# Public Financial Support of Sports Teams



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The DISH vs Fox Sports issue spawned the public policy discussion that follows this post.
The channel dispute can be discussed in the original thread.

DISH Promise | MyDISH | DISH Customer Support

We are currently experiencing a dispute with FOX Regional Sports Networks, currently owned by The Walt Disney Company, and your programming is impacted by these negotiations. We understand missing your favorite team play is very frustrating.

The fact is, only FOX Regional Sports Networks can choose to remove their content from DISH customers. FOX Regional Sports Networks are asking for an unreasonable price increase, by asking subscribers to pay for sports channels that they may not even receive.

The fact is, sports are the most expensive programming out there, and players' salaries have increased in recent years. That money has to come from somewhere, making sports the most expensive part of customer's bills. As networks, like FOX Regional Sports Networks, make risky investments on expensive sports rights, they are looking to make back that money with increasing prices, reflecting right on your bill.

DISH made every attempt to extend the contract so our customers would not be impacted but FOX Regional Sports Networks refused this offer. We appreciate your patience while we continue to work with FOX Regional Sports Networks to bring back your channels.

*When will my access to my FOX Regional Sports Network return?*
These channels will return as soon as our deal is accepted or extended by FOX Regional Sports Networks. Our ask is to continue to negotiate with FOX Regional Sports Network in private while you still have access to your channel. We continue to ask FOX Regional Sports Networks for the ability to do so, and to restore their channel.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

This is why, in every sports strike, when the owners lose, and, excepting the NHL they always lose, we lose. Destroying the player unions must happen.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SamC said:


> This is why, in every sports strike, when the owners lose, and, excepting the NHL they always lose, we lose. Destroying the player unions must happen.


The unions have nothing to do with it. It's the owners pushing for and having channels negotiate against each other for the rights. If it wasn't for the unions the price would be the same but owners would make a lot more and players less. It wouldn't change the size of the paychecks for the players in this particular case. The strikes are generally about the players wanting a big slice of the pie the owners are getting because of the people watching the players. No one pays to see a game because of its owner.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> The unions have nothing to do with it.


Actually they have everything to do with it. When athletes were paid a upper middle class wage, sports were far more affordable. It was reported a couple years ago that the QB for the Dallas Cowboys in the early 1970s made about what a mid-career federal government lawyer made. A solid upper-middle class living. The highest paid baseball player in 1975, the last year of the wonderful Reserve Clause, made $240,000. Which is just over a million dollars today. Mike Trout makes THIRTY FOUR TIMES THAT.

And sports were much more affordable. Tickets were more affordable. RSNs did not exist, and games were on free OTA TV. Concessions were more affordable. Parking was more affordable. Everything. The idea that these owners were charging the same and keeping it for themselves is just not accurate. Rather they were small businessmen, charging a fair price, paying a fair wage, and earning a fair profit.

Which is why, while I am a sports fan, the death of the "everybody pays for ESPN, its immitators, and their RSNs" model of cable/dish replaced by "only fans pay" model of OTT, will mean that players will make far less. Hopefullly, like the NHL owners, the other big 4 owners will use this openning to totally crush these unions, which is the key to sports affordiablity.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You don’t seem to get how the money flows. The players want more pie after the owners and leagues went out and created more revenue streams and git higher licensing fees. They didn’t get more money before that. 

I’m not generally a fan of unions, they have good and bad but I’ve seen to much on the wrong side for me to think they are good overall. But this just isn’t a union problem. You are dreaming if you think a non union setup would change how much these owners are demanding for the rights to carry these games. 

You also seem to miss that many of the owners have changed and these days most owners are billionaires who have a team for a hobby. Problem is billionaires want as much profit as possible for even a hobby... and mega new stadiums and so forth.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I've always been against the idea of a city / government entity paying for a stadium for any sport so the team owner can save the cost of the stadium. It should be part and parcel of team ownership - the team AND the facility they play / practice in. This way - the team can decide what other events they would like to make more money with.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

SamC said:


> Actually they have everything to do with it. When athletes were paid a upper middle class wage, sports were far more affordable. It was reported a couple years ago that the QB for the Dallas Cowboys in the early 1970s made about what a mid-career federal government lawyer made. A solid upper-middle class living. The highest paid baseball player in 1975, the last year of the wonderful Reserve Clause, made $240,000. Which is just over a million dollars today. Mike Trout makes THIRTY FOUR TIMES THAT.


In my personal opinion, the athletes of that time were better role models that young kids could look up to at that time. Not anymore. Although I can argue in favor of the higher salaries for NFL players due to an average short career and the injuries which last for decades beyond the conclusion of their playing career.



SamC said:


> And sports were much more affordable. Tickets were more affordable. RSNs did not exist, and games were on free OTA TV. Concessions were more affordable.


On this, I have to say.... take off your rose-colored glasses. Until 1973, the NFL did not allow the "home" games of a local team to be broadcast even if the game was a sellout. It was not until the 2015 that the NFL suspended the blackout rules requiring that a game be sold out 72 hours prior to game start time in order to be broadcast in the local market. For baseball and basketball, only select games were broadcast in the home market, and I remember that the Sacramento market, being a secondary market for the As and Giants, would only broadcast a subset of those games.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

scooper said:


> I've always been against the idea of a city / government entity paying for a stadium for any sport so the team owner can save the cost of the stadium. It should be part and parcel of team ownership - the team AND the facility they play / practice in. This way - the team can decide what other events they would like to make more money with.


Agree 100%. They should even have to pay for city infustructure updates to make it useable and have proper access.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Agree 100%. They should even have to pay for city infustructure updates to make it useable and have proper access.


Do you place any value on the tourist money that stadiums and their events bring into a city?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NYDutch said:


> Do you place any value on the tourist money that stadiums and their events bring into a city?


The people who own these teams are billionaires. They can afford it so they don't need tax money. If they couldn't Stan and Steve wouldn't be privately financing multi billion dollar stadiums in Los Angeles right now. La which has higher costs to build than many other places. Chase center in San Francisco is also a billion dollar stadium privately financed.

The only help AEG got when they built staples was some sort of tax deferral on a parking structure.

Love the money the stadiums bring in but they don't need public funds to build it. Otherwise they are getting less money. The way they financed the Vegas stadium is hilarious. What a joke.

They don't need the money.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> The people who own these teams are billionaires. They can afford it so they don't need tax money. If they couldn't Stan and Steve wouldn't be privately financing multi billion dollar stadiums in Los Angeles right now. La which has higher costs to build than many other places. Chase center in San Francisco is also a billion dollar stadium privately financed.
> 
> The only help AEG got when they built staples was some sort of tax deferral on a parking structure.
> 
> ...


They didn't become billionaires by spending their own money...


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Well - I feel in this case - they should. And apparently, I'm not the only one....


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

scooper said:


> Well - I feel in this case - they should. And apparently, I'm not the only one....


And I don't disagree with you. But I'd bet they do...


----------



## Chihuahua (Sep 8, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> In my personal opinion, the athletes of that time were better role models that young kids could look up to at that time. Not anymore. Although I can argue in favor of the higher salaries for NFL players due to an average short career and the injuries which last for decades beyond the conclusion of their playing career.
> 
> On this, I have to say.... take off your rose-colored glasses. Until 1973, the NFL did not allow the "home" games of a local team to be broadcast even if the game was a sellout. It was not until the 2015 that the NFL suspended the blackout rules requiring that a game be sold out 72 hours prior to game start time in order to be broadcast in the local market. For baseball and basketball, only select games were broadcast in the home market, and I remember that the Sacramento market, being a secondary market for the As and Giants, would only broadcast a subset of those games.


In fact, in olden times, not only were the local NFL team's games not televised to the home market, but that market did not get to receive any NFL games on that day, period. When Chicago had two NFL teams (this was before the Cardinals moved to St. Louis in 1960), since the Bears or Cardinals played at home, the Windy City was devoid of NFL football on TV.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

If all of the teams were municipally owned then all profits would go to the state. Screw the billionaire owners of today. The Green Bay Packers have the right idea. No complaint building new arenas and stadiums if all the profits benefit the tax payers. It would behoove each team to try and be the best they could be. Think about the TV profits. Ie. The Arizona Cardinals, diamonbacks, Coyotes, Suns, should be owned by the state of Arizona with an appointed Sports commissioner (experienced in sports franchise operations). Maintain current GM's etc. Nothing changes except the owners. That would be us.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> If all of the teams were municipally owned then all profits would go to the state. Screw the billionaire owners of today. The Green Bay Packers have the right idea. No complaint building new arenas and stadiums if all the profits benefit the tax payers. It would behoove each team to try and be the best they could be. Think about the TV profits. Ie. The Arizona Cardinals, diamonbacks, Coyotes, Suns, should be owned by the state of Arizona with an appointed Sports commissioner (experienced in sports franchise operations). Maintain current GM's etc. Nothing changes except the owners. That would be us.


Shouldn't that concept then extend to the rest of the entertainment industry? With all productions of concerts, movies, etc., being owned by the public and all profits accruing to the benefit of the tax payers? Why stop at just the sports entertainment segment...


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

First of all, I don't care about the rest of the rest of the entertainment industry. Secondly, we already have an established example with the Packers. Last I checked the only way to get a season ticket for the Packets is to inherit it. If we had municilply owned sports franchises you would have a tremendous loyalty fan base. Why would you not route for the team that you own?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> First of all, I don't care about the rest of the rest of the entertainment industry. Secondly, we already have an established example with the Packers. Last I checked the only way to get a season ticket for the Packets is to inherit it. If we had municilply owned sports franchises you would have a tremendous loyalty fan base. Why would you not route for the team that you own?


Who anyone roots for is irrelevant. It's what they're willing to see their tax dollars spent on that counts...


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> First of all, I don't care about the rest of the rest of the entertainment industry. Secondly, we already have an established example with the Packers. Last I checked the only way to get a season ticket for the Packets is to inherit it. If we had municilply owned sports franchises you would have a tremendous loyalty fan base. Why would you not route for the team that you own?


Well, it only took a quick search to find out that the Packers are not municipally owned, but rather are owned by a non-profit corporation owned by the shareholders. I wonder how much benefit the municipal coffers actually see from a non-profit...


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

The point isn't who owns them. It's that it's not a individual or company that owns them. Just think how much money would go into the New York state coffers if the state of New York ie the tax payers, owned the Yankees and the Mets and the Knicks and the Nets and the Rangers and the Giants and the Jets and their WNBA team and their soccer team and the state minor league baseball teams. If the government officials were smart and wanted to get re-elected, a good chunk of that money would go towards reducing the tax burden on the citizens ( voters). I do believe that the situation in Green Bay caused a stipulation by all owners in all major leagues not allowing the sale of said team to any municipality. Don't you wonder why they did that?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

But it isn't the tax payers that own the Packers, it's a non-profit corporation that was formed in 1923 and currently has shareholders in all 50 states and Canada. That aside, we're not the ones you need to convince about municipal team ownership, it's the NFL and other leagues. The only reason the Packers have the 96 year old corporate setup they've got is because they were grandfathered in when the new private ownership rule went into effect in the 80's that only allows one owner or a small owners group per team. And one owner must own more than 30% of the team. NFL rules... Convince them your municipal ownership plan is sound...


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The idea that government should own any type of entertainment is just silly. Government should be as small as possible, of course.

But getting back to stadiums and such, it is the weak link in the whole broken pro sports system. No politician wants to be the guy who let the *ers leave town, and every politician wants to be the guy who got an expansion team because the leagues sell the idea that pro sports makes mid-major towns (Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Columbus, Raleigh, Portland, Ottawa, etc, etc, etc) "big league". So they come up with the voodoo economics idea that having a team brings in all this money that rolls over 8 or 20 times. It does not work that way. Any team you wish to name could cease to exist tommorrow and the economy of the city involved would be less effected than if two McDonald's closed in that town.


----------



## Chihuahua (Sep 8, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> The point isn't who owns them. It's that it's not a individual or company that owns them. Just think how much money would go into the New York state coffers if the state of New York ie the tax payers, owned the Yankees and the Mets and the Knicks and the Nets and the Rangers and the Giants and the Jets and their WNBA team and their soccer team and the state minor league baseball teams. If the government officials were smart and wanted to get re-elected, a good chunk of that money would go towards reducing the tax burden on the citizens ( voters). I do believe that the situation in Green Bay caused a stipulation by all owners in all major leagues not allowing the sale of said team to any municipality. Don't you wonder why they did that?


So you think thing would be much better when all professional sports franchises are owned by the state?


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

I'm sure there is a list of stadiums that still had bonds owed on them after they were torn down.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SamC said:


> The idea that government should own any type of entertainment is just silly. Government should be as small as possible, of course.
> 
> But getting back to stadiums and such, it is the weak link in the whole broken pro sports system. No politician wants to be the guy who let the *ers leave town, and every politician wants to be the guy who got an expansion team because the leagues sell the idea that pro sports makes mid-major towns (Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Columbus, Raleigh, Portland, Ottawa, etc, etc, etc) "big league". So they come up with the voodoo economics idea that having a team brings in all this money that rolls over 8 or 20 times. It does not work that way. Any team you wish to name could cease to exist tommorrow and the economy of the city involved would be less effected than if two McDonald's closed in that town.


While I'm firmly against public money for stadiums I have to say I completely disagree with your two McDonald's statement. Staples center alone in Los Angeles created the environment needed to get investors to spend billions of money in that area of downtown and brings a lot of jobs and tax dollars. That does happen. Without that they would never have spent money the way they have. A crown jewel does create investment that otherwise wouldn't exist. At least not there.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

At least not there is the point. 

First, what I was really talking about was the voodoo economics of saying that $$ roll over many dozens of times. You pay the bartender, who pays her hair dresser, who buys a new skirt, where the store owner then pays the clerk, who buys a new hat, and blah, blah, blah. That is voodoo.

But as to the "entertainment district" the idea that people in LA would stand around flush with cash wishing someone would build something for them to spend it on without a taxpayer basketball arena is, also, voodoo.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SamC said:


> At least not there is the point.
> 
> First, what I was really talking about was the voodoo economics of saying that $$ roll over many dozens of times. You pay the bartender, who pays her hair dresser, who buys a new skirt, where the store owner then pays the clerk, who buys a new hat, and blah, blah, blah. That is voodoo.
> 
> But as to the "entertainment district" the idea that people in LA would stand around flush with cash wishing someone would build something for them to spend it on without a taxpayer basketball arena is, also, voodoo.


I'd say more it did create investment in that area that otherwise wouldn't have been spent in that area. And you could make the argument it may have created more spending in general in that case because of the amount of money foreign investors have dumped in the area they otherwise probably wouldn't have spent in Los Angeles at all.

The new rams stadium and Clippers stadiums will do the same. Bring massive spending to an area that otherwise would have been left alone.

Not sure if they will create more spending over all in the economy for california but for the city I know those stadiums will increase monumentally how much will be spent in Inglewood.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mark Holtz said:


> I'm sure there is a list of stadiums that still had bonds owed on them after they were torn down.


The Kingdome would be high on that list. Built in 1972-1976 with municipal bonds that were paid off in 2011. Part of the roof fell in 1994 which led to an additional hotel tax bond that was paid off at the end of 2015. The stadium was imploded in 2000. Over 40 years of bonds for a stadium with a useful life under 25 years.

Kingdome debt to be retired 15 years after implosion


----------

