I've never understood how all the government favors that sports teams get goes unpublicized.

LOL, can we stop asking ourselves these questions and just say look don't do a damn thing with our money that will raise everyone's eye brows or get their panties in a bunch. There that covers everything.

Sports teams bring TONS of business to many key cities. Some cities only still exist because of sports teams in their city (Detroit)

Apparently, when the government spends money on anything from sod to condoms it's stimulus for the economy. What's wrong with this?

Is that proven Zeze, because most of the studies I've seen show a neglible return for just about everyone but the team.

Good point, Mich.

(And zeze. The sports teams have been huge for the Cleveland economy, too.)

Steph your comment reminded me of an article a friend showed several of us. So I looked around and found it.

Stadiums Are Built On Federal Tax Break

By Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 28, 2003; Page A01

The recent wave of sports stadium and arena construction is costing the U.S. Treasury more than $100 million annually because the projects have been financed with tax-exempt bonds, a federally supported method of borrowing money more often used to build roads, schools and other public projects.

The federal tax break for professional sports venues is rarely recognized in the fractious stadium debates across the country.

At least 38 major league sports venues have been built or rebuilt using nearly $7 billion in tax-exempt financing since 1990, according to a Washington Post review of more than 40 professional baseball, football, hockey and basketball projects. The cost to the Treasury was calculated using the same methods employed by Treasury and congressional tax estimators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54321-2003Jul27.html

More than anything is I hate the fact that these stadiums that I grew up with are now named after random companies!

Steph, I have no idea, I was basing that only on what I've seen. Maybe places like NY and Boston don't need sports to survive, speaking from personal experience, no one would ever go down to Detroit, pay parking, eat at a restaurant, visit the local shops, etc...if a Tigers game or Red Wings game didn't bring them there often enough. (I will not mention the Lions because anyone who still goes to see the Lions needs their head examined).

Also, how have the studies you're referring to been measured? I mean it's not like the t-shirts or the tickets that bring money to the city, it is mostly the people that get business based on the traffic the games bring downtown.

SF put their baseball stadium in a really run down area and it has since been revitalized. The are there is now desirable to walk around in. There are many shops/restaurants that have opened up in the vicinity, it has been a huge boost to the SF economy especially since Candlestick (or 3com or monster park ) is unable to have that kind of atmosphere, due to it's location.

In a lot of place, sports are the really reasons people come to towns. Like Gainesville for instance. Outside of University of Florida and because of the Gators, the town is literally dead town with absolutely no attraction except for the school. So in some case it do bring in some economy but not really much.

And really, if it truly mattered where these banks spent their money, our lawmakers should have stipulated that in the bill. They wrote them a blank check. Now is not the time for outrage. If you don't like it you should have contacted you congressman and told them to vote against it. I did, and mine voted no. Now is not the time for Monday morning quarterbacking!

There are a couple of studies, the CATO Institute, the National Taxpayer's Union - that seem to suggest that any benefit to a city would be equal to any entertainment spending (investing in theaters and restaurants).

"Virtually every economic study of the issue has found that publicly funded stadiums are, at best, an inefficient investment of taxpayer dollars for the meager benefits produced and, at worst, massive payments to rich team owners and players at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. Much of the spending attracted by new stadiums simply is shifted from entertainment spending that already existed in other venues, such as theaters and restaurants. Furthermore, large portions of the subsidy leave the city in the pockets of owners and players who live in far-flung suburbs. And finally, proponents of publicly-funded stadiums often point to jobs "created" by stadiums while completely overlooking the destructive effects that higher taxes have on job growth and economic performance elsewhere in the regional economy."

"completely overlooking the destructive effects that higher taxes have on job growth" I find that statement ironic and humorous.

Hainan, I'm just trying to figure out who hijacked her account.

Taxes hurt the economy? There's no way.

"More than anything is I hate the fact that these stadiums that I grew up with are now named after random companies! "

I agree Ba...Candlestick will ALWAYS be Candlestick in my mind! And I'll never ever call it anything else.

Blue- you might find this interesting. I did
On September 28, 2004, a new naming rights deal was signed with Monster Cable, a maker of cables for electronic equipment, and the stadium was renamed Monster Park. However, just over a month later, a measure passed in the November 2 election stipulated that the stadium name to revert back to Candlestick permanently after the contract with Monster expired in 2008.

We don't all need the security of clinging to one school of thought.

Nope. I've said from the very beginning, if a company is in dire enough straights to require a bail-out, they need to fire teh CEO, CFO and all the higher up muckety mucks and start over fresh with someone that knows what the he** they're doing.

I've been going to Candlestick since I was a kid. You couldn't pay me to call it by any other name!

Well I guess you COULD...but I wouldn't mean it!

See? This is why the government shouldn't be involved in businesses in the first place. Understandably, these banks were going under and needed help from somewhere, but they should have realized that by accepting help from the government, they were going to be told what to do by the government. They no longer have the freedom to invest in a Sports team or other business venture without the government having some input. Have fun all you banks and businesses of America...do better this time around and consider this before accepting a hand out from the taxpayer again.

"We don't all need the security of clinging to one school of thought. "

Well I'm sure glad you're opening your mind to new ideas. Especially ones from the CATO institute.

I mentioned CATO was one of several studies that I knew of, not my only source. I've been reading about sports subsidies for several years, so I'm not sure what you think is new to me. I fear you're assuming things.

If we have to bail out the sports teams, then we'll have to bail out the porn industry.

Indianapolis would be a prime example of what a pro team can do for the downtown. In the late 70's the downtown area was dying. Businesses were racing from the area to the suburbs, and crime skyrocketed. After Indy acquired the Colts in '83, and Union Station was reopened as a quasi mall, people began coming back. Now, they have a thriving mall (Circle Center Mall) and at least 5 micro-breweries. It took a lot of work, but it woldn't have been as successful or done as quickly without having the Colts, even though they weren't winning until 98.

Maybe this makes me a dorkfish, but I personally think that if they have $400 million to blow on a SuperBowl bash, they don't need $45 BILLION dollars in bailout money.

This actually made me want to throw up a little.

I guess I have a hard time when people get up in arms before they fully vet a situation. We don't know what their return is on their investment in this kind of thing. Perhaps they get TONS of new customers because of sign up situations they have in these things.

It does seem like a poor investment, but with out numbers I don't see how anyone can solidly make that judgement.

This is idiotic.
I hate this bailout more and more everyday.
I dont understand why people arent more upset things like this are going on.
So if the banks recieve Federal funding, and they provide these arenas, does that mean the teams are now pretty much controlled by the Federal government as well?
Since when is it the Government's job to provide me with a place to tailgate and eat nacho cheese fries?

If they're going to bail everyone out maybe they should start with the people who aren't making billions a year.