This is a mistake that you will only make once. It sometimes takes upwards of 2 hours to drive 5 miles. Since I don't want to have to follow sports to know if it's safe to drive that route, I just never drive that route. There are good things near there, but I will never plan to do them because I don't want to have to check the arena activity to determine how good my experience will be.
Soldier Field is vaguely easier. It's still right in the middle of the city, but, being in a park, and not too far from the highway, game days don't really pose a challenge except when I've lost my mind and decided to drive to the aquarium instead of taking the train. On the other hand, I bet it's really awful for anyone whose regular routine forces them to use Lake Shore Drive or the spaghetti bowl.
We now habitually check if there's a game or concert before visiting my cousin in the neighborhood.
A few years back I lived 3 blocks away from Wrigley Field. It was cool to hear the concerts and games from our back porch. But we basically locked ourselves in on game-days, since we knew it would be a pain in the ass to get anywhere.
It means a lot of my city (Seattle) is off limits unless I'm really "going out" and not just going out for a bite or whatever.
It's a great example of a market with a fixed price (excluding some newer ppp toll schemes) and highly variable demand. (And where costs besides the direct price that end up controlling.)
I mean, it's good that it's finally hitting the mainstream, but induced demand has been a recognized phenomenon for literally decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#History
The reverse of this is what justifies a lot of ped/cycle infrastructure projects even in areas where there don't currently seem to be a lot of people out walking or on foot— "build it and they will come".
Some experts believe that humans are, at best, only somewhat sentient, and only part of the time. Our mind automatically back-populates a story of thought and consideration before every decision, when in fact, our limbic system (more primitive, where our baser emotions come from) is pretty much running the show.
Many/most humans have the need to vigorously compete in groups. Again, some experts have compared this to troops of monkeys fighting over territory and/or dominance. This is still the case because while our neocortex has developed quite a bit, our emotional centers are still relatively primitive. At least, a lot more primitive than we're widely comfortable in admitting to.
I think that participation in sports is a necessary and mostly healthy outlet for these mental structures.
This can all come across as very high minded, and I don't mean to say that people who are into sports are more primitive than people who aren't.
I was never into sports, but I competed in different ways. And I've known people who were truly not competitive in any typical way, so it's complicated.
Also, the above paragraphs are loaded with simplifications and assumptions. (:
One way or another, I think organized sports are a useful and necessary thing for a large percentage of the human population. Of course, we as a society need to do it as 'well' as we can.
"How did the Bulls do last night?"
"We won, but just barely."
Part of being a fan is vicarious competition, both against the other team and the other teams' fans.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890601/
In a sentence, "Participants that watched sports every day were at higher risk of obesity [odds ratio = 1.39, 95% CI, 1.15, 1.68) after adjustment for age, sex, smoking, alcohol, physical activity, total TV time, disability, and self-rated health."
Based on what they're controlling for, and assuming that the conclusions hold, my guess would be that watching sports on TV is also associated with increased snacking.
Perhaps a focus of academic achievement would be equally engaging -- I know that's what engages me wrt my alma mater.
The same promise of economic growth and touted fears of not being a 'real city without a stadium' applies.
> The stadium profits won't cover operating costs, so ratepayers will have to top it up to the tune of $4.2m a year ($4.1m already budgeted).
>It will bring $395.6m in economic benefits, which includes $53.9m in "civic pride".
Civic pride....
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/117262170/christchurch-stadium... https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/117978037/christchurchs-...
On the other hand complaining because the benefits of a ballet company are enjoyed by the city's ballet fans, while the benefits of a sports stadium are split between the team ownership and city's sports fans is legitimate.
What I would like to see more of is stadium deals in which the municipality gets an equity stake in the team.
We might build a new theatre where Ballet can be performed, but it's also used for decades for thousands of art projects.
It's not shitting on football to expect a billionaire owner to pay for their own damn stadium. It's insane corporate welfare to give them even 1 cent.
I specifically pointed that out -- but I get it, you said 'billionaire' where I said 'team ownership'.
As your the other point, yes NYC built Lincoln Center to the benefit of generations. But they also put about $2.5 million annually into the New York City Ballet's operating budget. (Which is absolutely fine -- but don't kid yourself that they're self funding.)
What other businesses should the government get involved in? FAANG companies bring tons of tax revenue to their cities, why not have every government have a VC arm too?
From up here in Canada the weird fusion of school and sport down there is also bizarre. Yes, people play sports in our schools... but wow is it cultish down there.
I guess I have seen something like it, now that I'm thinking about it -- but it's generally a negative condition, i.e. "I'm not voting for X simply because they are part of party Y." They're not necessarily voting for their party because it's their party, but they're doing it because it's not another party, or more specifically, not a particular candidate.
I can't imagine a "sports school" in Canada.
I think it's interesting you added this. I am someone who does enjoy watching professional sports and to me it seems quite the opposite, I more often notice people who do not like watching sports vocalizing negative feelings towards people who do. But maybe I'm just noticing that because of where I stand on the liking/not-liking watching sports question.
Judging by the language you chose in your comment it is apparent you harbor some pretty negative feelings towards people who like to watch sports. Dare I say, it seems like you look down at them?
I'm on the not-liking sports side. I try to not vocalize negative feelings about it because I respect other people's choices, but I do have a lot of negative experiences around it:
* Sports, even spectator sports, remind me of my personal experience with sports. That was mostly being a very skinny unathletic kid who got picked on and bullied in PE every day. Sports fans remind me of jocks and jocks remind me of abuse. (Obviously, I understand that there is no logical connection between these groups of people. It's an irrational emotional reaction.)
* It's frustrating having to deal with entire sections of a city being sometimes off limits for events I have no interest in. I used to live in Baton Rouge and LSU games were so big there that they would turn streets one-way to get people in and out. If you were close to the stadium, you could literally find your home inaccessible by road — you could be trapped either in or out — until the game traffic was over. If you parked on allowed student parking, they'd tow your car to make room for tailgaters. When my kids' parkour class moved to close to CenturyLink Field, we just stopped going because it was too much of a nightmare dealing with traffic and parking.
* I get so tired of 80% of restaurants and bars being festooned with giant TVs blaring sports. My wife and daughter have ADHD and it's virtually impossible for them to tune out a TV if it's in their line of sight.
I have also enjoyed watching sports and playing them. I think sports are great and wish more people both participated in them. I like the community-building aspect of spectator sports. But America's spectator sport culture is generally a net negative in my life. And, like second-hand smoke, it's one I can never really escape because it is so pervasive in our culture.
I've never in my life met someone who looked down on people for not liking sports, but if I bring up sports in the wrong geek community, man I get eviscerated by holier-than-thou types who simply must explain why it's a waste of time and I'm stupid for liking it. (EDIT: I notice the other reply to you does exactly this, 'hurr durr sportsball', which is a perfect validation of my claim that this kind of attitude is very common. Unironic usage of 'handegg' is also very common -- they think it's really clever)
Is what it is, I suppose.
For those wondering why: Communication. Sports is one of the only things that truly transcends race, gender, religion, politics, etc. (EDIT: And the other reply to you describes someone who would rather fail to communicate with a dinner full of people than learn a shared topic, the exact case I worked to avoid!)
When I started waiting tables in college I needed an ice breaking subject that was far away from politics/current events and "the weather" is too boring. Sports is probably the #1 common discussion topic, even more than the most popular TV show of the time. For every "Game of Thrones" convo I could start, I could probably start 5 based on baseball, football or basketball.
Truly a great way to connect with different people that you'd otherwise not have basically anything to talk about with.
It really sucks to not be part of the in crowd, but football also sucks so I'll just zone out on my phone rather than watch it.
Why would it be "believing" we're part of a group that makes the high and not _being_ part of a group.
Being able to essentially choose a group to belong with is beneficial - it's a shortcut to most of the benefits of group membership (in ancient history, I mean) without having to be born into the group or be one of the "O.G." members. There are advantages for the rest of the group, too - they can get more people on "their side" and committed to their welfare without having to birth/raise/feed them.
Must be why NFL, NBA etc get so fuckin salty when people upload highlight reels and stuff to youtube.
I can't think of anyway to similarly monetize teaching and I really don't think anybody should go down that route, it sounds terrifying. But how do you convince a bunch of people watching football, which kinda costs them either nothing or like 90$ a month for their cable subscription, that they should also spend a % of their income on teachers?
Because their labor can be very cheaply duplicated by broadcasting the game to millions of spectators.
*> Where's the money actually coming from?
Ads, merchandising, and ticket sales, like you note.
Professional sports players are, economically, in the same category as musicians and actors. They produce media and the digital era means media can be duplicated at virtually no cost, so the value of their labor can be easily multiplied by a very large constant.
Police, doctors, and teachers provide their labor to individual humans in realspace which is much harder to scale so, unfortunately, their salaries reflect that.
I agree for all the examples you give, there's nothing clear like there is for athletes and artists.
For what it's worth NBA has actually taken the opposite stance from the other leagues in terms of highlights online. See https://www.businessinsider.com/adam-silver-nba-ok-highlight...
I don't know how to fix the teacher's pay. It's just unfortunate that by comparison they make pennies.
Without even a cent in extra tax.
Price has to do with supply and demand curves. If there's tons of demand for people hand sewn clothes for hamsters, and very few people who are willing or wanting to do it, then the price will be high, even though one might think there is very little utility to society.
Similarly, there's very few people able and willing to provide the entertainment that an NFL player can, but very high demand for it, therefore, very high pay.
At the low end NFLers are underpaid if anything. They get a good salary but only for a few years and then they are in their mid 20s with a joke degree and not a whole lot of other skills.
Don't lump cops in with teachers. If you want a dangerous job pick roofer or garbageman or something else that's more dangerous than being a cop.
But you are right about athletes only having a short viable career and that helps lower the gap, I was referring more to the high end athletes making millions. Even considering their short careers they make far more than an average teacher can hope to ever in their lifetime. On average I'm not really sure, that does depend on the individual sport and athlete.
But basically, I don't think that does it - there's a difference between, say, collecting watches, reading watch blogs, browsing eBay for watches, watching videos of watchmakers etc, and screaming gleefully at the pitch/field/TV as your favorite team plays.
Someone else is saying something about mirror neurons, I wonder if that's what I'm not having in enough abundance to "miss out" on the fun I see my dad have when he watches the Packers. I'd like to participate but I feel nothing beyond interest in watching the plays play out. Whether the Packers get it done or not, eh, I don't really care, and not for lack of trying.
Likewise, I take great pride in the fact that we have two world-class museums, one focused entirely on modern art, and I hope the sports fans see the value in that, too.
This is like being personally proud of your city’s Apple Store (for cities that are not near silicon valley).
Much like nations, it is a way of making you proud of achievements that you did not perform, carried out by people whom you have never met and do not know and have no association with whatsoever.
What is the logical conclusion? How far do you take it? Should I, say, not be proud of my children's accomplishments? After all, I didn't do them, they did. I'm a musician and play in bands. Should I not be proud of things my band has accomplished? What my band does is stuff that I can't do alone, and they can't do without me.
Obsessively focusing on the individual and rejecting one's role in society is nihilistic and alienating. If you gotta do it, I suppose you do you, but please don't drag me into your sad, lonely world. I'm going to enjoy my place in my family, my town, my country, etc.
It is rather silly to conflate your immediate family or a band in which you actively participate with a bunch of athletes and business owners who have never met you and have no association with you whatsoever save for living in the same metropolitan area.
One is family or friends. The other is a bunch of rich strangers. They are not the same thing. To pretend that I was suggesting that they are equivalent is... baffling.
PS: My world is neither sad nor lonely, and I am not sure how you arrived at those conclusions.
Remove those, and it’s just the usual identical routine of work, alcohol, driving, grocery shopping, dealing with kids, and sleep. We don’t really have third places besides church.
(Instagram falls somewhere in-between, depending on whether you only follow the forty boring people you know, or choose to use it as an adjunct to mass media feeds to keep up on celebrities and bikini models.)
Sports provides a regular stream of relatively unpredictable events that someone in need of such can make emotionally relevant.
That said, you make a mostly valid point, except for one major consideration: most arenas have dozens of smaller events throughout the year: boat shows, rodeos, high school championships, concerts, etc.
If he's not drawing in appropriate sized crowds for those events, then it might just be his restaurant is viewed as a novelty or one of last resort.
Business owners love to explain how there's nothing wrong with their business model, it's the the externalities or market that's wrong.
It can be true, but often it's just self-denial.
Inflation is often used as a benchmark for economic health, but it completely ignores one of the biggest sources of inflation: the price of homes.
The utility of a house never increases (unless you make upgrades), so if the price goes up it's not really more valuable, assuming it rises at the same rate as nearby homes. It's not like you could sell and move into a fancier house nearby.
It all depends on the project. Lots of sports arenas are put near business districts that generate a lot of restaurant traffic during weekday lunch but less on the weekends and evenings.
In turn, a sporting arena can fill in those times, both with the big games and with other events.
> But there are only 15 or so games per year
I think you're talking about football, where you can expect 8 games per year at home plus some pre-season, possibly post-season, exhibition, etc. This is unusual, though-- baseball plays 81 games per year at home, basketball plays 41, hockey plays 41, soccer plays 17-- plus preseason, postseason, and exhibition.
But there will be concerts, motorcross, monster trucks, a bridal convention...
Not to mention there are a handful of high school/college football events at the stadium
Which is funny because in countries that have high levels of corruption (Russia), you see those countries building the most expensive roads, stadiums and bridges in the world. More money spent doesn't mean a better road to say the least.
I went to a college bowl game recently. They actually printed the amount of economic impact calculated ... on my ticket. And ran those numbers across the jubmotron a number of times.
I don't know who they're selling that to because I'm not local or approving anything, so I guess that's what I'm contributing to? yay? I was mildly amused.
Those are always lies.
I follow the Santa Clara City stadium fiasco ...
Try dividing $1.2 billion by 116,000 city residents. How do you like those apples? :)
To give the voters credit, they only authorized a $400 million bond, but the city council took them for a ride.
Shout-out to the York family. Hope you're enjoying your free billion-dollar stadium. I sure would!
We've gotten past that phase and now all the local businesses downtown are shutting down because the 2-ish companies that own all the real estate are raising the prices to absurd levels. Our end goal, in the likely near future, is them declaring bankruptcy so we can bail them out as a city and re-zone the retail/entertainment districts to business as originally lobbied.
specifically this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=fb3HcuFyDFQ&...
With that in mind, there is however a huge difference between a tax break and a govt subsidies.
The city put up millions in taxpayer funds to get the arena built for the local high-profile college basketball team, and numerous reports were published around the positive economic impact of the stadium, citing increased spending around downtown, etc.
However, the report failed to account for "micro" details that can have a major impact on local business, like traffic congestion, entertainment capacity, etc. On game days, his restaurant is overcrowded and turning away patrons, which negatively impacts his staff and quality of experience. But there are only 15 or so games per year, and the off-season attractions are hit-or-miss in terms of attendance. And when nothing is going on, business is even more varied.
It's relatively easy to calculate how many people come to town for a big event and how much they spend, extrapolating that out to some great figure, but a restaurant can't reasonably rely on ~15 big days per year. Quite often, economic impact reports are commissioned by folks who have business or political interests at stake, thereby overlooking the potential bottlenecks that such developments expose. And because most of the public doesn't understand finance or real estate, and yet they love the basketball team, a more nuanced conversation around the topic is harder to find.