SDCC, San Diego and the Chargers

[ERoy]

First post, although I read the column weekly.

To the person who posted a rather uninformed letter that Mr. Grant reposted in his column: you obviously don't know alot about sports in the area and are pre-disposed to hating them. It's also obvious you don't know alot about them.

First things first -- the Chargers aren't a 4-10 team. They went to the playoffs last year and were the #4 seed (for those who don't know, this means they had the fourth best record in the AFC behind the Super Bowl Champions Patriots, the 15-1 Steelers and the Manning-led Colts). They sold out all but 1 game at home this year, which means 65,000+ people PER GAME showed up, bought food and other items. Many I'm sure went to restaurants or stayed in hotels for the game. This is PER HOME GAME, not a once-a-year convention. Yes, the convention is great, but you cannot compare the advantages a NFL team brings to the city as opposed to a comic book convention. This is why when the NFL announces an expansion, cities bid on the opportunity to host a team.

The revenue it brings to a city is tremendous, not to mention the positive publicity it brings (the benefit, for example, the NFL brought to the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin cannot be put into words).

My suggestion is a little research might be beneficial. The letter wasn't even close to being correct, and again, was written by someone who for whatever reason is anti-sport.

[blast_front]

I should point out that Bob Kraft tried to extort cash out of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under threat of moving the team out of state. The state government didn't give in, Kraft found others ways to raise revenue for a new stadium, and the Patriots have won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years.

[fumetti]

Lots of teams strong arm their home towns, and towns often give in because they can't afford to lose the franchise. The Bengals got a new stadium and practice field along the river, and it required a massive highway restructuring.

Not everybody in the city cares if they have a team. But politicians and businesses use the teams as leverage to attract other new business. The teams are a bigger economic advantage than just a Sunday afternoon TV show. (Just ask Baltimore and St. Louis, who paid through the nose to replace lost teams.)

I used to complain that public dollars are subsidizing pro sports (by paying for stadiums, etc). But once I dug into the full economics of it, I see that exploitation is a two-way street. The teams use the cities, the cities use the teams.

A comic convention might draw extra business for the weekend, but sports teams help the city for 6 months. And the owners know this, so they use it to their advantage. (Hey, isn't that what capitalism's all about--getting an advantage and milking it for all it's worth?)

[NatGertler]

Except what legitimate business doesn't benefit its city? Sports corporations generate vast dollars; it is a crying shame that money is taken from average folks in order to build stadia that would be built anyway. It's not like pro sports would go away if the governments would realize that taking money from the poor to give to the sports owners ain't right.

[ERoy]

It's not like pro sports would go away if the governments would realize that taking money from the poor to give to the sports owners ain't right.

Ridiculous statement. You're giving this impression that sports teams are stealing money from the poor and the downtrodden, which is not true at all. Sports teams, especially NFL sports teams, give much more to the community not only financially, but the way they bring a community together, and improve the city's image nationwide. Again, I point out the Green Bay example.

If you don't like the fact that teams ask a city to contribute to the building of a stadium that the city and promoters can use off-season, then vote those who would allow such things out. I will say a great majority of people in those cities would rather pay the money than lose the team. There's plenty of cities dying for a franchise pro sports team that recognize the benefits they bring. You cal that "stealing". I call it good business. The city benefits, they should contribute.

[WatsonGlenn]

The city benefits, they should contribute.


The city benefits from the local sandwich shop too but the people do not have to subsidize it with their tax money. Most pro teams don't really pay for themselves or the tax breaks they get. When you count the money that is spent at games you also have to subtract the amount those fans would have spend doing other things in the city. If Joe Blow did not go to the game then he would have gone to a bar or out to eat or whatever and those places do not get subsidies. Yes some people come from out of town and spend money but logically some of the local fans must go to out of town games as well and thus spend their money elsewhere.

[ERoy]

The city benefits from the local sandwich shop too but the people do not have to subsidize it with their tax money. Most pro teams don't really pay for themselves or the tax breaks they get.

Local businesses such as sandwich shops do not provide the benefits that a pro team does, not only financially, but in the overall image of the city. Again, I point out that a sandwich shop's store isn't used for promotion of other things, such as concerts and events like stadiums are. The stadium is used by the city for things other than just football/baseball/basketball. When a sandwich store moves into town, it doesn't generate headline news across the country. A NFL team will. The benefit a positive national news story about a city cannot be put into dollars. It's immeasurable.

If Joe Blow did not go to the game then he would have gone to a bar or out to eat or whatever and those places do not get subsidies.

There's no way to say that. Just because a person doesn't go to a game doesn't mean they'll spend that money elsewhere. They may choose not to spend it at all, or to go to another city where they do have a team and spend it there. No way to tell.

Bottom Line: there's a reason why the Super Bowl is the most watched event every year, and why it's become an unofficial holiday for most Americans. There's a reason why items that have logos of sports teams sell considerably well -- Americans love sports (football in particular). Cities that have the privilage of having one of those teams call that city their home should have to pay for that right, as they reap the reward. Ask St. Louis what it was like without a team (which is why they got it back). Ask Cleveland the benefits of having the Browns back has done for the city as a whole. This is why cities are willing to subsidize stadiums, because if they don't, there are cities waiting for the chance to do it.

[badMike]

Bottom Line: there's a reason why the Super Bowl is the most watched event every year, and why it's become an unofficial holiday for most Americans.I find that very, very sad sometimes.

But, seriously, there's always something that taxes subsidize that somebody is going to take offense to.

[bartl]

The benefit a positive national news story about a city cannot be put into dollars. It's immeasurable.
However, as they taught me in Accounting 101, there is a difference between immeasurable and infinite.

[NatGertler]

You're giving this impression that sports teams are stealing money from the poor and the downtrodden, which is not true at all.They are certainly diverting money from the poor and downtrodden. They are certainly supported by taxes taken from the poor and downtrodden.

Are you trying to tell me that pro football isn't popular enough to be profitable without special government subsidies?

But hey, if the government is expected to put that sort of money into these private enterprises, let me make a suggestion: deprivatize them. If the government is footing the bill for the team, they should own the team. Simple as that.
I will say a great majority of people in those cities would rather pay the money than lose the team.And why would they lose the team? That's right, because there are other governments who would like to deprive their citizens in order to have men ramming into each other every other Sunday in their town. Get rid of that money, and you know who gets and keeps teams? Places where the citizenry really do want to support the sport.

But hey, capitalism isn't good enough for football.... they like socialism better.

Local businesses such as sandwich shops do not provide the benefits that a pro team does, not only financially, but in the overall image of the city.I'm sorry, but you don't think the local businesses help the overall image of a city? Really? You judge a city by how well the large men they pay to import run into large men from other cities a handful of times a year, rather than what is available in the city day after day?

[ERoy]

Are you trying to tell me that pro football isn't popular enough to be profitable without special government subsidies?

I'm saying if the city gets the beneifits of having a pro football team, they should help support it. I'm saying if the government gets the benefit of getting to use a stadium in the off-season, they should help to pay the cost of the stadium.

And why would they lose the team? That's right, because there are other governments who would like to deprive their citizens in order to have men ramming into each other every other Sunday in their town. Get rid of that money, and you know who gets and keeps teams? Places where the citizenry really do want to support the sport.

Ah, so we have a football hater. I can tell from the overly simplistic "men ramming into each other" comment. It's not that you think the "poor and downtrotten" get shafted by the "big bad sports team", it's that you don't like it being spent on something you don't like.

I have one word for you: TOUGH. YOU move to a town that doesn't have a pro-sports team. That way your taxes won't go to pay for it, but don't deprive the great majority of people in this county that do like sports. You're the minority. Get over it.

Man, honestly, I can't stand people who comment on something THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. It's obvious you don't know the first thing about football.

[WatsonGlenn]

Local businesses such as sandwich shops do not provide the benefits that a pro team does, not only financially, but in the overall image of the city.

Thats not true specially if the city provides large amounts of tax money to the team. More people go to the movies than to football games. Does the city subsidize theaters?

When a sandwich store moves into town, it doesn't generate headline news across the country.

Those headlines and a nickel won't get you a cup of coffee.

The benefit a positive national news story about a city cannot be put into dollars.

Thats right.

There's no way to say that. Just because a person doesn't go to a game doesn't mean they'll spend that money elsewhere.

Yes it does. Either Joe blow is going to go to the game or to a movie or to the park or to the local bar. Bottom line, he is going to spend his money. He does not need a millionaire pro to help him do that.

Bottom Line: there's a reason why the Super Bowl is the most watched event every year, and why it's become an unofficial holiday for most Americans.

There is also a reason why sports TV ratings have been going down for the last ten years. We are getting sick of these guys. I know I am.

There's a reason why items that have logos of sports teams sell considerably well -- Americans love sports (football in particular).
Thats true but that does not mean taxpayers should provide millions of dollars to pampered athletes and their billionaire owners. If these guys want to own team and make money let them do it like the rest of us.

Ask Cleveland the benefits of having the Browns back

Ask the local businesses that see their old customers go to games instead of out to eat. Ask the local schools that beg for tax money the millionaire athletes get instead.

This is why cities are willing to subsidize stadiums,

Cities subsidies stadiums because the billionaire owners are able to convince the local councils and legislatures to spend tax money for their benefit instead of for the benefit of the people as a whole.

[WatsonGlenn]

I'm saying if the city gets the beneifits of having a pro football team, they should help support it.

Then why should'nt the city support the local sandwich shop with tax breaks and a fancy new buildings? I'll tell you why. The city needs all the tax money they can get from the local sandwich shop to help the local pro team


[quote]Man, honestly, I can't stand people who comment on something THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. It's obvious you don't know the first thing about football.

I played it for 12 years and coached it for a while too. Not to mention the other sports I play and coach. And the city did provide fields and some equipment. But you not tlaking about sport you are talking about making money, i.e. pro athletes. IMO They should be on their own. I do hate those guys with their steriods and criminal behavior. I like golfers better. They only get paid if they play well and they never ask the rest of us to pony up tax money for them. Also the PGA haa given more to charity than any other pro sport.

[NatGertler]

I'm saying if the city gets the beneifits of having a pro football team, they should help support it.The city gets the benefit of having every business in the city... most of which get by without government subsidies.
I'm saying if the government gets the benefit of getting to use a stadium in the off-season, they should help to pay the cost of the stadium.Here's an idea: how about having the stadiums privately built, and let those private owners get the advantge of renting it out in the off-season.
Ah, so we have a football hater.Nope. I'm not a huge fan, but I do watch about two games a year.
it's that you don't like it being spent on something you don't like.No, it's that I don't like the government money being spent on private enterprises that would do quite well without it.
That way your taxes won't go to pay for it, but don't deprive the great majority of people in this county that do like sports.Excuse me, but you really don't seem to know much about the business of sports. The major leagues in the popular sports (in other words, the ones that the governments shovel out big bucks for) generate large amounts of income and would not close down without these subsidies. People would not be deprived of sports. And if someday it passed that market demand drooped for a sport and the league would have to close their doors... well, that's the entertainment market.
It's obvious you don't know the first thing about football.Really? Are you telling me that it doesn't involve men ramming into each other? Or that it isn't popular enough to survive without government subsidy? I realize it may be more convenient for the fans to force the local non-fans to subsidize their entertainment, but when the logic of doing so fails, you may want to have more to fall back on than accusing ignorance without evidence.

[bartl]

I like golfers better. They only get paid if they play well and they never ask the rest of us to pony up tax money for them.
I have never played golf on anything other than a public course, paid for by (shall I say it? yes, I'll say it!) tax money.

:eek:

[fumetti]

Except what legitimate business doesn't benefit its city?
and
The city benefits from the local sandwich shop too but the people do not have to subsidize it with their tax money.

That's some serious lack of proportion here.

You guys show me how a local sandwich shop has been used to lure in huge corporations to any city... It's ridiculous to compare the two.

When "Bob's Deli" puts in limited-access luxury boxes for corporate use (costing about a million dollars a year), then draw a comparison.

[fumetti]

Are you trying to tell me that pro football isn't popular enough to be profitable without special government subsidies?

Just like most big corporations, they suck the gov't teat the hardest. If the cities didn't believe they needed the teams, then the teams would have no leverage and would have to find other stadiums to play in. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

The way around any league's advantage is to support a rival league. But there IS no rival to the NFL, MLB, or NBA--and not because no one has tried. So as long as fans want these leagues and no other, the city leaders will bend over backwards to attract them. If "the poor and downtrodden" are being neglected, don't look to the leagues. Look to the city leaders who are neglecting their responsibilities.

But hey, if the government is expected to put that sort of money into these private enterprises, let me make a suggestion: deprivatize them. If the government is footing the bill for the team, they should own the team. Simple as that.

In a general way, I agree with that. But the city/state gov'ts don't pay for the team, they just provide a premiere site for the games. The teams actually have to pay the city for their use. Not that the cities make a profit from the teams...

But hey, capitalism isn't good enough for football.... they like socialism better.

What is socialistic about how teams broker deals with the cities? How could it possibly be socialism when this issue is clearly a matter of private businesses exploiting the gov't??? (If the cities were dictating to the teams, then maybe you'd have a socialist argument.)

[fumetti]

I have never played golf on anything other than a public course, paid for by (shall I say it? yes, I'll say it!) tax money.


Excellent point.

And you'd think golf courses would be better able to pay their own way since they're able to draw in casual business from the general public.

[outlander78]

It sounds like Americna cities are competing against each other for the pro sports teams. Having a bunch of badly behaved druggies doesn't really help a city's image, and if all the cities said they'd stop competing and not give franchaises tax breaks a level playing field (pardon the metaphor :) ) would exist.

Most large companies employ people in the middle income area - sports have a few rich employees and many, many minimum wage ones. Do you really need to attract this kind of employment? Do you really want to chase mid- to high-end business away and build more Wal-Marts?

[NatGertler]

That's some serious lack of proportion here.That's some serious lack of reality that you have. Do you think a corporation consideringa movie would choose a city that has a football team but doesn't have the restaurants, the laundromats, movie theatres, supermarkets, and hundreds of other businesses that make a city work would choose that city over one that has no football team but does have all those businesses? Yes, those businesses are all part of what makes a city attractive.Don't hate the player, hate the game.You may not understand this, but if there weren't players, there wouldn't be a game. The greedy owners and weak and value-impaired government folks are the reason there's this "game", if you consider taking money from the poor to give to fund the maneuvers of the rich a "game".The way around any league's advantage is to support a rival league. But there IS no rival to the NFL, MLB, or NBA--and not because no one has tried.Actually, there are the NCAA leagues, which are quite powerful in places. In large part these leagues have no "pro" competition because they wrangled themselves exemptions from the laws against monopolistic practices. There used to be separate American League and National League, now there's MLB. American Football League and National Football League; now there's the NFL. The ABA merged into the NBA.

[fumetti]

It sounds like Americna cities are competing against each other for the pro sports teams. Having a bunch of badly behaved druggies doesn't really help a city's image, and if all the cities said they'd stop competing and not give franchaises tax breaks a level playing field (pardon the metaphor :) ) would exist.

Most large companies employ people in the middle income area - sports have a few rich employees and many, many minimum wage ones. Do you really need to attract this kind of employment? Do you really want to chase mid- to high-end business away and build more Wal-Marts?

Any major city without a major sports franchise would LEAP at the chance to have those "badly behaved druggies" bringing their miniscule scandals to their town.

It's all about perception. "Green Bay" is a famous name across America. But who'd even know it existed without the Packers? Teams give cities name recognition they could never buy if the same money was instead spent on advertising.

[fumetti]

That's some serious lack of reality that you have. Do you think a corporation consideringa movie would choose a city that has a football team but doesn't have the restaurants, the laundromats, movie theatres, supermarkets, and hundreds of other businesses that make a city work would choose that city over one that has no football team but does have all those businesses?

...As if a pro franchise would EVER be located in a vacant field without the rest of the city already there.

Name one franchise located in such a place. And name one empty field that has ever competed to attract a franchise.

Now, what were you saying about reality...?

[badMike]

"Green Bay" is a famous name across America. But who'd even know it existed without the Packers?I may know the name due to having it forced on me through repitition in the culture, but I could really give a shit what kind of city it is. But if Green Bay (which I don't even know where the hell it is) gets some sort of ego boost, more power to them.

Does L.A. even have a football team? I don't even know.

[fumetti]

Does L.A. even have a football team? I don't even know.

Nope. The Rams took off for a sweeter deal in St. Louis, and the Raiders went back to Oakland.

The NFL wants a team there badly, but can't seem to get one. Houston beat them out a few years ago.

Odds are, it will require a current team relocating for LA to get a team any time soon, which is becoming more rare. And given past experience, cities are now more willing to do what it takes to keep a team rather than suffer losing the franchise. (L.A. is big enough to not need the image boost, but smaller cities like Cleveland don't have much else to hang their hat on.)

[badMike]

Cleveland don't have much else to hang their hat on.)The birthplace of Superman? Home to Harvey Pekar? I'd say Cleveland has a lot to be proud of!

Of course, it's priorities are as screwed as the rest of the country...

[bartl]

The NFL wants a team there badly, but can't seem to get one. Houston beat them out a few years ago.
New York City doesn't have a football team, although there are two New Jersey teams who call themselves New York teams.

[NatGertler]

...As if a pro franchise would EVER be located in a vacant field without the rest of the city already there. What? You mean that all those other sorts of businesses are needed to help make the city attractive to a business like a pro franchise?

Yeah, that would seem to be the point.

[NatGertler]

New York City doesn't have a football team, although there are two New Jersey teams who call themselves New York teams.Yeah, but I think we beat that with our baseball craziness. We have one L.A. baseball team... and one team that has decided to pretend it's in L.A. by changing its name without bothering to move. (And you can bet that has the town that actually shoveled out the money for their presence up in arms...)

[fumetti]

New York City doesn't have a football team, although there are two New Jersey teams who call themselves New York teams.

In all the important ways, New York indeed has two football teams.

It's all about TV markets, and the Jets and Giants are NY's teams. Doesn't matter if the stadiums are technically outside the city's limits.

And as for the stadiums, the Jersey game site is close enough for NYC corporate use. But we are talking about NYC, who doesn't need sports franchises to draw business the way midwest cities do.

[fumetti]

What? You mean that all those other sorts of businesses are needed to help make the city attractive to a business like a pro franchise?

Yeah, that would seem to be the point.

Errr...not the point at all.

EVERY city has basic business types represented. They're a GIVEN. Therefore, when cities compete they use the SPECIAL businesses as lures, not businesses like restaurants, dry cleaners, etc.

If a city didn't have, say, restaurants, it WOULD have them in a hurry the moment they brought in a sports franchise. But that (a city without a basic business presence) is such an absurd and pointless fantasization that its discussion doesn't advance the topic at all.

[NatGertler]

Errr...not the point at all.

EVERY city has basic business types represented.Because they're necessary to building a city... unlike the highly unnecessary sports franchise, which is apparently given special dispensation and government funding because it is so unnecessary.
Therefore, when cities compete they use the SPECIAL businesses as lures, not businesses like restaurants, dry cleaners, etc.Actually, cities do promote themselves using the quality and diversity of their restaurants and shopping establishments (http://www.positivelyphiladelphia.com/qualityoflife.aspx?bitmap=12#P69_8435), as well as their general quality of life which arises from access to a full range of needed services. Really.

[bartl]

In all the important ways, New York indeed has two football teams.

It's all about TV markets, and the Jets and Giants are NY's teams. Doesn't matter if the stadiums are technically outside the city's limits.
As long as you don't count taxes, boosts to local businesses, etc.

[fumetti]

Because they're necessary to building a city... unlike the highly unnecessary sports franchise, which is apparently given special dispensation and government funding because it is so unnecessary.
Actually, cities do promote themselves using the quality and diversity of their restaurants and shopping establishments (http://www.positivelyphiladelphia.com/qualityoflife.aspx?bitmap=12#P69_8435), as well as their general quality of life which arises from access to a full range of needed services. Really.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about anymore.

It's irrelevant whether you (or I) think sports franchises are "necessary." Cities have proven time and again that they think these franchises are important enough to compete for. And that's what's pertinent.

[fumetti]

As long as you don't count taxes, boosts to local businesses, etc.

I'm not from around those parts, so I don't know if NYC flows seamlessly out into Jersey or not. But I gather that both have a sort of symbiotic relationship, that they're close enough to think of them as a whole unit. If that's the case, then moving a team from NYC to Jersey doesn't hurt the area--which is wholly different from, say, moving from Cleveland to Baltimore.

[mjm1231]

Cities have proven time and again that they think these franchises are important enough to compete for. And that's what's pertinent.
Surely you mean the citizens of cities... or at least their elected representatives. Either way, it is possible for them to make an unwise decision. Isn't that what's pertinent?

[bartl]

I'm not from around those parts, so I don't know if NYC flows seamlessly out into Jersey or not. But I gather that both have a sort of symbiotic relationship, that they're close enough to think of them as a whole unit. If that's the case, then moving a team from NYC to Jersey doesn't hurt the area--which is wholly different from, say, moving from Cleveland to Baltimore.
Parasitic. New Jersey feeds off of New York.

[NatGertler]

Cities have proven time and again that they think these franchises are important enough to compete for. And that's what's pertinent.Yes, government officials have repeatedly decided it was appropriate to tax the poor and use that money to pay the expenses of highly profitable sports corporations. That problem is indeed what's pertinent.

[bartl]

Yes, government officials have repeatedly decided it was appropriate to tax the poor and use that money to pay the expenses of highly profitable sports corporations. That problem is indeed what's pertinent.
For the purpose of this discussion, can you please define "poor"? It has appeared to me that the Democrat party wants to tax the wealthy, defined as a couple making more than $40,000 per year, and the Republicans want to tax the poor, defined as any couple making less than $200,000. Any couple making in between those two sums are going to be screwed no matter who's in power.

[NatGertler]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that they didn't tax the wealthy for this as well; it's just that taking money from the poor to feed the sports teams is more of a tragedy than taking from the rich to do so... though both are bad ideas. Anyone locked into the idea that profitable professional sports is such a vital service that they need be supported with money taken from folks who don't consume their services and that they need special protection from competition has got a strange sense of priorities.