1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

"Do we really want to subsidize the losers? This is America!" (Sports ITT)

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by randomspot555, Mar 13, 2009.

  1. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    Local politics is what interests me the most. But usually I can't bring it up here since...well, no one cares, has similar experiences, etc...

    But as I've been reading up on the latest Pacers controversy (this time, it isn't a criminal charge!), I found this quote from David Stern, Commissioner of the NBA:

    back in March 2008

    But just three months earlier, Forbes says something completely different!

    So teams are losing money, despite growing ticket sales and rising salary caps and increased player salaries and all the other signs that generally show a profit?

    And then there's what's happening in my neck of the woods.
    The TLDR is this:

    1. Market Square Arena was the team's first stadium, since imploded. The city still is paying back loans from building it, shown in a 1% sales tax on food/drink.
    2. New arena, Conseco Fieldhouse, was also mostly publicly financed, again with a 1% sales tax on food/drink within the county.
    3. The Capital Improvement Board, which handles negotiations between the Pacers and the city, has $20 million in debt.
    4. The Pacers claim they can't afford Conseco Fieldhouse's operating cost of $15 million. (oh, and they make money on non-basketball events held their too)
    5. The Pacers hate the idea of a tax on tickets, because no one is going to the games anyway. The logical people hate the idea of another food/drink/hotel tax, because businesses don't need another cost and we don't want to pay for it.

    (Personally, I think the city could just say "No way" and do nothing, and the Pacers won't move. Because in this economic climate, what city is going to purchase a sports franchise?)

    And apparently, this type of subsidizing for sports teams isn't uncommon. From just random google, cities of all shapes, sizes, and political stripes are either giving money directly to the teams or stadiums or indirectly through private tax breaks. I thought the New England Patriots payed for their new stadium, but it turns out they just did more than usual.

    How is it done in your area? (and if it isn't done, why isn't it? Would you be in support of it?)

    What do you think of it?

    Do you think it actually benefits the city it's in (financially), as it's proponents often say?

    Hypothetical: How would you feel if your city government made an offer to the Pacers if they were going to leave their current market? Why would you support it? If not, why and would there be certain conditions in which you would support it?

    EDIT: 78 views and no response? Maybe I'll re-post this in Entertainment or general Misc.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2009

Share This Page