A couple weeks ago I wrote about my
like-dislike relationship with the game of (American) football. After
reading it a friend suggested I read a book entitled The
Winner-Take-All Society by Robert H. Frank. I've added it to my
reading list but unfortunately my local library does not have a copy,
so I will have to look elsewhere. About the same time the current
issue of The Atlantic crossed my desk and I read a very
interesting article in it: “How the NFL fleeces taxpayers,”
written by Gregg Easterbrook. The article is adapted from
Easterbrook's soon-to-be-released book The King of Sports:
Football's Impact on America. I shall add this book to my reading
list as well, but the article alone was enough to bring me to the
conclusion that I need to withdraw my support from this league, if
the reasons I listed in my previous post were not sufficient.
In the article Easterbrook describes
how the NFL earns phenomenal profits for team owners and league
executives while passing the cost of stadiums to the taxpayers in NFL
cities. In an era of tight budgets and calls for decreased government
spending, in a time when resources for the poor, for education and
other truly useful services are being slashed by local and state
governments, politicians continue to shovel largesse to private teams
so that they won't move out of town. He cites numerous examples, all
of which made me wonder why I should continue to give any support to
this league. Why should taxpayers subsidize the Washington Redskins
to the tune of $4 million dollars to upgrade their workout facility,
when the team owner has an estimated net worth of $1 billion? Surely
Virginia taxpayers could direct that $4 million towards more useful
causes and $4 million out of Dan Snyder's $1 billion would hardly
even make a noticeable dent.
The NFL is ultimately a business. It's
about entertainment, but it's also about making money and it does
that fantastically well. The league will receive about $4 billion
dollars this season alone in broadcast rights. That's not counting
ticket sales, merchandising and other sources of income. I have no
bone to pick with the league and its teams for making money. If
people want to pay for tickets and merchandise, if networks believe
there is money to be earned in broadcasting the games, great.
However, don't ask the taxpayers of Footballtown, America to pick up
the bill for building, maintaining and upgrading the stadium that the
teams use to earn their money. Teams should build their own stadiums.
They could then choose to manage and lease them for other purposes as
they see fit, earning additional income. This would be preferable to
forcing communities to build these modern cathedrals, then paying
them a pittance in rent to use them for their games.
In return for the stadium “rental”
charges, teams receive in most if not all cases the exclusive right
to revenues generated within the stadium, including ticket sales,
concessions and, most importantly, revenue from the broadcast rights
that go with each game. These sources of income far outweigh the
rental fees the teams pay. When you factor in that the rental fees
often don't cover the cost of actually constructing the stadium and
paying off the debt for doing so, the teams essentially receive
government subsidies to run their very lucrative businesses. I find
it appalling that in a time when we hear politicians proclaiming the
need to cut subsidies to the poor of our nation we continue to
subsidize billionaire owners of sports teams. Something is seriously
wrong with this equation.
I imagine someone will point to the
economic “benefit” that sports teams bring to a city. Yes, they
generate some jobs, but I wonder whether they truly generate enough
local employment income, particularly jobs that pay a livable wage,
to merit the subsidies they receive. For example, Louisiana gives up
to $6 million a year to the owner of the New Orleans Saints as an
“inducement payment” so he (hopefully) won't consider relocating
the team. I would think that one could create a decent number of jobs
in other ways for $6 million a year.
I am thankful that I do not live in a
community with an NFL team, so I do not pay directly to support one
through my taxes, although I do not have any idea whether and how
much my state legislature has chosen to support the Arizona Cardinals
with my tax money. I feel sorry for the taxpayers of Glendale, who
get to pay for the shiny University of Phoenix stadium where the
Cardinals play. (I think, to be fair, that they chose to tax
themselves to build it, but I was not around at that time so I am not
familiar with the details.) The residents of Tempe and Mesa should
congratulate themselves on having the wisdom to reject efforts to
construct the stadium in their cities.
The NFL will continue with or without
my support. I don't even mind that they do. In fact I don't mind if
they continue making money. But I do mind that they do so on the
backs of taxpayers, when they do not need to do so. Team owners
should take responsibility for the expenses of their teams and not
expect taxpayers to subsidize them. Their earnings are more than
adequate to pay for their stadiums and upgrades and whatever else
they want. And if they aren't, then maybe they need to adjust their
business model rather than blackmailing cities into pouring millions
into their coffers. I don't expect them to change their ways, but
until they do, I don't need to be an active contributor to their
bottom line. I'm sure I can find better ways to spend my limited
income—as well as my Sunday afternoons.
No comments:
Post a Comment