighting, I'm safe from their evil ways. Always remember, one party is evil and one party is stupid, if they agree, the resolution will be, both, evil and stupid.

Shawn, sorry, I inadvertently edited your post, then corrected it back and now I quoted it.

Pappy

That's actually a really good idea. I may steal it.

[papillon]

That's actually a really good idea. I may steal it.

Please do, I tell anyone that will listen to do it all the time, having either party in power is a scary thought, their ability to screw up changing a light bulb is only exceeded by their want to make their lives grand at my expense, remember, poli-tics, Poli- many, tics - blood sucking insects.

Pappy

[Northern_Blitz]

Steelers generate too much money for local and national businesses for people to cry foul.

Apparently, they don't (or at least sports teams in general don't). During lock outs, local economies as a whole don't suffer. It probably hurts the sports bars, but people take they money they would spend there and put it into other things (buy a TV, go out for fancy dinners, watch a show, go see minor league teams). People who have looked at it seem to say that the general population will spend the same amount of disposable income when they have a sports team and when they don't.

This article: [URL]http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2011/05/nfl_lockouts_economic_impact_c.html[/URL]
Talks about how pro-sports folks come up with the numbers. After saying you can't really come up with a number, they use the money people spent during game days. But they don't look at how much they would spend when the games aren't played. That's why lockouts and teams moving offer interesting case studies for the economic impact of sports franchises. The article also says:

"Cleveland learned to survive without the NFL from 1996-98. Fans rediscovered Sundays. Football widows (and widowers) renewed their vows. Sports economists say fans simply spent their NFL money on other things."

Check out this article written about the NHL lockout:
[URL]http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2012/10/10/3483966/nhl-lockout-economics[/URL]

They cite this article:
[URL]http://userpages.umbc.edu/~coates/work/lockout200.pdf[/URL]

...[P]rior work stoppages in professional football and baseball had no impact on the economies of cities with franchises. Further, the departure of professional basketball from cities had no impact on their economies in the following years. These results refute the idea that attracting professional sports franchises represents a viable economic development strategy.

"In fact, the models showed that cities saw a very slight increase in real per capita income during years with a work stoppage."

"Robert Baade, a sports economist from Lake Forest (Ill.) College, led [URL="http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/BaadeBaumannMatheson_Strikes.pdf"]a 2006 study that examined sales tax data[/URL] (.pdf link) in Florida. The study found that the lockouts and strikes since 1980 had no statistically significant effect on sales tax receipts in the metropolitan areas that house pro sports franchises."

Money from normal people shouldn't be used to subsidize millionaires and billionaires for their toys when there is no (or at least questionable) benefit to the tax payers. Cities that do this are getting duped.

BTW, if you're interested in analytics in Hockey, PPP is a great site (but it's very much a Maple Leafs site).

[sick beats]

There is also not really a known economic benefit to cities holding Super Bowls. On the surface, it appears to bring in great cash, but there also are great costs to getting it in the first place. Some studies say there is no evidence they bring in the cash the NFL says they do.

[RobinCole]

And there are other studies that say they do. Getting the Super Bowl is not like getting the Olympics. You don't have to build "villages" for athletes and all kinds of new venues.

I am inclined to agree with the notion that you can't really put a price on how much economic value the Steelers bring to the Pittsburgh area. I do know that Pittsburgh ranks high in "Best Places To Live". Proximity to pro sports teams plays a role in that.

[Sugar]

And there are other studies that say they do. Getting the Super Bowl is not like getting the Olympics. You don't have to build "villages" for athletes and all kinds of new venues.

I am inclined to agree with the notion that you can't really put a price on how much economic value the Steelers bring to the Pittsburgh area. I do know that Pittsburgh ranks high in "Best Places To Live". Proximity to pro sports teams plays a role in that.

He might be the only one in the world, but I have a friend who moved to Pittsburgh purely because of the Steelers and to a lesser degree, the Pens.

[phillyesq]

Are you saying the Rooney's don't make alot of money off the Steelers? That they own the Steelers merely for the love of it?

Where did I say that?

[DBR96A]

Southern states become whores for every foreign automaker they see, throwing all sorts of taxpayer money at them to attract their attention. If those states were as business-friendly as they claim, they wouldn't need to do that. If the business model of foreign automakers is so great, they can build their own factories.

Just saying that professional sports teams aren't the only entities relying on corporate welfare these days.

[Sugar]

Southern states become whores for every foreign automaker they see, throwing all sorts of taxpayer money at them to attract their attention. If those states were as business-friendly as they claim, they wouldn't need to do that. If the business model of foreign automakers is so great, they can build their own factories.

Just saying that professional sports teams aren't the only entities relying on corporate welfare these days.

It seems to me that if the state wants any business to come to their state it will make deals to do so. It's a competitive market. There's nothing illicit about that.

[Ghost]

States and cities are constantly making deal to get business to come their way. I was with a major company that decided to consolidate from 10 offices in the eastern part of the US to 1 (I was in the Pgh office at the time). They contacted at least 3 major cities on the East Coast and essentially said - make me the best deal and I'm bringing my company and all the jobs to your city. It was a bidding war to get the business. And having major sports teams is one of the items cities use as an enticement.

And while some may see the threat of taking a team elsewhere if the owners doesn't get what he wants as low; I see it as doing business. Just happened here in Atlanta. Fulton Co and the city of Atlanta didn't want to pay for a new stadium, so Cobb Co. stepped up and said, "we will" and now the Braves will be moving out of down town.