Why?
10 characters.
He’s being a good little Trumpkin.
I’m legitimately confused.
Billion dollars of tax payers money for those two staduim for rich owners and spoil ■■■■■■■ brats.
A lot of people make their living working at these stadiums. Lots of local businesses like bars and restaurants rely on these stadiums. The cities get their tax money back from taxes on those individuals and businesses plus taxes on concessions sold at these stadiums and hotel and car rental taxes from people flying in to watch events in these stadiums.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/
From the article:
Advocates argue that new stadiums spur so much economic growth that they are self-financing: subsidies are offset by revenues from ticket taxes, sales taxes on concessions and other spending outside the stadium, and property tax increases arising from the stadium’s economic impact.
Unfortunately, these arguments contain bad economic reasoning that leads to overstatement of the benefits of stadiums. Economic growth takes place when a community’s resources—people, capital investments, and natural resources like land—become more productive. Increased productivity can arise in two ways: from economically beneficial specialization by the community for the purpose of trading with other regions or from local value added that is higher than other uses of local workers, land, and investments. Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.
And this:
No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.
It is an old artucle, but facility costs have only gone up by 3-5 times as much since then.
I might look for something newer. But this pretty much makes the point.
This one from last year has similar language
Furthermore, they were unable to find any facilities that had a reasonable return on investment.11
And here’s a Forbes article from 2015:
In a 2017 poll, 83 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that "Providing state and local subsidies to build stadiums for professional sports teams is likely to cost the relevant taxpayers more than any local economic benefits that are generated."May 1, 2017
Two teams I do not really care for, but I do have a soft spot for Foles so it was nice to see them pull out the win.
I am excited to watch my Chargers play Sunday vs KC
That’s just for the nfl since 1997.
Ridiculous.
It’s sick…and NFL owners and their spoiled ■■■■■■■ brats piss and ■■■■ all over their fans and Americans that paid for their Taj Mahal playgrounds.
It was prime restate those two stadiums were built on. The tax revenue from that development would have been more then two stadiums generate.
So it’s only NFL stadiums that are subsidized? No MLB, NBA or NHL? Furthermore, do you live in a city with and NFL stadium?
It was a good game, wish it was higher scoring. Looking forward to this Sundays games and especially on Monday when my favorite team The Rams play the Raidahs.
Does your city have an NFL team?
here’s is how every NHL arena was funded (something i don’t think i’ve ever seen posted on this board)…
Rams Vs Raiders is another game to watch, should make for a fun Monday night
Too late now, but maybe next year a Sean Hannity Boards fantasy football league would be hilariously great if we could pull it off
We’ve had them in the past.
good to know, if I am still around this time next year ill see what sort of interest we could drum up
