Are Public Sports Facilities Worth It? Part Two
I'm not sure if anyone can accurately calculate the overall financial impact of having professional sports teams in a community, as the whole thing is quite complicated, but if we lay out some of the benefits versus the negatives, I think we can make a pretty fair assumption. Teams bring people into communities* for games and other events associated with them, and those people spend money. They buy tickets, pop, beer, hotdogs, programs, and souvenirs at the facilities, plus they may pay to park, if they arrived by car, or they may stay at hotels where they pay for rooms, breakfasts, lunches and dinners, and then they're apt to go shopping, take tours, visit the various sites in the area, etc. Airports and airlines benefit, since teams, as well as press people who cover the visiting teams, fly in and out, and of course, the same with the officials for the games, umpires and referees (these people all stay at hotels, too). All of this is money coming into the community from outside. Then sports teams provide entertainment for the locals, who spend money in their own community on many of the things I've mentioned above, although, naturally, they don't have to book hotel rooms or travel all that far to attend games, but that keeps the money in the community, and it helps public transportation for those who use it to get to games.** I'm not sure what the general criteria is today, but when I was much younger, a team's drawing area was generally seen as a 150 mile radius of its home, although obviously that definition is not always possible due to geography. Having sports teams also helps local promoters "sell" the community to outsiders as a good place to visit, or to live in, if relocation is under consideration.
Communities take in money from rent on the facilities,*** and they often collect parking fees from city owned lots or garages. Then there are employees, not only at the facilities, like ticket takers, ushers, and security personnel, but at all of the supporting businesses, like the suppliers of hotdogs, popcorn and beer, and even at the places where the tickets and programs are printed. Further still, there are the outside businesses that benefit, like hotels, restaurants, shops, and bars. The money generated by all of this brings in tax revenue from sales taxes, bed taxes (common for hotels), and beverage taxes, plus income taxes, if the community has such. In the latter case, the community benefits from a local income tax by also getting the tax on the large salaries of the players and owners Teams that consistently draw well can help to provide communities with revenues to maintain, or perhaps even expand or improve, services.
Lastly, while I think salaries and the whole pro-sports program has gotten out of hand, I've also said here in previous articles that I realize we all need a certain amount of entertainment in our lives, which is often supplied by professional sports. Trust me, I get it.
Now, what about the other side? Well naturally it all depends upon how teams draw and help contribute to all of those things I mentioned above (and probably some I forgot to include). If a team struggles at the gate, the more seasons they struggle, the greater the decline in the benefits they provide, especially since the expenses incurred tend to stay about the same; that is, the facilities have to be maintained, debts on facilities have to be paid, police have to direct traffic, ushers and security personnel (I would guess usually police, in most communities) have to be present for games. Without being able to really calculate an accurate figure on how teams help communities, it is also not entirely possible to say if, or at what point, they hurt communities, although in some cases where teams lose community support, and attendance plummets, that determination may not be able to be given an exact number, but it is still an obvious negative.
So what about now? As earlier, I'll use Cleveland as something of an example, although I realize not every community has the same situation in every case. As I noted in "Part One," here in Cleveland the issue of putting a retractable roof on the football stadium was raised recently. It was a big story for a couple of days, although it has subsided somewhat now, and "apparently" there was no concerted effort to push such a proposal, although we'll have to see how all of this plays out in the coming weeks and months, now that the Browns have a new owner. Let's just say for the sake of argument, the Browns make it known they want a retractable roof on the stadium. The new owner has hired architects and engineers to look at the facility, but for a number of reasons, according to his statements. To put a dome on a stadium that large, a stadium that wasn't built to accommodate such a dome, as far as I know, would, I have to believe, be a major undertaking with a huge price tag. The other thing to consider is this; the upkeep of the football stadium, the ballpark and the basketball arena all were funded by a special tax on alcohol and tobacco, and the authority for that tax expires in a couple of years. Voters would have to approve a renewal of the tax, and that's "IF" the State of Ohio even permits such a tax again, as, according to "Crain's Cleveland Business" earlier this year, lobbyists for both the alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries were able to get language into a state law a few years ago that forbids such taxes.That could prove to be very interesting, especially regarding alcohol, because the beverage industry could end up cutting its own throat by hurting the teams that sell their products, as alcoholic beverages and sports have a close relationship.
Just another item you might think worthy of discussion. Pro spots teams and communities generally have had a private-public partnership, of sorts, as communities provide the publicly funded facilities. With all the talk of "free markets," should teams have to provide their own facilities? In the past I have heard the argument, and I can't say exactly from which owner or owners, that if team owners had to build their own facilities, they would have to charge too much. Hm, I thought free markets always worked and government "distorted" the markets. We always hate things given to others, until we want something, then we find ways to say, "Well... I didn't mean when it applies to me." We must also remember, the teams pay rent, so the facilities aren't free for them to use, but by using public facilities, the owners don't have to lay out large investments to have such facilities built. And remember too, the communities have built these facilities to make money in a variety of ways, many of which I recounted above, so these are really business deals, as professional sports is really nothing like a game, in spite of apologists who say fans get too emotional, "because it's just a game." BALONEY! Anything with such huge sums of money involved is NOT a game. Anyway, communities choose to pact with professional sports franchises, some of the owners of which are ruthless devils, and when you pact with the devil, sometimes you get burned. Yes, when owners have burned certain communities by moving teams to other locations, the public and the politicians all scream bloody murder, but you can't have it both ways, although in more recent times communities have tried to protect themselves with clauses in leases saying teams can only leave town after conditions x,y, and z are met, or with signed declarations by owners to never move the team.****
In the end, sports teams DO help communities overall, in my opinion. Whether they need fancy ballparks and stadiums, I'm not so sure, but don't look for it to change anytime soon. Too many people are hooked on pro sports, and both the owners and players know it. Until the public stays away in droves, you'll keep hearing about new or improved facilities you'll help pay for. If you don't want to pay, the moving van will probably pull up to load the team's equipment for transport to a place where the people will pay.
* I'm using "community" instead of just "city." A hundred years ago, most people in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, etc actually lived IN the cities, with areas outside these cities often being sparsely populated countryside. Gradually this changed as suburban areas began to develop, which really took off after World War Two, and today, many of the suburbs are really connected to the cities in an urban community, so, in my opinion, it is far more appropriate to use the term "community."
** New York naturally has the subway system, and other communities have mass transit of some type. Here in Cleveland, you can drive to a transit parking lot, park for free, get on the train (called "the Rapid"), or a bus, and go downtown, where you can then use a walkway to go right over to see an Indians' or Cavaliers' game; or if you are going to a Browns' game, you change to another train which takes you right to the stadium. Needless to say, many people here use the public transit system this way. Since I went over some history in "Part One," I should note that, before the train ran right to the stadium, you could take a train or bus and get off downtown, where there were shuttle buses waiting to take you the few blocks to old Municipal Stadium for Browns' games, and Indians' games with large advance ticket sales. It was like 25 or 50 cents, but that was in the 1980s.
*** The rent and certain fees may go to a specific local entity that manages the facilities, rather than going directly into community coffers, and the money is then used for upkeep and retirement of debt on the facilities.
**** If I remember correctly, in order to get final approval for his move of the Browns to Baltimore, Art Modell had to buy out the remaining years of his lease in Cleveland, which cost him something like 10-12 million.
WORD HISTORY:
Ground-This is the noun as in, "the soil of the earth." It goes back to Indo European "ghrendh," which meant, "to rub, to rub together to break down a substance." There are no apparent relatives outside of Germanic with a similar meaning as in Germanic. Old Germanic had "grunduz," which had the notion of "bottom, deep area, foundation;" from the idea of "particles that form a basis or foundation." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "grund," which meant "base, bottom, surface of the earth." The word later took on the extended meaning "basis, reason." Common in the other Germanic languages: German and Low German have "Grund" (ground, reason), West Frisian has "grun" (land, ground), Dutch has "grond" (soil, ground, base), Danish has "grund(en)" (foundation, base, site), Norwegian has "grunn," and Swedish has "grund" (reason, foundation). I could not find a form in Icelandic, where the word seems to have been replaced by other terms, although it could be archaic.
Communities take in money from rent on the facilities,*** and they often collect parking fees from city owned lots or garages. Then there are employees, not only at the facilities, like ticket takers, ushers, and security personnel, but at all of the supporting businesses, like the suppliers of hotdogs, popcorn and beer, and even at the places where the tickets and programs are printed. Further still, there are the outside businesses that benefit, like hotels, restaurants, shops, and bars. The money generated by all of this brings in tax revenue from sales taxes, bed taxes (common for hotels), and beverage taxes, plus income taxes, if the community has such. In the latter case, the community benefits from a local income tax by also getting the tax on the large salaries of the players and owners Teams that consistently draw well can help to provide communities with revenues to maintain, or perhaps even expand or improve, services.
Lastly, while I think salaries and the whole pro-sports program has gotten out of hand, I've also said here in previous articles that I realize we all need a certain amount of entertainment in our lives, which is often supplied by professional sports. Trust me, I get it.
Now, what about the other side? Well naturally it all depends upon how teams draw and help contribute to all of those things I mentioned above (and probably some I forgot to include). If a team struggles at the gate, the more seasons they struggle, the greater the decline in the benefits they provide, especially since the expenses incurred tend to stay about the same; that is, the facilities have to be maintained, debts on facilities have to be paid, police have to direct traffic, ushers and security personnel (I would guess usually police, in most communities) have to be present for games. Without being able to really calculate an accurate figure on how teams help communities, it is also not entirely possible to say if, or at what point, they hurt communities, although in some cases where teams lose community support, and attendance plummets, that determination may not be able to be given an exact number, but it is still an obvious negative.
So what about now? As earlier, I'll use Cleveland as something of an example, although I realize not every community has the same situation in every case. As I noted in "Part One," here in Cleveland the issue of putting a retractable roof on the football stadium was raised recently. It was a big story for a couple of days, although it has subsided somewhat now, and "apparently" there was no concerted effort to push such a proposal, although we'll have to see how all of this plays out in the coming weeks and months, now that the Browns have a new owner. Let's just say for the sake of argument, the Browns make it known they want a retractable roof on the stadium. The new owner has hired architects and engineers to look at the facility, but for a number of reasons, according to his statements. To put a dome on a stadium that large, a stadium that wasn't built to accommodate such a dome, as far as I know, would, I have to believe, be a major undertaking with a huge price tag. The other thing to consider is this; the upkeep of the football stadium, the ballpark and the basketball arena all were funded by a special tax on alcohol and tobacco, and the authority for that tax expires in a couple of years. Voters would have to approve a renewal of the tax, and that's "IF" the State of Ohio even permits such a tax again, as, according to "Crain's Cleveland Business" earlier this year, lobbyists for both the alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries were able to get language into a state law a few years ago that forbids such taxes.That could prove to be very interesting, especially regarding alcohol, because the beverage industry could end up cutting its own throat by hurting the teams that sell their products, as alcoholic beverages and sports have a close relationship.
Just another item you might think worthy of discussion. Pro spots teams and communities generally have had a private-public partnership, of sorts, as communities provide the publicly funded facilities. With all the talk of "free markets," should teams have to provide their own facilities? In the past I have heard the argument, and I can't say exactly from which owner or owners, that if team owners had to build their own facilities, they would have to charge too much. Hm, I thought free markets always worked and government "distorted" the markets. We always hate things given to others, until we want something, then we find ways to say, "Well... I didn't mean when it applies to me." We must also remember, the teams pay rent, so the facilities aren't free for them to use, but by using public facilities, the owners don't have to lay out large investments to have such facilities built. And remember too, the communities have built these facilities to make money in a variety of ways, many of which I recounted above, so these are really business deals, as professional sports is really nothing like a game, in spite of apologists who say fans get too emotional, "because it's just a game." BALONEY! Anything with such huge sums of money involved is NOT a game. Anyway, communities choose to pact with professional sports franchises, some of the owners of which are ruthless devils, and when you pact with the devil, sometimes you get burned. Yes, when owners have burned certain communities by moving teams to other locations, the public and the politicians all scream bloody murder, but you can't have it both ways, although in more recent times communities have tried to protect themselves with clauses in leases saying teams can only leave town after conditions x,y, and z are met, or with signed declarations by owners to never move the team.****
In the end, sports teams DO help communities overall, in my opinion. Whether they need fancy ballparks and stadiums, I'm not so sure, but don't look for it to change anytime soon. Too many people are hooked on pro sports, and both the owners and players know it. Until the public stays away in droves, you'll keep hearing about new or improved facilities you'll help pay for. If you don't want to pay, the moving van will probably pull up to load the team's equipment for transport to a place where the people will pay.
* I'm using "community" instead of just "city." A hundred years ago, most people in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, etc actually lived IN the cities, with areas outside these cities often being sparsely populated countryside. Gradually this changed as suburban areas began to develop, which really took off after World War Two, and today, many of the suburbs are really connected to the cities in an urban community, so, in my opinion, it is far more appropriate to use the term "community."
** New York naturally has the subway system, and other communities have mass transit of some type. Here in Cleveland, you can drive to a transit parking lot, park for free, get on the train (called "the Rapid"), or a bus, and go downtown, where you can then use a walkway to go right over to see an Indians' or Cavaliers' game; or if you are going to a Browns' game, you change to another train which takes you right to the stadium. Needless to say, many people here use the public transit system this way. Since I went over some history in "Part One," I should note that, before the train ran right to the stadium, you could take a train or bus and get off downtown, where there were shuttle buses waiting to take you the few blocks to old Municipal Stadium for Browns' games, and Indians' games with large advance ticket sales. It was like 25 or 50 cents, but that was in the 1980s.
*** The rent and certain fees may go to a specific local entity that manages the facilities, rather than going directly into community coffers, and the money is then used for upkeep and retirement of debt on the facilities.
**** If I remember correctly, in order to get final approval for his move of the Browns to Baltimore, Art Modell had to buy out the remaining years of his lease in Cleveland, which cost him something like 10-12 million.
WORD HISTORY:
Ground-This is the noun as in, "the soil of the earth." It goes back to Indo European "ghrendh," which meant, "to rub, to rub together to break down a substance." There are no apparent relatives outside of Germanic with a similar meaning as in Germanic. Old Germanic had "grunduz," which had the notion of "bottom, deep area, foundation;" from the idea of "particles that form a basis or foundation." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "grund," which meant "base, bottom, surface of the earth." The word later took on the extended meaning "basis, reason." Common in the other Germanic languages: German and Low German have "Grund" (ground, reason), West Frisian has "grun" (land, ground), Dutch has "grond" (soil, ground, base), Danish has "grund(en)" (foundation, base, site), Norwegian has "grunn," and Swedish has "grund" (reason, foundation). I could not find a form in Icelandic, where the word seems to have been replaced by other terms, although it could be archaic.
Labels: Cleveland, Cleveland Browns, English, etymology, French, Germanic languages, professional sports, taxes
posted by Randy at 4:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home