Thought Experiment: What if local governments were disallowed helping sports?

[Dave Gray]

I don't mean this to be a political thread, but just to get it out there: I don't mind the general concept of government investing in business to help it get off the ground, especially in technology fields that eventually help the masses.

However, I don't like the idea of local governments subsidizing or giving tax breaks to lure business to one specific area.  The reason is because it is, by definition, a net negative.  I use the Miami Dolphins stadium upgrade as an example.  I think you can make a case for why its in the best interest of our locals to give tax breaks to keep the team here.  It might bring in additional revenue to the area which makes up for the tax losses, etc. 

But the problem is that if we don't do it and the team moves, another area will do it.  It puts everywhere at a position of weakness when it comes to sports teams and this is why its expected for locals to cover the cost of the stadium...out of fear of losing the business to another area.  It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, in a sense.

What if it was not allowed for any local or state government to fund a private stadium (or anything in hopes of luring a business to one area)?  Wouldn't that solve the problem?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I agree with that.  But go further. Bar local governments to use tax dollars/incentives to lure business from one part of the country to another, only to bring jobs to the US from other countries.  I have heard Jennifer Granholm, former Gov of MI speak about this.  She says they rarely were using tax incentives to bring/keep jobs in the US (vs. say India) it was almost always vs another state (such as Texas).   

[CF DolFan]

When the stadium puts heads in beds and butts in seats, the local government makes money. Even our little soccer complex actually contributes up to 10 million a year to the local economy. That 10 million is taxed  ... even higher at the hotel rates.

We own the complex. We own the tournaments and host the other events that come in. If it benefits the local government and businesses why shouldn't the local government earmark some funds for us?

I don't see an issue for taxes to help fund stadiums that drive revenue. It benefits far more people than just those playing the games. If it's tourist dollars that even better. Locals benefit off of those using our hotels. That's a win-win in my opinion.

[Phishfan]

Come on Orlando, let's get this soccer stadium built and MLS here. That is all.

[Dave Gray]

When the stadium puts heads in beds and butts in seats, the local government makes money. Even our little soccer complex actually contributes up to 10 million a year to the local economy. That 10 million is taxed  ... even higher at the hotel rates.

We own the complex. We own the tournaments and host the other events that come in. If it benefits the local government and businesses why shouldn't the local government earmark some funds for us?

I don't see an issue for taxes to help fund stadiums that drive revenue. It benefits far more people than just those playing the games. If it's tourist dollars that even better. Locals benefit off of those using our hotels. That's a win-win in my opinion.

You're completely missing the point.  I get that it helps us on a micro level, but it's just stealing it from somewhere else.  If nobody gave the tax break at all, we'd still have the team, plus the stadium would be privately funded.  They're not just going to stop playing NFL games if nobody builds them stadiums.

[Fau Teixeira]

When people move to an area, they have to pay property taxes on their house, they have to pay utility bills, they buy gas .. they buy groceries in the neighborhood. They pay sales tax in the state they moved to.

How is giving a football team money to move somewhere any different than giving an individual money to move to a location to live in ?

And if they're the same (which they are). The question becomes: "we don't incentive-ize people to move into a state, rather we expect them to fully pay as much taxes as every other state resident. What makes sport teams any better than the family of four that moved in next door?

[CF DolFan]

What makes sport teams any better than the family of four that moved in next door?

The impact it has on the community. A family of 4 has much less of an impact of an 80,000 seat stadium with an organization that employees hundreds of people.

We have a middle class family of four and we contribute minimally to the economy.

We host a tournament of over 200 teams between Christmas and New Years. Every single team, except for 8, are from out of state. Each team has 18 players and usually 2 or more coaches + parents and other relatives. All teams are here for at least 4 days during the holidays although many stay for the parks. Hotels, restaurants, car rental, air, gas, local shopping and attractions see a significant increase.

That's just one event

Why wouldn't the local government want to keep me here with some incentive? I mean, if I decided it was better for me to now have my events in Orange County do you not think local businesses wouldn't be affected which in turn will affect everyone else.

It would think it would always be better for Ft. Lauderdale to spend a little money to keep the Dolphins as opposed to letting them move to Orlando.  It would be better for the local businesses and the people that frequent them as well as the government that needs the revenue.

[Fau Teixeira]

the single stadium benefits the county more than your single family of 4 yes .. but all stadiums don't benefit the county more than all families do that's my point.

[CF DolFan]

the single stadium benefits the county more than your single family of 4 yes .. but all stadiums don't benefit the county more than all families do that's my point.

So are you saying if 100,000 people decide to move into an area together they should get a good deal? I would back you on that!

Governments cut deals for developers every day because they it bring in a revenue base. If you were planning a new 5,000 home neighborhood in an undeveloped area places would be lining up to "help" you out. 

[masterfins]

Personally, I don't think any government entity should give grants to private businesses.  I see this happen all the time that local govt gives grants, or tax breaks, so some large private business can put up some big box store.  Then all the small locally owned businesses that pay their full share of taxes are put out of business by the big retailer.  If governments want to loan money to business, fine.  Unfortunately that will never happen given our free enterprise system.

[Spider-Dan]

If governments want to loan money to business, fine.  Unfortunately that will never happen given our free enterprise system.

Governments give loans to businesses all the time.

[Landshark]

If governments want to loan money to business, fine.  Unfortunately that will never happen given our free enterprise system.

You think the AIG "Bailout" back in 2008 was a gift?

[masterfins]

Governments give loans to businesses all the time.

I guess I didn't make my point clearly, my fault.  What I meant was that government could ONLY give loans, and not give grants, tax breaks, etc that don't have to be paid back.