Every year, millions of taxpayer dollars are poured into stadiums,
hockey rinks, baseball parks, and other arenas in order to attract
and retain professional sports teams in big cities. Often the
money is spent by the cities after a team "threatens" to leave the
city.
When that happens, of course, the local news media act as the willing
accomplices of the billionaires who own the teams. As a practical matter, the news media have no
choice. If the news coverage on Channel 37, for example, exposes the local team's
economic uselessness to the community, the chances are near zero that
the sports anchor from Channel 37 will ever get access to the locker
room after a big game.
When city and state governments build facilities for sports organizations which
are owned by billionaires, and raise taxes as a result, it is clearly
an abuse of power.
In addition to stadiums and arenas, the government also spends your money on
smaller projects that add to your tax burden. For example,
CAGW's
List of Omnibus Earmarks includes
- $750,000 for the Baseball Hall of Fame
- $202,500 to the Suffolk Sports Hall of Fame, Sports Research Center in Patchogue, New York for facilities renovations
- $405,000 to the Staten Island Soccer League of New York for facilities construction
- $800,000 to the New York Olympic Regional Development Authority for facilities construction for the Mount VanHoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex
- $90,000 for the City of Waterbury, Connecticut for an economic feasibility study focused on construction of a multi-purpose sports facility
- $50,000 for "Pro Sports Outreach," whatever that is.
This page has been put here to serve as an alarm to the overburdened taxpayer. Where
do you think they get that money? Is the presence of a football team in the nearest big city
really so important? Wouldn't you prefer to keep your money in your pocket, and let
the billionaires pay their own bills?
Update: The City of Arlington voted [11/2/2004] to increase the city sales tax
in order to contribute $350,000,000 to the Dallas Cowboys' new stadium. Many of the
same voters also fell for the same sales pitch ten years ago when the baseball stadium was
built for the Texas Rangers. By now, Arlington was supposed to have turned into a
thriving boom town — a mecca of tourism year round — according to the
promises made ten years ago. And of course it isn't, but the voters just can't say no, because
Football is involved, and Football (with a capital F) is more of a religion than a sport.
I'm glad I don't live in Arlington.
Note: Regular visitors, if any, may notice that the Sports Page now includes material
about sports-related topics other than taxpayer-funded stadiums. That material is at the bottom
of the page.
Build It,
Or Else. The Seattle Supersonics have determined that their home, Key Arena — last
refurbished 10 years ago to the tune of $95 million — is deficient. Only
45 percent of Key Arena's suites are rented, whereas in other cities the suites run at
90 percent to 100 percent capacity. … So the team's principal owner,
Howard Schultz, chairman of Starbucks Coffee Company, has begun reading from a
well-thumbed script.
Opening day subsidies: Publicly funded
sports stadiums are like crack cocaine to local politicians and business bigwigs. These folks are just
like addicts: They deceive everyone around them for the sake of a fix and rarely take no for an answer
when voters decline to subsidize their schemes. Instead, they resort to theft — in the form of
dubious hotel, sales, and other taxes — to pay for their fix, forcing citizens who couldn't care less
about sports to subsidize teams.
Public welfare for
billionaires — Pro-Sports Stadiums. Owners of pro-sports franchises are pressuring many
cities to provide luxurious stadiums at taxpayer expense. But some communities are throwing up a tough
defense.
Eight reasons to reject
publicly financed stadiums for professional sports teams: Providing public subsidies
for private stadiums in corporate welfare plain and simple. Public subsidies for stadiums go
directly into the pockets of team owners and players by increasing profits, player salaries and
raising the re-sale value of the team. … The billionaire team owners and the players profit,
but the taxpayer doesn't see a dime.
Stadium Subsidies Hitting Taxpayers Harder:
Study. [Andrew] Moylan's research shows as the taxpayers' tab increases, so does the total stadium
construction cost. Stadiums that were built with 50 percent or more in taxpayer subsidies were
$65 million more expensive on average than those built with less than 50 percent in subsidies.
The reason? Not surprisingly, Moylan argues, private financiers demand more fiscal accountability with
their own money than government bureaucrats do with other people's tax dollars. Not only is the average
percentage of stadium costs subsidized by taxpayers growing, but total subsidy amounts are rising too.
Sports teams pay millions for talent but ask the public to pay millions for stadiums.
Welfare kings: In October 1995, the city of Seattle opened a
new NBA basketball arena that immediately drew accolades for intimate design elements and dynamic sight lines.
But just a dozen years later, Sonics owner Clay Bennett claims KeyArena is no longer an economically viable NBA
facility and that no amount of renovations could alter that reality. Bennett intends to relocate the team
next year barring some unforeseen final-hour deal to build an entirely new arena with public funds.
Tips on writing a term paper on
stadium subsidies. There was a rash of new sports stadium development that occurred in the
1990s. Most of these stadiums were built partly or wholly with government money in the form of stadium
subsidies. Naturally many social groups were outraged that government money was being diverted from
social programs to millionaire players and billionaire owners. Politicians have argued that stadiums
bring tourism dollars into the city that far outweigh the cost of the stadium subsidy. Many economists
disagree; they feel that most of the revenue stadiums generate comes at the expense of other entertainment
venues within the town.
Stadium Socialism: Jesse
Ventura, Governor of Minnesota, took a position that is extremely rare in state government. He said that
neither the state nor the city nor any other unit of government should spend any money on funding yet another
municipal ballpark or providing a taxpayer subsidy to professional ball teams and their media flunkies.
"The taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for new stadiums," said Ventura. That's a sentiment that
would have been common in America a hundred years ago. Today, after decades of government entitlement
programs for everyone, it now seems revolutionary.
The Billion Dollar Whatever. It's possible that the
Twins site will flourish — it's already in a part of town with plenty of condo-and-loft development,
so it has a leg up on the deadlands of the Vikings site. We were promised lots of development
around the Dome, too, and what did we get? One bar. One. If the planners of the
site came back and saw what their work had produced, they would've been convinced prohibition had
been reintroduced, because there's no possible other explanation for building a gigantic sports arena
that produces exactly ONE bar before the development sputters out and the area sits dead for 20 years.
The Odd Couple,
or Here We Go Again. We thought this was properly dealt with back in January by Raiders Chief
Executive Amy Trask, who simply said in essence that the Raiders would be concentrating on the current season
in a stadium they're simply thrilled with, and that they are not actively seeking out the 49ers as
business partners. But like a zombie, this 'joint stadium' idea has come to life once again, walking
the streets by night and claiming more victims, many of them credulous 49er Faithful.
$1.1 Billion Twins Stadium Tax: The
Minnesota Twins sued to get out of their lease so they can pressure your lawmakers to buy them a stadium.
The new lease presumably would be as worthless as the one they just nullified. Meanwhile, the
disenfranchised citizens — who will not be allowed to vote on it — are stuck paying the tab.
The stadium will cost taxpayers $1.1 billion dollars. The Twins essentially contribute
nothing. Oh sure, they will tell you the Twins are contributing $125 million. But the deal
also gives them naming rights for the stadium, money from concessions, parking — so the
$125 million will be easily recovered.
Seattleites should not have to pay
for another arena boondoggle. Since 1999, Seattle taxpayers have forked over more than
$1 billion in today's dollars to the ultra-rich owners of baseball's Mariners and football's Seahawks.
Despite threats to move the teams, folks are a little hesitant to cough up several hundred million more for a
new basketball arena for the Seattle SuperSonics and Storm.
Randolph Calls For End to
Taxpayer-Funded Luxury Suites at Local Stadiums. In the wake of the recent public news that the
Lucas Oil Stadium could run the taxpayers an extra $10 million in operational costs, City-County
Councillor Ike Randolph today, filed a freedom of information request with the City of Indianapolis.
The request seeks all documents and expenditures on city-owned suites at the RCA Dome, Conseco Field House
and Victory Field between 2000 and 2006.
DC taxpayers are being thrown
an expensive curveball. DC City Council members who will vote Tuesday [11/13/2007] on whether to
approve the Mayor's plan for a publicly-subsidized baseball stadium in Anacostia should remember this year's
earlier "commuter tax" court controversy. According to a new study from the non-partisan National
Taxpayers Union Foundation, the stadium proposal would worsen taxes in DC to fund a project that will mostly
serve residents of Maryland and Virginia (80 percent of the team's fans are expected to come from those
two states).
Storm clouds in the outfield.
The city of Anaheim, thanks to the foolishness of then-Mayor Tom Daly and then-council members Lou Lopez and
Frank Feldhaus, gave then-owner Disney $30 million in benefits in 1996 to keep the team in Anaheim.
Residents got little in return, but the one thing they did get was the supposed pride of having the city's
name in the national spotlight. It looks like a sucker's deal in hindsight.
If You Build It, They Will Leave. On
the same day the Florida Marlins paraded through Miami to celebrate their second World Series championship in
six years, politicians from Miami-Dade County swallowed the young baseball team's corporate welfare bait.
County Mayor Alex Penelas and Manager George Burgess announced they were offering a whopping $73 million
in bed tax revenue, plus a parcel of free land, to help build a new $325 million baseball-only
retractable-roof stadium that the lucrative franchise desperately wants.
Voters
starting to take a stand against stadium funding. In Sarasota, Fla., a $16 million bond
referendum was on the ballot to help fund a $45 million reconstruction of a stadium currently used by the
Cincinnati Reds for spring training. Another $7.9 million was to be spent to add land for practice
fields and its related construction costs. The total of some $52.9 million was to be funded by the
county, state and city, with the Reds contributing $10 million.
Stadium is fielding money —
from us. I wasn't overly alarmed when a Deseret Morning News headline announced last week that
the funding of Dave's Big Soccer Stadium will cost much more than we were originally told. … When it came
time to finalize the funding details for the soccer stadium last week, someone finally got around to mentioning
that it will cost more than the $45 million as advertised — it will cost another $28 mil
in interest, bringing the price tag to, ka-ching!, $73 million.
Private Benefits of Public
Stadium Financing: Public subsidies of professional sports stadiums provide no tangible public
good, a fact being recognized by more cities around the country, says an economist who's studied the issue.
"You see a lot more resistance (to taxpayer-funded stadiums) than you did in the past. I think people are
seeing the evidence that the benefit isn't there," said Phillip Miller, an economist at Minnesota State
University.
Baseline Welfare Cases: Stadiums, Subsidies, and the
Dole. Major League Baseball has become a regular recipient of corporate welfare. In
particular, taxpayer subsidies to fund ballparks — which once were the rarest of
exceptions — have become the norm. Unfortunately, over the years, some businesses and their
representatives — in particular, many state and local business groups — have been
regular supporters of subsidized stadiums. It is often the case, in fact, that the business leaders in a
community become the loudest cheerleaders for tax giveaways to baseball teams.
Leaky Stadiums — Milwaukee's
Stadium Experience. The typical argument used to sell a stadium construction contract to the
tax-paying public is that it improves the local economy. Money will be generated, and the taxes on the
new revenue will in theory offset the taxes used to subsidize the new stadium. The problem with this
stream of thought is the first step. How is that money generated? Most people have entertainment
budgets, and the $100 they spend taking the family to the ballgame is $100 that they don't spend on movies or
bowling later on in the month.
Ballpark figures:
Sports economists agree that cities — and taxpayers — get close to nothing from spending
public money on sports teams. What they haven't figured out is why we're still doing it.
Stadium Subsidies Scalp The Public.
Ever since the Boston Tea Party, public debate over whether to pay taxes and how to spend those dollars has been
a vibrant part of our democratic process in Massachusetts and across the nation. The debate over taxpayer
subsidies for the stadium that is proposed to replace the venerable Fenway Park is shaping up to be an epic battle
pitting the public interest and the public well-being against the well-financed powers that be.
Sports Stadium Madness: Why It Started, How
to Stop It. Nationally, subsidies to professional sports facilities cost taxpayers some
$500 million a year. More than $7 billion will be spent on new facilities by the year 2006,
with most of it coming from public sources. Communities that are hard-pressed to keep their schools open
or police on the beat are nevertheless entering into agreements to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to
bid away a professional sports team from another city.
Put pro sports blackmailers out
of business. Taxpayer subsidies for new sports stadiums have been responsible for some of the
biggest expansions of government during the 1990s. Cities have used public money to engage in unseemly
bidding wars, with pro teams playing government against government in quest of an ever-more-lucrative stadium
deal. As the bidding has risen, even teams with stadiums as young as 15 to 20 years old (like
the domes used by the Minnesota Twins and the Seattle Seahawks) are demanding new playpens costing upwards of
$400 million.
Stadium Subsidies Strike Out. Do public
subsidies for stadiums make sense? Many studies suggest the answer to that question is an emphatic NO.
Economist Robert Baade of the Heartland Institute, an Illinois think tank, analyzed the effects of professional
sports teams and stadiums on economic development in thirty-six metropolitan areas. The results, he found,
overwhelmingly indicated that professional sports is not statistically significant in determining economic
growth rates.
The Stadium Gambit and Local Economic
Development. The evidence suggests that attracting a professional sports franchise to a city and
building that franchise a new stadium or arena will have no effect on the growth rate of real per capita income
and may reduce the level of real per capita income in that city.
Sports Pork: The Costly Relationship between
Major League Sports and Government. The lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners
and players. … Indeed, the results of studies on changes in the economy resulting from the presence of
stadiums, arenas, and sports teams show no positive economic impact from professional sports — or a
possible negative effect.
Caught Stealing: Debunking the Economic Case
for D.C. Baseball. District of Columbia mayor Anthony Williams has convinced Major League Baseball
to move the Montreal Expos to D.C. in exchange for the city's building a new ballpark. … A baseball team in
D.C. might produce intangible benefits. Rooting for the team might provide satisfaction to many local
baseball fans. That is hardly a reason for the city government to subsidize the team. D.C. policymakers
should not be mesmerized by faulty impact studies that claim that a baseball team and a new stadium can
be an engine of economic growth.
Mets, Yanks stadium
subsidies top $1.25 billion. Field of Schemes has obtained new figures from the New York
City Independent Budget Office (I'm sure they'll give them to anyone, but I asked) on the cost to taxpayers of
publicly subsidized tax-exempt bonds for the new Yankees and Mets stadiums. The verdict: The
$930 million in Yankees stadium bonds will cost the city $10 million in lost tax revenue, the state
$18 million, and federal taxpayers a whopping $200 million; for the Mets' $528 million in
tax-exempt bonds, the figures are $6 million city, $10 million state, and $115 federal.
Say It Ain't So: Stadium Subsidies in
Nevada. Research has shown that the economic benefits of subsidized stadiums are monumentally
overstated. For years, analysts have searched in vain for proof that the pro-subsidy hype peddled by
stadium supporters squares with reality. In fact, on this issue the level of agreement between
free-market, conservative and left-liberal economists and policy analysts is startling.
Poll:
48% Oppose Cotton Bowl Project. Almost half of Dallas residents say the city should pull the plug on a
planned $50 million face-lift for the Cotton Bowl, according to a Dallas Morning News poll. Even
though the City Council strongly supports the renovation, 48 percent of those polled last week said the
investment doesn't make sense now that the AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic, the January collegiate bowl game, has
announced that it's leaving in 2010.
$1.1 Billion Minnesota Twins Stadium
Tax. The Minnesota Twins have sued to get out of their lease so they can pressure
your lawmakers to buy them a stadium. The new lease presumably would be as worthless as
the one they just nullified. Meanwhile, the disenfranchised citizens — who will not be
allowed to vote on it — are stuck paying the tab.
Update:
Ballpark bill in scoring position.
The Minnesota Twins scored a major victory late Thursday [4/20/2006] when the [Minnesota] House Taxes Committee
said a sales tax could be used to help build a $522 million stadium in downtown Minneapolis
without requiring a referendum.
Minnesota Twins Win Stadium Subsidy
Deal. Years of concerted effort by the Minnesota Twins Major League Baseball team paid off on
May 26, when Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) signed a stadium subsidy bill before the start of the Twins game
against the Seattle Mariners. It was a good night for the Twins, as they won hundreds of millions
of tax dollars for a new stadium and then defeated the Mariners 3-1. But many analysts believe it
was a bad night for Minnesota taxpayers.
Penguins souring on Plan B. Gov.
Ed Rendell yesterday [1/19/2007] said the arena deal being offered the Penguins is better than others struck
recently in the National Hockey League, but the team has balked at a proposal to share development rights and
parking revenues with Pittsburgh casino backer Don Barden.
Florida Turns Down Subsidy for Marlins
Stadium. Although Florida lawmakers declined to provide financial assistance to the Florida
Marlins Major League Baseball franchise, a proposed move of the team to San Antonio, Texas has been killed.
[So! All that talk about leaving town was just an empty threat. Imagine that.]
Sports
Stadiums and the Effects on the Economy. Before the depression, stadiums such as Wrigley
Field, Tiger Stadium, Yankee Stadium, and Fenway Park were being built by using private funds. In
the 1980's America was spending about $1.5 billion on new stadiums; in the 1990's it spent
$11 billion. Furthermore, in 1967 the cost to build the Kingdome was $67 million,
in 1999 the cost to build Safeco Field was $517.6 million.
Election Fraud Investigation in San Francisco. An
investigation into allegations of organized fraud in the June 1997 stadium bond election in San Francisco.
The team that mistook its
stadium for a hat. Whenever a new major league baseball stadium opens, it's hailed as
an emblem of progress, a palace of sport, an engineering wonder, a centerpiece of the community,
and an immense improvement over its predecessor. In recent years, it has also become mandatory
to apply such overworked expressions as "state of the art," "intimate," and "old-fashioned ballpark
with all the modern conveniences." Historically, even underachievers such as San Francisco's
wind-cursed Candlestick Park and the multi-sport concrete ashtrays of the '70s have drawn opening-day
accolades — and, of course, so have the good ones.
Public Funding of
Stadiums: A very large collection of articles on this subject at No Land Grab dot org.
The name of the
game is money — tax money used to build sporting arenas. As players' salaries and ticket
prices spiral astronomically upward, it is the taxpaying public that is being stuck with the bill for
new stadiums. If there has been one constant in professional sports over the past 20 to 25 years,
it is that owners and players are becoming increasingly wealthy at the expense of fans, non-fans, and
taxpayers. In 1976, the average salary of major league baseball players was $51,000. That
jumped to $412,000 by 1987 and is well over $1,000,000 today.
Field of Schemes dot com is the companion
website to Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private
Profit, by Joanna Cagan and Neil deMause. Since 1998, we have been casting a critical eye on the
roughly $2 billion a year in public subsidies that go toward building new pro sports facilities.
Top 10 Dumbest Reasons to Build a New
Stadium.
Sports Stadiums Becoming Major Corporate
Welfare. "We are just pointing out two important facts," [Roger] Noll says. "Stadiums
are not a net local economic benefit, and the reasons cities are paying for them is because the (federal)
government made the professional leagues monopolies" — exempt from anti-trust laws
that apply to most other industries.
Take pro sports off the government
payroll. Call it "public funding" if you like, but the fact remains: There
is no such thing as public money. The government has no money, except what it takes from
the taxpayers. What the D.C. Council's agreement means is this: If I decide to
go to any games at the new stadium, which is to be completed in 2008, I will be paying
for a ticket to a game, at which I will buy drinks and hot dogs, and the entire spectacle will take
place in a facility that I helped pay for.
Ballpark
Boondoggle. Beginning in the early 1990s, an unprecedented stadium
construction boom has swept the world of professional sports. Since the opening
of New Comiskey Park in Chicago in April of 1991 a total of 28 new stadiums have
been built or are under construction to house professional football and baseball
franchises in the United States.
Big money
socialism: If the wealthy owners of sports teams want new stadiums, let them build
them with their own money. They're not entitled to our money. Just as cities take
people's homes so rich corporations can do what the politicians call "urban renewal," telling
the courts economic development is a "public use," sports tycoons argue their stadiums are in
the "public interest." Their politician friends tell voters that a stadium will "bring
jobs," be "good for the city," "pay for itself." Bunk. Study after study finds
stadiums cost far more than they return.
Bowl games and
traditions. It irks me that the Peach Bowl is now the Chick-fil-A Bowl. It vexes me to
hear the mandated phrase "Invesco Field at Mile High." I grieve the loss of the old and honored
place-names of sports: Candlestick Park, Three Rivers Stadium, Jack Murphy Stadium. … That corporate
names, attached to stadiums by means of vast expenditures, can make no claims to the people's veneration,
as opposed to their fleeting fancy, is no mere controversial assertion on my part — it is an admitted
feature of the principle of the system.
The
Capital Spenders: Why are $100,000 of our tax dollars going to the Tiger Woods
Foundation? This multi-millionaire can afford to support his own foundation. Why
must taxpayers continue to contribute to various sports halls of fame, including $75,000 for
the one in Syracuse, N.Y.? … Why is the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y.,
getting $450,000 for "educational outreach"?
Supposed economic
benefit? I'm fine with the idea of the Cowboys playing in Arlington,
but I wish owner Jerry Jones would write the check for it and leave Arlington taxpayers
alone. He'll get their money eventually, along with ticket, parking, food and
souvenir revenue from everyone else who comes to see the Cowboys of 2009 and beyond.
Dallas Cowboys' Shining
Star. The stadium will cost $1 billion by the time it's finished.
Stadium project is burning through $1 million
each day. The new Cowboys stadium is about 40 percent complete, and crews are spending nearly
$1 million a day to build the team's new home, construction manager Jack Hill said.
New
Cowboys stadium costs tower over others. Arlington Mayor Robert Cluck said since [Jerry] Jones is
paying for most of the stadium, taxpayers shouldn't have a problem. "Does it bother me?" he said. "No,
it does not. He is making a huge investment in Arlington." Jones' investment is about $725 million.
The city of Arlington's investment is about $475 million. For that kind of money, Arlington could have
built its own stadium like the Reliant Stadium in Houston, which is where the Houston Texans play. ... The big
difference is that the 50 yard line seats that are 20 rows up at the new Cowboys stadium will cost
you $150,000 for a personal seat license and $340 for a ticket.
City ordered to disclose secret arena
proposal. The city of Sacramento was ordered Thursday [10/26/2006] to turn over a copy of a
negotiating proposal sent to the owners of the Sacramento Kings as part of their discussions for a new
arena in the downtown railyard.
County Claims Bengals Cheated
Taxpayers. Hamilton County commissioners claim the team for which they built a
stadium and the league that oversees the team cheated them out of $600 million. One
of the most controversial pieces of evidence is the Bengals' win-loss record: The team said
it needed more money to be more competitive, but the Bengals still stink.
Jones' Subsidy Could Reach
$1.2 Billion. The stadium deal for Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys is
weighted heavily on the side of the team. The Cowboys emphasized during the tax initiative
campaign that they were putting up half the money for the stadium —
$325 million — but that isn't quite true. While the city will
use the new taxes to retire its side of the debt, Jones will be able to slap his own
10 percent "tax" on tickets and a $3 tax on parking to retire his side. That
will raise about $10 million a year, or $300 million over 30 years.
Take
Me Out of the Ballgame. Generally in these agreements the city will pay part of the
costs and the team pays the rest. In this case, Arlington increased property, car rental and
hotel taxes to pay for the city's share. But according to a story in the Dallas Morning News,
it also wants to levy a 10 percent tax on tickets and a $3 parking tax. The twist here is
that those user taxes will be applied toward the Cowboy's portion of the bill.
An End to Sports Welfare? When
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones asked Arlington, Texas voters to pay for a new stadium last November, he
did not call the classic plays from the sports welfare playbook. He could not say America's Team
needed a state-of-the-art facility to compete, since Texas Stadium (in the Dallas-adjacent suburb of
Irving) has more luxury suites than any other stadium in the National Football League (NFL) and the
Cowboys won three Super Bowls in the 1990s. He could not say he was financially strapped, since
his franchise ranks sixth in the NFL in profits and second in revenue, according to Forbes magazine.
Baseball stadium is
striking out in the nation's capital. The District of Columbia "won" a bidding
war for the Montreal Expos by promising to construct a $440 million stadium, one of the
most expensive ever. But total projected costs already have ballooned
to $530 million. And author Charles C. Euchner warns: "Count
on that cost ballooning past $600 million or more. Public works projects
invariably run over budget by at least 25 percent."
Our national
disgrace. Today we hardly bat an eye when a large enterprise like a sports
stadium is started not by business people, but by politicians. Or when one of the
poorest-run cities in the nation distracts itself from improving its badly provided essential
services to engage in what has become a rich-man's luxury. Or when we see captains of
industry reduced from creators of wealth to welfare addicts. … In the end, the argument is
that this kind of subsidy creates jobs and profits and thus "pays for itself." Of course,
it doesn't. The so-called economics used to justify these subsidies to major league sports
are worth less than the literary value of infield chatter. A simple truth remains: When
it is economical to invest in a stadium, private enterprise will do so. When it is not,
then it shouldn't be done.
I'd ride the subway, but I haven't enough change.
Stop the Squeeze
Play. As Major League Baseball announced it was bringing in a mediator to pinch-hit for a
baseball stadium lease settlement that could heavily burden taxpayers, a letter to [Washington DC] City Council
Members today [1/19/2006] from five citizen groups pitching from the right and left of the political spectrum
contended that the costly bidding game should be called on account of fiscal recklessness.
Stadium parking garage to be above
ground. Officials in charge of building the Washington Nationals' new ballpark in Southeast
are negotiating a deal with Western Development to build two parking garages above ground at the stadium
site and wrap them with condominiums and retail.
Public Funded
Fresno Stadium. Partisan forecasts made by some local economists have grossly
overestimated the economic benefits and understated the economic costs of the Diamond Group's
proposed publicly funded minor league baseball team stadium.
Is There An
Economic Rationale for Sports Stadium Subsidies? Controversy shadows sports
in the United States. Sports are so deeply woven into the fabric of our culture that
disputations about them are inevitable. Sports are leisure; sports are business; sports
are religion. The multiple personalities of sports are nowhere more visible than in the
many municipal stadium debates taking place throughout the country. City leaders from
Miami to San Francisco have summoned sound economic management as their star witness in defending
plans to subsidize the renovation or construction of stadiums.
Government-funded
stadiums are not worth price of admission. Games and circuses once were provided
by government. How better to satiate the desire of the Roman masses than to entertain
them in the Arena? Today, governments build stadiums to attract sports franchises for
the same purpose. But the American masses seem to be tiring of transferring billions
of dollars to billionaire team owners.
Corporate welfare, Dallas-style:
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones claims to have lost 55 pounds through renouncing cheeseburgers and
beer. Now it's time for a real diet. Imagine how much Jerry could contribute to the public weal
through renouncing the public money he wants for a new football stadium.
Watchdog cries foul on
ballpark. A government watchdog group plans to ask the D.C. Office of Campaign
Finance to investigate whether the use of city employees to solicit letters of support for the
mayor's $440 million baseball stadium-financing plan constitutes an ethics violation.
Public Dollars, Private Stadiums. Do sports stadiums
really revitalize a community, bringing revenue, jobs, and status as a "major league" city? Since the
mid-1980s, nearly ten billion dollars of public money have financed new playing fields in the US, so they must
be worth the investment, right?
Chicago Stadiums Fail to Deliver Promised
Benefits. Chicago has two taxpayer-subsidized sports stadiums, neither of which appears to be
living up to the promises made by supporters of taxpayer funding. U.S. Cellular Field, home of the
Chicago White Sox, is supposed to pay rent to the state after attendance hits a certain figure, but in recent
years attendance has been below the target, effectively giving the White Sox a rent-free stadium.
Experts Agree: Public
Support for Stadiums Is Madness. Although research proves sports stadiums
drain public resources, are of minimal or no economic benefit, and enrich primarily the
owners of sport teams, St. Louis and Missouri might succumb and dole out many millions
for decades to come.
"Publicly funded sports stadiums are like crack cocaine to local politicians and business bigwigs. These
folks are just like addicts: They deceive everyone around them for the sake of a fix and rarely take no
for an answer when voters decline to subsidize their schemes."
— Michael W. Lynch,
Reason Magazine *
Egregious Earmark of the Week: $100,000 to
Fix Orange Show Stadium. Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) has spotted this week's egregious earmark
buried in the Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill (H.R. 3058) for fiscal year 2006. The
noteworthy pork project comes to the grand total of $100,000 allotted to the city of San Bernardino, Calif.,
for making renovations to the National Orange Show Stadium.
Home Run
for Corporate Welfare: During the twentieth century, more than $14 billion in
government subsidies went to the four major professional sports — Major League
Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey
League. While cities build fields of dreams for teams, hoping they will come, it isn't clear
there are economic gains. Three experts on the economics of tax-funded stadiums examined the
need for subsidies of sports teams and the economic impact of sports on local economies.
Sports Stadiums: No
Pot of Gold for Cities. Sports stadiums may have psychological and even
political benefits, but they are falsely sold as an economic development tool. Cities
and boosters ought to rely on private capital for funding these structures.
Tax-Exempt Bonds and the Economics of
Professional Sports Stadiums. An economist for the Congressional Research Service concludes
that federal, state, and local taxpayers don't benefit economically from subsidizing professional sports
stadiums.
Public Financing of Sports Stadiums: How
Cincinnati Compares. Hamilton County, Ohio, asks taxpayers to approve a sales tax increase to
raise funds to subsidize new sports stadiums for the Reds and Bengals. Ultimately, taxpayers must
determine for themselves whether an investment in sports will make life better.
Sports Stadiums
Can Be Privately Financed. This report concludes Ohio is out of step
with other states and cities, which have moved away from public financing, and toward private
financing, of sports stadiums.
Stadiums,
Professional Sports, and Economic Development: Assessing the Reality. About
one century ago, professional sports became prominent in American public life. During
its early years, the business of sports was primarily a private undertaking, financed with
private money and played in private stadiums and arenas. But state and local government
subsidies to professional sports businesses have proliferated over the past few decades,
and economic arguments have been crafted to justify the subsidies. … Public funds are increasingly
scarce. We must test the argument that professional sports offer an important return on government
subsidies. The purpose of this paper is to use economic theory and empirical techniques to assess
the contribution of professional sports to metropolitan area economic development in the United
States.
D.C. Councilwoman
Stands against Taxpayer-Funded Stadium — For a While. Major
League Baseball was thrown a curveball on December 15 [2004] as District of Columbia
Councilwoman Linda Cropp (D) tried to help local taxpayers by changing the
financing rules for a proposed new stadium.
A New Baseball
Statistic for Opening Day: Government subsidies for professional sports
stadiums are not only economically unsound, they are unfair to sports fans and non-fans alike.
Where
Have You Gone, Joe DiMaggio? And Where are the Stadiums You Played In? The
modern stadium barely tips its hat to its ancestors anymore, rather it prefers to
dance on their graves. How unfortunate to think that one of the establishments that
helped to bring America together and forge our nation as one has evolved into nothing
more than a greedy child constantly asking for money.
No Jones Tax! It is not the
job of taxpayers to build facilities for private business entities. The mission
of No Jones Tax campaign is to prevent taxpayers from paying higher taxes, new taxes, or
for new give-away schemes to build a new stadium for Jerry Jones. Jerry Jones
can build his own stadium without our tax dollars.
We Wuz Robbed! The Subsidized Stadium
Scam. While the actual sport of baseball is an excellent metaphor for the free market
(illustrating how individuals and teams work together and compete against one another), at the professional
level nearly all the teams play in government-owned or government-subsidized ballparks.
Here's a Deal We Can Afford to Refuse: From
Cleveland to Baltimore to Chicago, cities nationwide have repeatedly been suckered by team owners who claim they
can't operate profitably without state-of-the-art, taxpayer-funded facilities offering luxury boxes and other
high-dollar seating arrangements.
It's "play ball"… with taxpayer
money. Down the road, maybe these saps — AKA taxpayers — may balk at paying
for stadiums, luxury skyboxes, parking concessions, tax abatements, and various other schemes that funnel
taxpayer money to billionaire owners.
Public
Interest is Usually Special Interest: Special interest groups have been quick to tap the public
till. Of course, they usually aren't so blunt as to demand tax money for their personal benefit.
They have found a more effective strategy: obtain government subsidies for their pet project by arguing
that it will benefit everyone in the community. Their project, in fact, is something we all "need."
It's amazing what a person will "need" when someone else is picking up the tab.
The
sports stadium scam: What is seen and what is not seen. Taxpayer
subsidization of professional sports facilities is almost always a losing bet,
economically speaking. The economic impact studies employed by politicians,
the news media, and pro sports owners to support government-financed facilities
are beset by methodological problems and don't count all the relevant costs.
Public-Private
Promises 1: Three Rivers Stadium [Part 1]. Pittsburgh's
Three Rivers Stadium is deemed "economically obsolete for baseball" by boosters
of the Forbes Field II project, yet privately owned Busch Stadium in
St. Louis, similar in age and design, has generated profits
every year since its opening.
Public-Private
Promises [Part 2]
Stadium subsidies are
being offered by local governments but they offer few or no benefits to residents.
Should Congress Stop the Bidding War for Sports
Franchises? On November 29, 1995, the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition
of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on sports franchise relocation. That testimony is
summarized here.
Government Stadium Subsidies
Would "Pick Pockets of Taxpayers to Line Pockets of Teams". According to
a study by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF),
the $200-$360 million in stadium subsidies being offered by local
governments would offer few or no benefits to residents.
Sports
Stadium Stampede Could Trample Taxpayers for $15 Billion. Between
1990 and 2000, the average Major League Baseball salary rose 243 percent, and
the average National Football League salary increased 143 percent. Tax subsidies
help team owners to offset or even inflate these expenses while maintaining their
profit margins.
Stadium Socialism: Research
shows that taxpayer-financed sports facilities aren't economically justified, according to
economists. A national poll conducted by Media Research and Communications found that
80 percent of Americans oppose using their tax dollars for sports
stadiums and areas. But city and state politicians keep building them.
Bush's
baseball tax fetish: Economist Raymond J. Keating of the Washington,
D.C.-based Small Business Survival Committee estimates the total costs of building
big league ballparks at $11.5 billion, with taxpayers picking up about 81 percent
of the tab, or $9.3 billion.
Baseball in the Nation's
Capital: Games with Tax Dollars. Sports teams have grown accustomed
to receiving a healthy dose of public money for nearly any stadium project.
Game Plan: Cincinnati
voters approved a sales-tax increase in 1996 that would pay for about 90 percent of
the $450 million Paul Brown Field. PSINet Stadium, home of the Super Bowl
champion Baltimore Ravens, was built almost entirely with public money. Revenue
bonds and sports lottery money accounted for $200 million of the $223 million
price tag. The Jacksonville Jaguars invested only $10.5 million in
the $135 million reconstruction of Alltel Stadium in 1995.
Your
Bread, Kansas City's Circus: The IRS has recently ruled that an
elaborate plan devised by the lawyers of the former owner of the Kansas City Royals to
keep the baseball team in town served a charitable purpose on the ground that
it will lessen the burdens of government.
Everyone Wants A Taxpayer-Funded Stadium, Except
Taxpayers. It's good to be the owner of a sports franchise. Not only do you rake in
millions from inflated ticket prices and exorbitantly marked-up concessions, but you can convince the state
into chipping in money to build or maintain your stadium.
Squeeze Play: Do Baseball Stadiums Need Our Bucks
to Get Built? For taxpayers, the first game of the season is also a pretty good time to ponder
ever-larger government handouts to millionaire team owners and players.
Should We Pay For Sports Arenas? Do
cities really benefit from having a professional team? I am not sure that they do.
State-subsidized Slush: While the
jury is still out on the economic costs and benefits of new municipally supported stadia, the benefit to the
fans is, shall we say, minimal? How about almost non-existent.
Subsidized Ballparks Price Fans Away.
New evidence indicates that sports fans who vote to subsidize sports arenas with their taxpayer dollars quite
possibly could be denied entry at the gate.
Pro
Sports on the Dole: Government officials would better focus their attention
on creating a healthy economic environment for their respective cities and states by lowering
taxes, reducing regulatory burdens, and paring down the size of government.
Taxpayers
Shouldn't Subsidize Pro Sport. In 1994, the Edmonton Oilers persuaded
Edmonton's councillors to institute a ticket tax to help the team pay its $2.8 million
annual rent, and then managed to have the rent scrapped entirely last year, while still
retaining ticket tax proceeds. Talk about eating and having your proverbial cake.
Sports Stadium Madness… Still Ripping Off
Taxpayers. Future historians will look back on the 1980s and 1990s with amazement.
Communities hard-pressed to keep their schools open or police on the beat nevertheless spent billions of
dollars on stadiums and arenas for use by professional sports teams. Mediocre athletes were paid more in
a single season than the average taxpayer earned in a lifetime. Tickets were priced so high that the
average taxpayer, whose earnings were taxed to build these facilities, could not afford to walk through the
turnstile.
Olympic Boondoggle:
Careful What You Wish For. Federal, state and local taxpayers end up paying for these Olympic
athletic enterprises with few lasting benefits.
Minnesota Twins beat taxpayers in
extra innings. Score: Twins: $330 million, Taxpayers: big losers. "This bill
isn't a deal. It isn't even the outline of a deal. It is simply the first step in which the
legislature has acknowledged the principle that taxpayers should be on the hook for financing new stadiums for
professional sports teams," said David Strom, Legislative Director of the Taxpayers league of Minnesota.
How Taxpayers Prop Up Sport Mogul's
Profits: Sports teams and their facilities have little measurable impact on the economic vitality
of a community. As pro team owners hunker down to protect their interests, it is the hapless taxpayer who
will get stuck holding the bag for non-performing assets, not to mention the collateral damage from
non-performing schools. This is the choice many communities now face, and hopefully more will
choose wisely in the future than have done so in the past.
Tax
Me Out of the Ball Game: Construction of the
new Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati will cost local taxpayers at least
400 million dollars. Despite this enormous public investment, there is no
guarantee that the Cincinnati Bengals will continue to do anything but lose. Actually,
the only thing the Bengals have promised not to do now is - leave. Try to contain your
excitement. Stadium deals financed with public dollars are one of the most egregious
forms of corporate welfare at the municipal level. Yet, there is no real outcry
because professional sports organizations have done a masterful job of promoting
a myth. The myth is that professional sports franchises and their stadiums are
good for local economies. Unfortunately, there is no real evidence to support this.
Public Funding of Stadiums:
Governments Must Simply Say No: Using public moneys to help fund the construction of new, or the
renovation of existing, stadiums is bad public policy. Teams owners often want new stadiums in part (at
least) to realize greater profits and increase the values of their teams. New stadiums can create from
$10 million to $40 million in additional annual income for an owner. Even if the extra revenue
is used solely for players' salaries, the owner still benefits, because the value of the team increases:
Baseball teams that had the highest venue revenue in 1996 tended to be the teams with the greatest franchise
value. Hence, public money invested in stadiums ends up eventually benefitting team owners and players.
Wasting Taxes On Sports
Is A Favorite U.S. Pastime: Americans spend billions in tax dollars to subsidize professional
sports. The government lies, saying stadiums will pay for themselves. It never happens.
Meanwhile, many fear a tax cut will short-change government, mistakenly believing it is the source of all
good. We have lost the awareness that we control our own destiny, instead relying on government.
Rowdy fans and athletes:
Putting
Sports on Notice: The statistics regarding violence at school and other amateur sporting
events have been cited regularly in the media — yet violence at those events continues
unabated. … It is time for every parent, if not every prospective spectator of an organized
athletic event, to consider the wisdom of attending contests that have become as much about the
egos of the fans as about the players.
The
Last Resort for Losers. Nowhere in the rule book of any sport is criminal
violence authorized. Even in those sports events where physical force is part of the
competition, causing injury to an opponent may be incidental to the goal of the competition
but it is not the goal itself. Even in boxing, a sport about which there is debate over
the whether it has crossed the line to violence for violence sake, there are rules which
must be observed.
Keep me out of the
ballgame. Today, taking your son or daughter to a major sports event might require a helmet and
earplugs. Too many players aspire to create gangsta images and cover themselves with tattoos, record nasty
rap albums in their spare time, and push and kick a cameraman or two just to maintain that bad-boy image.
Amoral media, lowlife fans,
spoiled athletes and beer. Let's finally stop repeating the false notion that big business has
conservative values. Big business has no values. … Liberals perpetuate the falsehood of big business
as conservative for three reasons: They have a materialist view of the world (just about everything is
explainable by economic status and motives; it aids in getting people to vote Democrat); many people resent the
amorality of big companies; and it seems to counter the argument that the major news media are
liberal — "How could the news media possibly be liberal when they are all owned by
large corporations!"
Obviously, Sports Do Not Build Character.
If you are one of those people who believe the old adage "sports builds character," you have some explaining to
do. Why are so many professional athletes, who have spent their entire lives in organized sports, masters
at cheating, serial adultery, drunkenness, compulsive gambling, drug abuse, and thuggish fighting (to name just
a few of the vices)? … By character I mean moral excellence: a life characterized by prudence, fortitude,
self-discipline, and humility in pursuit of what is good.
Morons
disguised as hockey fans. Montreal was the lead story on morning TV news on both sides of the
Canada-U.S. border yesterday, but the Canadiens' Game 7 victory over the Boston Bruins was merely a
footnote. The big story was the violence and vandalism that grew out of the celebrations after the
Canadiens' win. I'm not sure what Monday night's carnage means, but there's an argument to be made that
our society is headed in the wrong direction.
Nashua
woman charged with murder after Sox-related argument. A Nashua, New Hampshire woman is being held without bail
after prosecutors say she ran down a man outside a bar — after a argument witnesses say was about the Red Sox and Yankees.
Other sports news and commentary:
'Bullies'
Team Name Draws Protests. Anti-bullying advocates are beating up on the name chosen for the new
professional basketball team in Syracuse, N.Y. The Syracuse Bullies will play in the American Basketball
Association beginning this fall.
Ballgame keepsake goes electronic.
The paper ticket might be on its way to joining AstroTurf and scheduled doubleheaders in the graveyard of sports
obsolescence. A host of professional teams, including the Washington Nationals, are introducing new systems
allowing fans to enter games using their cell phone, driver's license or similar means, potentially making paper
tickets a thing of the past.
Anthem Skipped
Before Monday Night Game. Sports in America start with the national anthem.
The Dolphins-Steelers game was an exception. Rushing to begin the nationally televised
matchup following a 25- minute weather delay, the NFL chose to skip the anthem Monday night
[11/26/2007] before Miami played Pittsburgh. The game started without any of the
traditional pregame ceremonies, except the coin toss, and neither team was introduced
on the public address system.
America's Newest 'Victims':
There's a new class of victims in America: former NFL players. … There's no doubt that many
former players are physical wrecks. But should we feel sorry for them? After all, many
players reveled in the fact that they could punish their bodies week after week and continue to
play. Noticeably absent from this debate is any discussion about the personal responsibility
these players bear for their post-career conditions.
The TV Deal
the NBA Wishes It Had Not Made. Roughly once a month, the NBA cuts 31 checks to NBA teams as
revenue from its multibillion-dollar national television contract. There are only 30 NBA franchises, so
who gets the extra check? … Ozzie and Dan Silna, co-owners of the long-forgotten ABA team, the Spirits
of St. Louis. It ranks as one of the best sports deals in modern times, one that has paid the
Silnas about $168 million and continues to pay off.
Bigotry and Sports:
Although not too many years ago, sports-writing was considered the "toy department" of journalism, the boys and
girls in the press box have been eager to catch up to their counterparts in the "real" world. And so, they
are also no longer content with merely reporting the scores, trades and what have you; they must now generate
the news. And, similar to the mainstream media, they need divisive issues in order to push the agenda of
all J-school graduates: to change the world.
Bills confiscate critical banners from
fans. Motivated by the failure of his Bills, season-ticket holder Mike Allenbaugh
carried a sign of protest to the final home game. But security forces took it away shortly before
kickoff Dec. 17. … "It's just ridiculous," he said this week. "I can go in there
and say, 'Go Bills.' Why can't I say, 'I don't like you as a manager?'"
Judge Calls NFL Coach's Home
"A Drug Emporium". A judge who sentenced Philadelphia Eagles coach Andy Reid's sons to jail on
Thursday [11/1/2007] likened the coach's home to "a drug emporium" and questioned whether his adult sons
should live there. … O'Neill noted that searches of the Reid home found illegal and prescription drugs
throughout the house. He said both boys had been overmedicated throughout much of their lives….
MSNBGreen: "We have turned out
the lights in the studio," NBC's Bob Costas told viewers of Sunday's Dallas Cowboys-Philadelphia Eagles game,
"to kick off a week that will include more than 150 hours of programming designed to raise awareness
about environmental issues." … On a typical game day, a large football stadium burns about 65,000 kilowatt
hours of electricity and 35,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The cars driving to the game spew about 200
metric tons of CO2 (and that assumes nobody's driving SUVs or RVs, which is like assuming tailgaters are
eating only sushi). There's also the electricity used to broadcast the game and to watch it. But
thank goodness Costas turned off the studio lights for a minute or two.
Washington
Post Toughens Redskins Coverage; Team Yanks Newspaper's 267 Season Tickets. For
many Washingtonians, a season ticket to Washington Redskins games is almost as
valuable as a place at a White House dinner. This week the Redskins cut the number
of season tickets held by the Washington Post from 279 to 12.
A
Cut Above: Why wait for an injury? The next-generation performance
enhancer is elective surgery.
$3.5 Billion
bid to buy the entire NHL. An investment firm and a sports advisory
company reportedly made a joint proposal to buy all 30 NHL teams for as much as $3.5 billion.
A gesture
from the NFL. Neither the Vikings nor the NFL could have been surprised by
[Randy] Moss' misbehavior. "An assault charge had cost him time in jail and a
Notre Dame scholarship," Newsweek noted in a profile two seasons ago. "A drug
offense sent him back to jail and off the Florida State team."
Should Governments Own Convention
Centers? Government-subsidized convention centers are chronic money losers.
Annual
Survey of Football Injury Research: Some football fatalities result directly
from participation in the fundamental skills of football; others are caused by systemic
failure as a result of exertion, e.g., asthma, heat stroke, and heart problems.
More and
more banks are placing their names on ball parks and arenas. Banks
are warming up to the idea of paying for the national exposure that only
professional sports teams can offer. And several major league baseball teams that
have seen attendance drop and revenues fall in recent years, have been spreading
out the welcome mat to banks willing to put up some dough.
Non-athletic corporate welfare:
CEO Makes the Case Against Corporate
Welfare. With nearly 100 stores in 18 states, Gander Mountain is the nation's third-largest
outdoors retailer. Unlike its two larger competitors, Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's, Gander Mountain has
achieved impressive growth without seeking targeted tax incentives from state or local governments. In
this interview, Gander's chief executive, Mark Baker, tells us why he believes government officials should
oppose retail tax incentives.
Costco's Corporate Welfare:
Tracking published reports on the abuse of eminent domain, one finds Costco is the leading beneficiary of this
kind of corporate welfare, having taken government-confiscated land three times more often then its next rival.
Don't spend millions for billionaires. King
County is building a $36 million sewage treatment and irrigation plant in Redmond, but so far the only
private customer is the Willows Run Golf Course, owned by multi-billionaire Paul Allen and his brother-in-law.
Airport Privatization in the U.S.:
With all of the furor in the recent past over airport security, one fact has gotten lost in the shuffle:
All 10 of the busiest airports in the U.S. are owned and operated by municipalities. Public ownership
and operation of airports is often taken for granted, but that doesn't mean it's best. Public ownership
and operation — which brings a political dimension to hiring and operations — may result
in increased operating costs and other inefficiencies.
Fans Want to Watch Sports, Not Hollywood
Gimmicks. The idea that sports are not enough for sports fans seems to have been behind the fiasco
of putting Dennis Miller's silly chatter on Monday Night Football. Fortunately, the producers of that
program finally got the message that football fans want football. How long will it take producers of
baseball telecasts?
What's
Wrong with Players on Steroids? So athletes use steroids to perform
better. Wall Street traders take Ritalin and everyone uses caffeinated drinks
during work to stay alert. News anchors get face lifts and actors take
Botox so more people watch them. What's different about athletes?
Hey, it wasn't
my fault. Rafael Palmeiro, the Baltimore Orioles star, told Congress that
he had absolutely, positively never used steroids, but then he failed a urine test. So
last week, he repeated his never-ever statement but inserted a new word: He never
intentionally used them. He said: "I am sure you will ask how I tested positively
for a banned substance. As I look back, I don't have a specific answer to give. I
wasn't able to explain how the banned substance entered my body."
Separation
of Sport and State? The Imperial Federal Government is once again sticking their
collective noses in places where they do not belong. The House Committee on Government
Reform is scheduled to hold hearings next week on steroids in baseball. They have "formally
requested" the presence of some of baseball's past and present stars and have threatened to
use their subpoena power for others if they do not cooperate willingly.
Baseball, steroids
and kids. Distributing steroids carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison
and $250,000 for the first felony offense. So, why are there no prosecuted athletes?
25 years
of ESPN. America is a lot richer than it was [when ESPN began] in 1979,
but not that much richer. Something else is afoot, turning so many
eyes — that is what pulls the tide of money — to sports. Perhaps
people are drawn to sports because they really don't mean a thing.
The great halftime
threat: Are we really so starved for entertainment that we can't go a few moments without
some no-talent has-been fresh out of rehab banging out an alleged song that you've already heard too many
times through your car window at the nearest intersection? ... Halftime has morphed into a monster that
overshadows the game.
Super Bowl Host Is the Poorest Big
City in the US. Before the Super Bowl kickoff this weekend, private planes will land here,
limousines will clog the streets, and lavish parties will be thrown for those with famous names or lots
of money. The kitchens of Ford Field will be stocked with two tons of lobster. Much of the
rest of Detroit, though, is a landscape dotted with burned-out buildings, where liquor stores abound but
supermarkets are hard to come by, and where drugs, violence and unemployment are everyday realities.
[In other words, hosting the Super Bowl does not provide an automatic boost to the
local economy. Only a handful of people benefit from it. The same is true
when a new stadium is built.]
NFL
Pulls Plug On Big-Screen Church Parties For Super Bowl. For years, as many as 200 members of
Immanuel Bible Church and their friends have gathered in the church's fellowship hall to watch the Super
Bowl on its six-foot screen. ... But this year, Immanuel's Super Bowl party is no more. After a crackdown
by the National Football League on big-screen Super Bowl gatherings by churches, the Springfield church
has sacked its event. Instead, church members will host parties in their homes. Immanuel is
among a number of churches in the Washington area and elsewhere that have been forced to use a new
playbook to satisfy the NFL, which said that airing games at churches on large-screen TV sets
violates the NFL copyright. Ministers are not happy.
The Editor says...
If the church has a cover charge, I can see how the NFL would have a case. But as long as there
is no charge for attendance (even for food, presumably) it's not a commercial use of the telecast,
and the NFL lawyers would have to do some smooth talking to get that one past a jury. On the
other hand, what kind of church condones the Super Bowl halftime bump-and-grind show?
The NCAA's battle against politically incorrect mascot names:
Apparently even the most oblique reference to Indians is perceived as hostile and abusive by the NCAA.
The latest:
Chancellor Supports Retiring 'Fighting Sioux'
Logo That Threatens Hockey Arena. Bill Goetz, North Dakota's university system chancellor, said
Thursday [11/15/2007] at a Board of Higher Education meeting he will support retiring University of North
Dakota's "Fighting Sioux" logo and nickname in less than three years if the school and Sioux tribes cannot
agree to keep it.
NCAA
wants sealed court documents. The NCAA will ask a Grand Forks Circuit Court judge on Wednesday
[3/7/2007] to shield documents from public view in its court case against UND over the Fighting Sioux
nickname. North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said most of the documents the NCAA wants
concealed from the public have to do with discussions among the association's Executive Committee while
drafting its 2006 policy on American Indian nicknames and imagery.
Booing at games may be banned.
The organization that oversees high school sports in Washington is considering rules for fans that could ban
booing and offensive chants. The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association has not made an
official ruling, but has discussed guidelines to crack down on negative conduct, a spokesman said. Some
of the state's top coaches believe a boo ban is extreme.
The Editor says...
This is political correctness carried to its extreme in the land of the easily offended. Are
spectators expected to cheer for both teams? I think the courts would rule that booing, however offensive,
is constitutionally-protected free speech.
Illinois'
Chief Illiniwek performs last dance. After 20 years of pressure from activists who found
the University of Illinois mascot offensive, the school did away with Illiniwek and his antics. Dan
Maloney, a graduate student who portrays the controversial American Indian mascot, performed for the final
time in front of students and fans at a men's basketball game Wednesday night [2/21/2007].
Our First
Thoughts on the Chief Debacle. It's bad enough that Chief Illiniwek has danced his last
dance. That fact visibly slammed sorrow into the hearts of thousands of faithful Illini on Wednesday
night as men, women, and children hung their heads and even shed their tears. If the fight to retire
the Chief by so-called "oppressed" minorities and hypersensitive leftists is about retribution and vengeance,
then they got what they wanted. But the story unfolding in the aftermath of the Chief's departure is
larger than our beloved tradition.
North Dakota to sue NCAA over mascot
ruling. The University of North Dakota plans to sue the NCAA to avoid penalties for using
the school's Fighting Sioux nickname and Indian head logo, which the association considers demeaning to
American Indians.
W&M
will drop the feathers from its athetics logo. William and Mary will drop the feathers from its
athetics logo to comply with the NCAA's request, the school announced Tuesday [10/10/2006]. The phase-out
process will begin during the 2007-08 school year. The NCAA in 2004 identified W&M, whose nickname is
the "Tribe," as a school with a logo or nickname that could be viewed as "hostile and abusive" in relation to
Native Americans.
High
schools defend use of tribal-themed mascots. Educators from small-town Oregon came to the
capital Tuesday [10/23/2007] to argue that their high schools should remain the Indians, Warriors and
Braves as a respectful way to honor Native American culture and history. Fourteen superintendents and
principals from Amity to Warrenton spoke forcefully at a state Department of Education meeting against a
proposal to ban their Native American mascots.
Name blame by the NCAA is just so
lame. The NCAA hates — and has vowed to crush — any school with a sports
nickname that doesn't measure up to politically correct standards. … The NCAA considers
Fighting Illini, Fighting Sioux and Indians hostile and abusive. Worse yet, those names
are "inconsistent with the NCAA commitment to diversity, respect and sportsmanship," the
organization said in a news release.
NCAA says Newberry agrees to drop
Indians nickname. Newberry College has agreed to drop its "Indians" nickname and has been taken
off the list of schools facing postseason bans because of hostile or abusive logos and mascots. The
school was taken off the list Friday [11/10/2006] after it told the governing body about the planned change,
NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said Sunday.
Those fighting Sioux nickname lose sight of most
Indian views. Never mind that a well-known Indian artist designed the UND logo of a proud Sioux
warrior. Never mind that this image resembles the stately Indian on U.S. "buffalo" nickels, and on North
Dakota's highway patrol cars and highway signs. Never mind that sports teams choose names that symbolize
what they honor — courage on the battlefield — not what they mock or despise. The
forces of political correctness have embraced this latest victim-creating issue and won't
let it go.
Nickname debate gains steam before NCAA
appeal. The nickname debate is heating up at the University of North Dakota, just days before
the NCAA plans to hear an appeal of the school's Fighting Sioux logo. The NCAA has listed UND among
schools with nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive," barring those colleges from holding postseason
games unless they get rid of the Indian imagery. Some schools, including Florida State, have won appeals.
NCAA Declines
Three Appeals on Indian Mascots. The NCAA's executive committee on Friday [4/28/2006] rejected
appeals by Illinois, North Dakota and Indiana University of Pennsylvania to continue using Indian nicknames,
mascots and imagery deemed "hostile" and "abusive" at NCAA championship events. The committee also
placed Bradley on a watch list for five years, the first school in the nation to earn that
distinction. Friday's actions leave seven of the original 18 schools on the offenders list.
Bradley
loses its mascot appeal to NCAA. The NCAA on Thursday [10/20/2005] denied Bradley University's
appeal of its inclusion on a list of schools with banned Native American mascots, saying the nickname Braves
"leads to a hostile or abusive environment." It was the first decision on an appeal from a school
without a namesake tribe from which it could cite support.
Editor's comments:
If the term "Braves" really is abusive and so universally offensive, why didn't the NCAA take action
twenty or thirty years ago? The answer is
simple: Political Correctness is
their motivation. The NCAA isn't acting out of generosity toward the Indian
tribes; on the contrary, it is responding to the threat of civil litigation from America's
over-abundance of lawyers.
The PC NCAA: Now
that the NCAA has banned the use of Native American nicknames and mascots during tournament competition,
it's time to make sure all other offensive nicknames and mascots are likewise eliminated.
Chief among the
silliness. Censorship — e.g., campus speech codes — often are academic
liberalism's preferred instrument of social improvement, and now the NCAA's censors say: The [University of Illinois] Chief
must go, as must the university's logo of a Native American in feathered headdress. Otherwise the
NCAA will not allow the university to host any postseason tournaments or events.
NCAA rejects Illinois' appeal of
mascot ban. Illinois lost its appeal of the ban on the university mascot
Friday [11/11/2005] and will remain on a list of schools prohibited from hosting NCAA
postseason events after February. The NCAA will allow Illinois to keep its "Illini"
and "Fighting Illini" nicknames. The university contended those nicknames derived
from the name of the state.
NCAA denies UND's appeal over
Fighting Sioux nickname, logo. The National Collegiate Athletic Association has denied
an appeal by the University of North Dakota asking that it be removed from a list of schools subject
to restrictions because they have American Indian nicknames, mascots or images.
Playing politics and
Indians. The National Collegiate Athletic Association passed a new rule saying
college teams with Indian names and mascots cannot participate in NCAA championship events. "We
believe hostile or abusive nicknames are troubling to us and it can't continue," said Walter Harrison,
the NCAA committee chairman. "We're trying to send a message, very strongly, saying that these
mascots are not appropriate for NCAA championships." Hmmm? Teams can still have Indian
mascots, but only if they're not going to be champions. That's the silent bigotry
of low expectations!
Attack of the
Nannies. Polls keep showing that American Indians aren't really offended
by college team nicknames such as warriors, braves, Indians, Seminoles, and Fighting
Illini. But many sportswriters, campus "diversity" officials, and now the National
Collegiate Athletic Association think they ought to be. So the NCAA says it will ban
from championship play all college teams with "hostile or abusive" nicknames and
mascots. It apparently took this action without consulting tribal leaders.
The NCAA's nickname
ban: I cannot conceive of a college with an Indian nickname that has hostile
intent. Most colleges using these nicknames and logos do so in admiration of the
indigenes' spirit. What seems at play is the left-wing campus orthodoxy searching
for some offense against a designated victim group or subculture.
Don't
Offend Indians. Offend The Evil White Man! The NCAA is now attempting to tell
member colleges that use of mascots and symbols they deem "offensive" to American Indians are to
be banned from post season play. That means teams like the Florida State Seminoles, and other
mainstays of post season college football bowl games would be denied the chance to
compete if they refused to cover up or change their logos and names.
College team names are
harmless compared to the NCAA. Athletics and sports in America are
fueling destructive obsessions. The inordinate wealth and celebrity garnered
by professional athletes is converting many youth sports leagues into training mills
that initiate career tracks for aspiring child athletes. Such hopes have helped
to birth an industry of training gadgets, sports schools, and instructional books and
video tapes. The desire for athletes to cash in on their talents has driven demand
for chemicals that supposedly enhance strength and agility.
'Civil Rights' Versus Sports Teams
Named After Indians: The US Patent and Trademark Office even stripped the
Washington Redskins of their trademark, citing a 1946 law banning the registration of
"disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous, or disreputable" names. (The decision is on
appeal.) Does it really need to be pointed out how idiotic all this is?
American
Indian Mascot Under Fire in North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina-Pembroke is fighting a request from the National Collegiate
Athletic Association to dump its "Braves" nickname and logo.
Students
put twist on mascots: Indian students in Colorado have
turned the tables in a debate on racism by naming their intramural
basketball team "The Fighting Whities."
And it's not just the NCAA ...
Braves strike out in
Richmond. The United Methodist Church has rejected Richmond for its 2012 international
conference because the city's minor league baseball team is named the Braves. "Many Native
Americans, if you ask them what they think about team mascots, will tell you that they find [them] to
be demeaning," said Stephen Drachler, a spokesman for the United Methodist Church. Apparently,
nobody asked Virginia's Monacan Nation, located near Lynchburg about 130 miles west of
Richmond. Kenneth Branham, Monacan chief, yesterday said, "The mascot thing has been
blown out of proportion."
Complaints and tradition mark
high school mascot struggle. While efforts to remove American Indian themed mascots from college
campuses continue to command a high profile, quieter struggles are ongoing in high schools, where the response
is just as mixed. Some schools, citing tradition, are resisting and insist their use is a sign of
respect even if Indian advocates disagree.
NCAA won't expand
Confederate flag ban. Wofford athletic director Richard Johnson wasn't sure what to think
last summer when the NCAA agreed to hear a request to expand its ban on South Carolina because of the
Confederate flag. … Enhancing the ban to include championships awarded on merit — like football
playoffs and baseball regionals — would've seriously hurt Wofford's chances of advancing in
future tournaments.
Formerly
Pork Chop, the mascot's new name is Ferrous. A handful of complaints from [Guillermo] Lopez and others, as well
as a steamed online community, prompted team officials to change the name of the mascot for the Triple A affiliate of
the Philadelphia Phillies to Ferrous. Team officials announced the switch midday Monday [12/3/2007].
Context of mascot's
name made it inoffensive. Five-year-old Kylie Shimkus of Easton thought it up, entered a contest and won. The
Lehigh Valley IronPigs had a name for their mascot, and it seemed like a darn good one: PorkChop. The name became official
Sunday. Monday, it was gone. Members of the area's Puerto Rican community protested the name as a common racial slur.
The IronPigs quickly changed it to Ferrous, a name which emphasizes the iron, not the pig. Was this necessary?
Back to the Home page
|
|
