Why should us the taxpayer have to pay for a new stadium? Who thinks the team owners should pay?

Question

I think it's stupid for us the taxpayer to pay for a new stadium whenever a team whines about wanting a new one. If the team ownership want it so bad let them pay for it. I think it's very unfair when the owners expect the public to bail them out. Many of these regular taxpayers won't even be able t afford to go to these stadiums when they are finally made. At least i give Steinbrener credit for that. The Yankees are footing the majority of the bill for the new stadium.

Answer 1

i couldn't agree with you more. let the team owners eat their bajillion dollar bonus this year and build a new stadium!

Answer 2

I somewhat agree with you. I agree because it is unfair to the taxpayer to pay for a sports team, because its not like you are getting paid for them being there. However, the city they play in, does get some money for them being there. The team players pay state taxes, unless there is a rule where they don't. Also, the stadium is an attraction, when the team plays at home, it brings in people from out of state, which in turn helps the city, because those people have to sleep, eat, etc while in that city, so the community does get some money plus, the taxes from the products goes to the city.
Now, I know, where do you fit in, by having all those other people paying taxes on other things, it keeps you from having to pay higher taxes for cleaning crews, construction crews, security, etc. Jobs that would still be there, even without the stadium. A new stadium makes it a better place for the teams to play, plus a better environment for the people who live in the city.

Still, I know it sounds like a bunch of hog wash, but that is how it will probably be sold to you. Not to mention, the mayor of the city is probably getting a kick back from the Yankees in one way or the other for approving the money.

Also, the staduim would be used for other events, which the city would still get money from, in one way or the other.

Answer 3

The taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for a new stadium. The franchise and league should in cooperation with the city. The problem with the franchise paying for a new facility is then they have even more of a reason to charge higher ticket prices and more outrageous connsession prices than they already do. I believe it should be based on the fans. If you are a fan and go to games regularly, then you should be responsible for helping with the cost of a new stadium. If you have nointerest/desire to attend games, the burden should not be placed on you to help pay for a stadium.

I know that I am not with the majority with my answer. I am not a die-hard fan of any sports (other than NASCAR), but I do know that I would question the constitutionality of being forced to pay for a facility that I am going to have to pay to enter. Professional sports is all about money. The franchise wants it, the players want it and none of them are willing to part with their millions for the fans.

Answer 4

You REALLY wouldn't be able to afford it when the owners have to foot the bill so they raise ticket prices and concessions and all. Now to be fair there should be a time frame to them being allowed to ASK for new stadiums with taxpayers help. I think 30 years are a good deal. Not saying that is the case with the Nats, more I'm a Pittsburgh fan and 3 Rivers lasted around 30 years, and the new Arena for the Pens has a 30 year lease.

Answer 5

One of the reasons for taxpayer funding for a new stadium or arena is for economic development. Three Rivers had nothing but parking and warehouses in the area, but with PNC Park being just over a bridge from downtown Pittsburgh, it revitalized a depressed section of the city. New restaurants, hotels, and even new office buildings opened. The local FSN has a studio between PNC and Heinz Field. Currently, an extension to the subway is in the works. A slots casino is being planned for the same area. So, at least for Pittsburghers, the new stadiums could be seen as seed money for development.

Answer 6

First, sports stadia do not bring in money. Every analysis done by actual economists shows this. The ones who say they bring in money are the people who would benefit from saying it.
Second, they TAKE money away from other recreational activities (eating out, bowling, movies, etc.), but force the competition to pay for the stadia.
Third, because the owners defray lots of the costs, even people who don't go to the events or live in the areas end up helping to foot the bill.
Finally, the taxes to cover the costs are often passed onto tourists who do not necessarily have any love for the team in question (and may even support a rival).
If people think it's worthwhile and are actually allowed to vote on it, that's one thing.

But they do not make good economic sense.

Answer 7

A MLB franchise brings in millions of dollars in revenue and business for the city they represent. Thousands of jobs are created for people in the area who in turn spend money and the whole economic situation in the area is better because of the team. The economic incentives to bring a team to a city is no different than the incentives to bring other types of business to the area where jobs are created. The city can write it off to the cost of doing business and you can bet it is well worth the investment. When a new ballpark is needed you can bet the city will be there to help because there are other cities standing in line for the ability to compete for a franchise.

Answer 8

Don't agree with you at all, stadiums ofter a wide range of other functions apart from sporting events, music concerts for example. Also there are alot of sports fans out there that think that stadiums are an important community attraction.

You could argue the same for many many thing in life. What about the government bailing out all the farmers for example.

Answer 9

you don't pay for it the people in DC do.

I bet you're not complaining about the new Yankee Stadium when they build that are you? I don't think they should all pay for it too, but these ballparks bring money into the area, and the owners sometimes are struggling to come up with the money for them.

You do realize that not all the owners can afford to pay for stadiums, yet their old ones are beaten up, and they have to have new ones. Not everyone is made out of money like Steinbrenner is. If they were everybody would try to buy there way into the playoffs and ruin baseball.

Answer 10

if the national league have been given a dh i think of id give up watching baseball. Roy halladay hit a double off the wall the final interest I went to and the placement went nuts. quickly baseball might have a DH for each place and it is going to be like soccer in basic terms one individual performs offense and one performs protection. the gamers union is plenty to solid they are going to in no way get a cap. i admire how anybody is complaining in regards to the phillies whilst earlier 2007 then weren't even appropriate. in case you get caught using drugs whilst quickly as no hof otherwise why might gamers not use them? i admire the human element to baseball the only reason we be conscious all of the neglected calls is because of the fact technologies is plenty extra effective now and we are in a position to work out many extra angels. perhaps umps at the instant are not as stable yet technologies additionally exposes them. why might quantity 5 ever ensue?