IGX

I thought that everybody knew that pro sports teams make the lion's share of their profit from shaking down their municipality, and gaming the system much more so than ticket sales, concessions, etc?

In 2011 the NFL signed rights deals with NBC, CBS Fox and ESPN that amount to $42 billion of revenue over the course of the pacts. The deals with the three networks end in 2022; ESPN’s deal is through 2019. (The league is currently in talks with the satellite provider, DirectTV, which has a five-year $1 billion deal that expires in 2014.)

On TV, the NFL is king. The league occupied the first eight spots in the top ten ranked shows on television last year.

are subsidies more than tv?

dead man walking wrote:

In 2011 the NFL signed rights deals with NBC, CBS Fox and ESPN that amount to $42 billion of revenue over the course of the pacts. The deals with the three networks end in 2022; ESPN’s deal is through 2019. (The league is currently in talks with the satellite provider, DirectTV, which has a five-year $1 billion deal that expires in 2014.)

On TV, the NFL is king. The league occupied the first eight spots in the top ten ranked shows on television last year.

are subsidies more than tv?

How much does the league share with the teams, and how is it divvied up?

too complicated for me but quick google seems to say:

the teams share equally in tv revenues

the players get 55% of those revenues under the new 2012 agreement

perhaps the league itself if funded by nfl ventures which runs a bunch of business that bring in more than $1+ billion/yr

roger goodell makes $30 million/yr according to the press

here's a piece about taxpayer funding of stadiums:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... rs/309448/

a few headaches is a small price to pay for an economic juggernaut that holds america together

To be fair, pretty much every state with an NFL team wastes money at this scale on things that don't provide anything near the benefit that the NFL does. Although I doubt coeds in the Pittsburgh will agree with that assessment.

I don't have a problem with a municipality democratically choosing to build a stadium for social reasons, as it might fund a performance center or museum (though the scale is vastly different), on those terms. It's when cities and teams trot out bullshit impact analyses that claim cities will reap billions.

I've seen it twice - when I was a kid Dubya held the city hostage for a new Rangers stadium, promising riverwalks and high-end retail and housing. 15 years later Jerry Jones gets a billion dollar stadium by... promising economic revitalization. Of the area that was supposed to be revitalized the first time.

As of now, both stadiums are islands in a sea of parking lots, the retail across the street from Jerry World is a Wal-Mart and fine dining is a Cici's Pizza.

Downtown, such as it is, actually has a number of new restaurants and a mixed-use development on the edge of the university campus - the continuing success of these owes more to the miniscule cost of an outdoor amphitheatre and free concert series than either stadium.

Turdacious wrote:To be fair, pretty much every state with an NFL team wastes money at this scale on things that don't provide anything near the benefit that the NFL does. Although I doubt coeds in the Pittsburgh will agree with that assessment.

Yes, there are lots of stupid, wasteful projects governments at all levels spend money on. Many of them, including sports teams, are justified as ways to stimulate the local economy. In the end, the large majority simply stimulate the wealth of a few well-connected rich guys.

milosz wrote:I don't have a problem with a municipality democratically choosing to build a stadium for social reasons, as it might fund a performance center or museum (though the scale is vastly different), on those terms. It's when cities and teams trot out bullshit impact analyses that claim cities will reap billions.

I've seen it twice - when I was a kid Dubya held the city hostage for a new Rangers stadium, promising riverwalks and high-end retail and housing. 15 years later Jerry Jones gets a billion dollar stadium by... promising economic revitalization. Of the area that was supposed to be revitalized the first time.

As of now, both stadiums are islands in a sea of parking lots, the retail across the street from Jerry World is a Wal-Mart and fine dining is a Cici's Pizza.

Downtown, such as it is, actually has a number of new restaurants and a mixed-use development on the edge of the university campus - the continuing success of these owes more to the miniscule cost of an outdoor amphitheatre and free concert series than either stadium.

Good points, except that the honest economic analysis will not support your conclusions.

Free concerts and museums assessments, in general, are as big a lie as NFL ones are, if not bigger. The benefits (enjoyment) are harder to quantify than NFL ones are, especially since they don't do a good job of separating people from their money. Moreover, the benefits are more heavily class based. I can talk about the NFL with the average man on the street, talking about opera is a different story (mostly because neither of us care about it).

DFW is one of the cases where the stadiums could make financial sense to the taxpayer. Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit probably support your argument, DFW probably doesn't.

Pinky's argument is general; mine is local. That doesn't suggest that, in general, that he's wrong FWIW.

Turdacious wrote:Free concerts and museums assessments, in general, are as big a lie as NFL ones are, if not bigger.

You seem to have missed my characterization of performance centers and museums - social reasons. I didn't say a thing about the economic impact of them. Not a close reader, you.

The benefits (enjoyment) are harder to quantify than NFL ones are, especially since they don't do a good job of separating people from their money. Moreover, the benefits are more heavily class based. I can talk about the NFL with the average man on the street, talking about opera is a different story (mostly because neither of us care about it).

I have no idea how this is relevant. If a city wants to pay $500 million for the prestige of an NFL franchise, or because "the average man" can talk about it, groovy. That's an honest reason and if enough people are willing to vote to foot the bill, good governance.

The economic impact studies that comprise the real-world arguments are, however, all lies.

DFW is one of the cases where the stadiums could make financial sense to the taxpayer. Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit probably support your argument, DFW probably doesn't.

DFW is actually a better argument.
Arlington, alone, footed the vast majority of the bill for Jerry World via sales tax while Fort Worth and Dallas reap much of the tourist benefit without the cost. When the Super Bowl rolled through, high rollers didn't want to stay in Arlington, they wanted a high-rise in downtown Dallas and a $100 steak. There is no positive benefit for the city beyond taxes on events held in the stadium - hell, Jerry didn't even build his new training complex in the city.

milosz wrote:The economic impact studies that comprise the real-world arguments are, however, all lies.

DFW is one of the cases where the stadiums could make financial sense to the taxpayer. Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit probably support your argument, DFW probably doesn't.

DFW is actually a better argument.
Arlington, alone, footed the vast majority of the bill for Jerry World via sales tax while Fort Worth and Dallas reap much of the tourist benefit without the cost. When the Super Bowl rolled through, high rollers didn't want to stay in Arlington, they wanted a high-rise in downtown Dallas and a $100 steak. There is no positive benefit for the city beyond taxes on events held in the stadium - hell, Jerry didn't even build his new training complex in the city.

With regards to Arlington:
http://thesportseconomist.com/2010/07/1 ... financing/

It isn't the high rollers that necessarily matter, the average fans can have a bigger impact on the city's books. I don't live in Arlington, but it seems that they got off pretty cheap and may have added a long term regressive revenue source that will probably never go away. They got Jerry to finance most of it as well. As far as the training facility, I'm not sure that would have had any significant financial impact on the city whatsoever. Not a bad investment overall.

Economic impact studies are flawed, you are correct, but essential. Simply dismissing impact studies as lies is not correct either. Often they depend on what the city does to develop around them-- cities with more serious problems tend to be the big losers in stadiums. These things are generally out of the sports team's control. DC may benefit from the Nats stadium if it spurs the gentrification of bad neighborhoods around it (and it may be, but it's too early to tell)-- DC has a lot of upside potential. Baltimore and Detroit probably lose money on their stadiums because people get back to the suburbs pretty quickly. Detroit and Baltimore are both in difficult situations.

dead man walking wrote:turd

how do you know that shit?

not that i doubt you--i'm curious

I sort of picture Turd to be our Cliff Clavin and, after this, so will you.

Cliffie? Nah. I'm not that cool.

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:The economic impact studies that comprise the real-world arguments are, however, all lies.

DFW is one of the cases where the stadiums could make financial sense to the taxpayer. Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit probably support your argument, DFW probably doesn't.

DFW is actually a better argument.
Arlington, alone, footed the vast majority of the bill for Jerry World via sales tax while Fort Worth and Dallas reap much of the tourist benefit without the cost. When the Super Bowl rolled through, high rollers didn't want to stay in Arlington, they wanted a high-rise in downtown Dallas and a $100 steak. There is no positive benefit for the city beyond taxes on events held in the stadium - hell, Jerry didn't even build his new training complex in the city.

With regards to Arlington:
http://thesportseconomist.com/2010/07/1 ... financing/

It isn't the high rollers that necessarily matter, the average fans can have a bigger impact on the city's books. I don't live in Arlington, but it seems that they got off pretty cheap and may have added a long term regressive revenue source that will probably never go away. They got Jerry to finance most of it as well. As far as the training facility, I'm not sure that would have had any significant financial impact on the city whatsoever. Not a bad investment overall.

Economic impact studies are flawed, you are correct, but essential. Simply dismissing impact studies as lies is not correct either. Often they depend on what the city does to develop around them-- cities with more serious problems tend to be the big losers in stadiums. These things are generally out of the sports team's control. DC may benefit from the Nats stadium if it spurs the gentrification of bad neighborhoods around it (and it may be, but it's too early to tell)-- DC has a lot of upside potential. Baltimore and Detroit probably lose money on their stadiums because people get back to the suburbs pretty quickly. Detroit and Baltimore are both in difficult situations.

SF Giants stadium is in a very nice and new neighborhood that I'm told was shit not too many years ago. I assume it was part of a massive development plan but don't know that for sure.

Turdacious wrote: With regards to Arlington:
http://thesportseconomist.com/2010/07/1 ... financing/

Not entirely sure what you think was relevant here to a stadium's economic impact on a city, given that it focuses on the payment schedule and doesn't discuss economic impact....

The DMN column is hackwork - they were part of the media group pumping the original economic impact claims (available online). The city isn't on the hook for $325mn - it's paying almost half a billion, with the other $150mn coming from use taxes on stadium events, which would otherwise go to the city.

Lemme get this straight-- city issues revenue bonds (backed by revenue from the new taxes) to build their portion of the stadium; country goes into a recession (which generally hurts these kinds of tax revenues); Arlington is exceeding it's expected tax revenues (and the projections were made prior to the recession); and the stadium has no significant economic impact? Ok.

It's a city that grew by 35k people in ten years (after faster growth in the '90s) and has been adding another 5k/year since the census. I'm shocked shocked shocked that sales tax revenues have increased.

http://myarlingtontx.com/2012/11/07/cit ... milestone/
Funny how that graph has maintained a steady line from long before Jerry World existed. The major difference between 1995 and 2012 is ~100k citizens.

The last three years have also featured the Rangers pulling in 3 million people over six months, about a million more than Cowboys Stadium draws for all events.

We have maybe a few hundred people getting concussions - meanwhile millions sit on their butts and get fat as pigs and have heart attacks watching them. It seems obvious that being a spectator is as dangerous as playing - just in a different way. I say eliminate spectators :). Solves both problems in short order.

milosz wrote:It's a city that grew by 35k people in ten years (after faster growth in the '90s) and has been adding another 5k/year since the census. I'm shocked shocked shocked that sales tax revenues have increased.

http://myarlingtontx.com/2012/11/07/cit ... milestone/
Funny how that graph has maintained a steady line from long before Jerry World existed. The major difference between 1995 and 2012 is ~100k citizens.

The last three years have also featured the Rangers pulling in 3 million people over six months, about a million more than Cowboys Stadium draws for all events.

The graph you cite (above) around the year the Rangers stadium was opened (I think)-- what the longer term trends were it doesn't show. It shows steady growth in sales tax revenue until the recession in the early 2000's, and steady growth since (although sales tax revenue took 6-7 years to recover to pre-recession levels). The growth continued during the most recent recession and the tax hike to finance the Cowboy stadium revenue bonds. Generally sales tax revenue slumps during recessions.

I have no idea what what the income trends are in the area, or the job growth trends are in local area. I have no idea how those compare to the other cities in the DFW greater metro area.

I also have no idea what effect the 80 odd Ranger home games and the events at the Cowboy stadium have on local sales tax revenue-- it would matter what the size of the spike in revenue was on those days/weekends. Smaller spikes would back up your point, larger spikes would back up mine.

Unless there was a job/income boom during the most recent recession, there would seem to be a correlation between the post stadium spike in revenue and the stadium. A graph showing sales tax revenue, average income trends, local employment, and population growth would be much more useful.