Current Events > KC Chiefs billionaire owners threaten to leave unless tax payers pay for them

(+) Yeah! (+)

Don't both states have bankrupt governments?

watching John Oliver video, so threat is always to move to LA ?
cause that is where the Chiefs said they will go LOL

• New sports facilities generally have an extremely small effect on overall economic activity and employment
• No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of the effect on tax revenue.
• They do little to attract tourists or new industry.
• Most spending inside a stadium is a substitute for other local spending (such as movies and restaurants).
• Most jobs created by sports stadiums are part-time and/or low wage jobs. Star players making high salaries usually don't live in the city where they play so not much of what they earn goes back into the local economy.
• Major sports leagues have monopoly power and use it to keep the number of franchises below the number of cities that could support a team, which enables owners to use the threat of moving a team to demand public subsidies.

Rich people looove socialism when its about themselves. Granted like others have said, if itll help the overall economy then coherent amount of money or tax incentives should be given, but not hundreds of millions.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

Here is an article talking about the economic impact of major sports franchises in cities weighed against the public funds that go into building facilities. A quick summary of the conclusions:
* New sports facilities generally have an extremely small effect on overall economic activity and employment
* No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of the effect on tax revenue.
* They do little to attract tourists or new industry.
* Most spending inside a stadium is a substitute for other local spending (such as movies and restaurants).
* Most jobs created by sports stadiums are part-time and/or low wage jobs. Star players making high salaries usually don't live in the city where they play so not much of what they earn goes back into the local economy.
* Major sports leagues have monopoly power and use it to keep the number of franchises below the number of cities that could support a team, which enables owners to use the threat of moving a team to demand public subsidies.

https://www.brookings.edu

To find out more, see Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalists edited book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

Here is an article talking about the economic impact of major sports franchises in cities weighed against the public funds that go into building facilities. A quick summary of the conclusions:
* New sports facilities generally have an extremely small effect on overall economic activity and employment
* No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of the effect on tax revenue.
* They do little to attract tourists or new industry.
* Most spending inside a stadium is a substitute for other local spending (such as movies and restaurants).
* Most jobs created by sports stadiums are part-time and/or low wage jobs. Star players making high salaries usually don't live in the city where they play so not much of what they earn goes back into the local economy.
* Major sports leagues have monopoly power and use it to keep the number of franchises below the number of cities that could support a team, which enables owners to use the threat of moving a team to demand public subsidies.

why do we put so much money into sports and hollywood when they generate so much trash

Where are you getting your 90% figure from?

If the stadium receives public funding, wouldn't that trigger an obligation to disclose financials statements and accountings? My understanding is that the Packers are the only NFL team who disclose such information.

Studies show that cities that subsidize these billionaires never recoup the money.

Studies show that cities that subsidize these billionaires never recoup the money.

Should the public foot the bill?

Ah okay so then the contracts on those teams would need to include modern stipulations during negotiations. But I don't see why they wouldn't play ball since the model you shared shows that the revenue is quickly a net gain for an investment that in theory doesn't require the team owners if they don't want to play ball.

It's still privately owned. Idc what jobs it could potentially create, if the public has to pay for it then it shouldnt be privately owned by this billionaire.

If taxpayers are going to foot 70% of the bill, then taxpayers should get 70% of the revenue it generates.

Did you see those renderings of the facility? That is the equity stake. You can't lift-and-shift the infrastructure after it has been built. That facility will generate revenue for the city and state for many decades.

I skimmed this whole topic and didn't see it being brought up, but this isn't a typical stadium situation. The county it resides owns it, this team owner simply leases the place out. They're lucky he's offering as much as he is.

By paying ticket prices to enjoy state of the art facilities and by even becoming employed there in many cases, or in surrounding businesses that get propped up by the foot traffic of people wanting to enjoy a state of the art facility.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/978224c9.jpg

Fuck that. Too bad government officials are too greedy and too many people care too much about "muh football" to just lay down and accept billionaires being cheap and mooching off of taxpayers. Funny how certain folks get constantly enraged over poor people on benefits, but are fine with this.

what do you mean they are lucky?

If taxpayers are going to foot 70% of the bill, then taxpayers should get 70% of the revenue it generates.