Richard Sherman on Taxpayer Funded Stadiums

[RiverDog]

In my opinion, Richard Sherman is only half right. He's right, billionare owners should not be asking taxpayers to subsidize their stadiums. They're filthy rich and do not need Joe Six Pack to buy them anything. However, I find player salaries to be no less obscene, and they, too, can afford to pay to play, just like I have to pay if I want to play golf.

http://usuncut.com/class-war/richard-sh ... -stadiums/

What I would have like to have seen is in the last CBA that the owners contribute 5% of total revenue to a stadium fund to be matched by the players in reducing their final settlement by 5%. That's 10% of $10 BILLION a year, or a billion bucks per year that would go into a stadium fund, more than enough to eliminate all public funding mechanisms.

I also see where they are projecting that in 10 years, the NFL's annual revenue will top $27 billion. That's an increase of over 150%, so that stadium fund would be more than viable enough to sustain any increase in the cost of construction.

[c_hawkbob]

You wan't professional football players to "pay to play" like you have to pay to play golf?

You usually make a bit of sense, but that one's way out there.

I do like the idea of enough of a percentage of the total revenue being set aside for stadium financing and maintenance though. It would not only ease the burden on taxpayers but it would be great PR for the NFL.

You wouldn't have to direct that it either come out of the Owners or the Player's pocket's though, it would be collectively bargained so it would be coming out of both in any case.

[Oly]

Hmmm....I think that if I'm the player's union and the CBA wants an even split of contributions from players and owners, I'm asking for a portion of gate receipts. I don't think that the "pay to play" argument will go anywhere. There is a pretty big difference from being a hired entertainer (which is what players are) and the Average Joe paying to enjoy a hobby.

I think that the contributions for new stadiums should come from the league office (which has an obscene amount of money) and the local owner who wants the stadium. If local owners want more help, they can try to lobby local business organizations who would benefit from more foot traffic on game days. I agree with Sherman, though. I'm sick of public funds for stadiums.

[burrrton]

Some public money is appropriate to spend on an NFL stadium- it's a public good, similar to parks, waterparks, aquatic facilities, etc, isn't it? Of course it also benefits the owner so it's appropriate to expect them to cover the cost, too.

Also, there are different types of "public money". In the case of CenturyLink, the vast majority (if not all?) of it comes from taxes on tickets, hotels, merchandise, etc, that directly benefit from the presence of the stadium/team. AFAIK, *none* of it comes from a property or income tax, or even a general sales tax, which is what people generally think of when talking about "public" money- if any of it did, I'd agree with the objection. Short of that, though, I don't.

[RiverDog]

You wouldn't have to direct that it either come out of the Owners or the Player's pocket's though, it would be collectively bargained so it would be coming out of both in any case.

I don't care which pocket it comes out of. If they make the pie smaller by removing 10% of revenue before bargaining begins, then it would have the same effect as the player's contributing a certain percentage.

The point being that it shouldn't necessarily be the owners or the players, it should be the league itself, which includes both parties.

[RiverDog]

Some public money is appropriate to spend on an NFL stadium- it's a public good, similar to parks, waterparks, aquatic facilities, etc, isn't it? Of course it also benefits the owner so it's appropriate to expect them to cover the cost, too.

Also, there are different types of "public money". In the case of CenturyLink, the vast majority (if not all?) of it comes from taxes on tickets, hotels, merchandise, etc, that directly benefit from the presence of the stadium/team. AFAIK, *none* of it comes from a property or income tax, or even a general sales tax, which is what people generally think of when talking about "public" money- if any of it did, I'd agree with the objection. Short of that, though, I don't.

I agree. And I would be against any legislation prohibiting a government from appropriating tax revenue for stadium construction. The LA area, because of its vast corporate presence, as a lot better chance of privately funding a stadium than Portland, OR. If the residents of Portland want a team badly enough that they are willing to pony up a good chunk of the money, then they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

My main argument for league funding of stadiums is to put an end to owners blackmailing cities by threatening to move their team if they aren't rewarded with a new stadium that they think they're entitled to.

[burrrton]

My main argument for league funding of stadiums is to put an end to owners blackmailing cities by threatening to move their team if they aren't rewarded with a new stadium that they think they're entitled to.

Hard to disagree much with that.

[HumanCockroach]

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

[monkey]

Hmmm....I think that if I'm the player's union and the CBA wants an even split of contributions from players and owners, I'm asking for a portion of gate receipts.

Yep, that's the fatal argument right there, and would be the first thing I'd bring up (after stopping my fit of laughter) if I as a player/players union member were asked to contribute.
Still, Rivers other idea of setting aside a percentage of money for new stadiums does make some sense.

[savvyman]

We don't need to be subsidizing "Billionaires" for stadiums. Now if the public is going to fund part, most or all of a stadium, then the public should share proportionally as owners of the stadium in the amount that they contributed.

[burrrton]

We don't need to be subsidizing "Billionaires" for stadiums. Now if the public is going to fund part, most or all of a stadium, then the public should share proportionally as owners of the stadium in the amount that they contributed.

I think that's a reasonable expectation, too- I think it's OK to ask the city/county to help build the stadium, but then they should also benefit some from the revenue generated (and not be expected to only benefit from the intangibles, etc).

[jshawaii22]

Only about 1/2 of the owners are "Billionaires" - many aren't (Oakland / San Diego and ???) and as corporations can't own NFL teams, most of them are in a quasi family trust and where entire wealth of the family really IS the team. This group of owners can't do it in Richards' perfect world of "billionaires"
Most trusts, i would assume, would never allow the team to be used a collateral, for fear of having some dumb ass kid lose the team over a bad investment.

So, while Richard may have a point with Seattle's ownership and a few other owners, the bulk of them don't have the financial's to spend a billion dollars themselves.
I assume that means that Richard would have the "NFL" do the financing... if that's the case then the overhead of the cost of building the investment in the stadium would have to come off the top of the 'income' that the CBA bases it's percentage on. It's only fair. And the income, once open, would be added to the overall 'pot'.. I'm not sure who would exactly benefit from that, but it would be the fair way.

And, It's not like a new modern, state-of-the-art (they all are, now) stadium won't be used 10 days a month in most cities that aren't NFL related.
Concerts, Conventions, other Sporting events, graduations all use major venues and that can certainly pay the bills.

The next battle is in Oakland / Vegas. Here you have a city that, for many, is clearly supporting the idea of a public/private stadium based on raising the 'tax' only on the visitors. (lucky them) -- It wouldn't surprise me to see the NFL up the anti by 100 million and probably Adelson, too, just to make everyone feel it's a good deal. I expect the move finalized by next January and the team playing in San Antonio or ? for the next 3 years. The stadium will be built with 50% tax money and 50% private.
In Las Vegas the MGM Group just opened what will be THE MOST successful 20,000 seat stadium ever, behind the Monte Carlo hotel, and they don't have a large stadium at all. They play college in a dump and need a stadium. The area is well over 1 million + the visitors. Overdue.

Does anyone remember what the Seahawks stadium cost Paul Allen? Did he kick in anything?

Good Topic, Understand Richards consternation, but for the man from Stanford... he's way off -base on this one.

[jshawaii22]

edited away

[RiverDog]

Does anyone remember what the Seahawks stadium cost Paul Allen? Did he kick in anything?

Good Topic, Understand Richards consternation, but for the man from Stanford... he's way off -base on this one.

Yup. Allen kicked in $100M. The total cost of the stadium, convention center, and parking garage was $430M, and the voter approved amount was capped at $330M. Allen agreed to cover any cost overruns, paid for the election, also plopped down a whole lot of money on the election campaign. Allen also bought property on 4th Ave. directly across from the stadium and built a parking garage on it. Plus he bought UW a new synthetic turf as a Thank You for playing there for two years and agreed to pay for a temporary grass field if Seattle had a chance of hosting something like a World Cup game.

All totaled it was a pretty hefty investment, close to 25% of the entire project, some of which, particularly the convention center and the parking garages, are used for lots other things besides NFL football games on 10 Sundays a week. I don't like any kind of taxpayer supported deals, but when you contrast what we got out of it vs. other NFL cities, I think we got a pretty damn good bargain.

Your argument about not all owners being multi billionaires that can easily afford stadiums that are now approaching $1.5 Billion dollars is a good one. That's one of the reasons why I made the distinction that the league, not the owners, should be footing the bill. It's a lot easier to build a $1.5 Billion stadium with private money in LA or New York where there is a huge corporate presence than it is in someplace like Portland, OR, should they ever be in the running for a team.

[jshawaii22]

430M!!! what a steal in this day and age. 25% wouldn't cut it now and that seems to be at the crux of the problem. Back then, Mr. Allen's contribution was looked at as generous. The fact that he also bought property and built a garage that makes $$$ for multiple events other then those at the stadium also would be looked at with disdain.

[burrrton]

The fact that he also bought property and built a garage that makes $$$ for multiple events other then those at the stadium also would be looked at with disdain.

Stupidly, but probably right.

[RiverDog]

430M!!! what a steal in this day and age. 25% wouldn't cut it now and that seems to be at the crux of the problem. Back then, Mr. Allen's contribution was looked at as generous. The fact that he also bought property and built a garage that makes $$$ for multiple events other then those at the stadium also would be looked at with disdain.

Also, keep in mind that back then, the league wasn't contributing near what they are nowadays, which is about 10% of the cost of the project.

I'm not going to portray Paul Allen as some sort of modern day Pied Piper, after all, he's made a huge fortune off his investments related to his purchase of the Seahawks, but he was one of the few men in the state that could have pulled off what he did and kept the team here. Another person that doesn't get enough kudos for saving the franchise is former governor Gary Locke, who sought out Allen and convinced him to buy the team. There was a rule back then that prohibited an owner of another ML franchise to be the majority owner of an NFL team. He convinced the reclusive Allen to put the stadium issue to a vote, although it ironically was Allen that insisted that such a vote be state wide even though the taxes would be applied only to King County when polls suggested that it was a tougher sell outside King County.

Had that vote not gone our way, Allen very well may have pulled his bid to buy the team and Behring would have been free to move it or to sell it to someone else that would move it. It passed by a very thin margin, 51%.

[Hawktawk]

RD hit the nail on the head about player salaries. They don't have a case to make regarding the explosion in costs in the NFL and would never consider giving some of it back to better their franchise for the most part.
The value of a sports franchise to a community and even a geographical region cannot be overstated, especially an NFL franchise. In much the same fashion as a port district is a public private partnership for economic development the same is true of a pro franchise. And as such the taxpayers should definitely have a role in supporting them.

We may not like being shaken down but the alternative is worse in my opinion One need look no further than the Sonics disaster to see how short sighted citizens and politicians coupled with greedy sleazy ownership allowed the heist of the century.I will never forget when that SOB Behring tried to steal the Hawks and will always feel indebted to Paul Allen.Losing a franchise is hard to undo.

.

[RiverDog]

RD hit the nail on the head about player salaries. They don't have a case to make regarding the explosion in costs in the NFL and would never consider giving some of it back to better their franchise for the most part.
The value of a sports franchise to a community and even a geographical region cannot be overstated, especially an NFL franchise. In much the same fashion as a port district is a public private partnership for economic development the same is true of a pro franchise. And as such the taxpayers should definitely have a role in supporting them.

We may not like being shaken down but the alternative is worse in my opinion One need look no further than the Sonics disaster to see how short sighted citizens and politicians coupled with greedy sleazy ownership allowed the heist of the century.I will never forget when that SOB Behring tried to steal the Hawks and will always feel indebted to Paul Allen.Losing a franchise is hard to undo.

.

Did you read the article that Roach posted? If not, then I suggest that you go back and read it. The terms of some of these stadium deals are far better than what a Fortune 500 company would get for building a plant that employs thousands. They're a little more than just "having a role."