Local governments do subsidize movie production with all sorts of funding and grants. In addition to the local population, many people travel to cities where sports matches, concerts, and other events (e.g., conventions, auto shows, etc.) are held in the stadiums. This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities.
>Plenty of high prestige world cities like Tokyo or London or Paris aren't known for their pro sports teams. They seem to suffer little for it.
Ever heard of... - London: Arsenal, Chelsea, or Tottenham (Soccer), Wimbledon Championships (Tennis) - Paris: PSG (Soccer), French Open (Tennis)
Every major "high prestige world city" as you describe is a hub for multiple sports and various tournaments that invites both local and international crowds.
Sure, but when slg says the financials are settled, presumably they mean stadiums are a bad investment even when all such tangible benefits are taken into account.
The question is whether there are other intangible benefits - maybe a city with a sports team is happier; or has lower obesity; or an improved cultural life reduces brain drain; or the city can afford a mass transit system and needs one, but bundling it with a stadium breaks through some political deadlock; or it's just plain that voters support the stadium.
A theory of intangible benefits would also be helpful in explaining why cities keep on bidding for the olympics, which is otherwise hard to rationalise.
There was one bid for 2028 and one for 2032. Compare with 8+ bids in years past. There are fewer and fewer new cities that have never hosted before putting in bids (ostensibly due to insane construction costs/demands by the IOC). 3 out of 5 cities bidding for 2024 withdrew their bids and the other two got 2024 and 2028. 2032 seems to have gotten only one bid. What's happening is that this "intangible benefits" theory is dying as more and more of the world realizes that there are none. On the other hand the olympics and the world cup does seem like a good venue for authoritarian regimes to create spectacles.
The bidding procedure changed, one preferred bid is selected far earlier to avoid losers feeling frustrated and to lower costs.
Off the top of my head: recent Olympic host countries include Russia, China, and Brazil . World Cup hosts includes Russia, Brazil, and Qatar. Yup, checks out.
P.S. Ok, Brazil being in this list is debatable, as they are a democracy ... but with Bolsonaro in power I'll lump them in this group. Yes, I realize Bolsonaro wasn't in office for the Olympics or World Cup, or for the bidding process which happened many years earlier, but he's shitty enough that I'll take the editorial liberty of retroactively smearing his stain back in time.
P.P.S. Yeah, if you want to do the same with Trump in the US I guess I can't disagree either. But the US hasn't hosted an Olympics for 20 years or a World Cup for even longer.
Big cities tend to attract big sports, can't deny that, I just don't think the causation really works the other way, at least not strongly. How much would London or Paris suffer if they lost their big sports teams and events?
The article directly addressed this point by saying:
While counter-intuitive, tourism does not see an increase as the result of a sporting event, as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain.
Now this may not be true for concerts or other events held in the stadium, but in general I think the idea is that the study indicates sports events don't generate significant tourism, instead drawing a primarily local crowd.
I would also argue that most people would have no issue(or minor issues) with local governments subsidizing _Some_ of the cost of a new stadium and other forms of entertainment. I think the issue comes in when the financial cost is extraordinary (> 1 billion USD).
It addressed this point for the US. It is a US centered article. Check all of the references. The data is US centric.
> While counter-intuitive, tourism does not see an increase as the result of a sporting event, as often a similar amount would be spent by that city’s residents in a different city, thus creating no real net gain.
True of the US maybe but not London or Paris.
Also, london does not fund a private team's stadium (like PSD or Tottenham), they do sometimes fund national stadiums (like Wembley).
Let’s stay on topic this article is about the US.
I'm having my trouble getting my head around this. That seems to say that a city WOULD benefit from the stadium because people would spend their money in a different city. I'm clearly not understanding it.
For example, I'm thinking of all of the people from Maine and NH that come to Boston to watch the Bruins play hockey. Without the team, they'd most likely not go to Boston, but might go to Manchester NH, or Portland ME instead. That's definitely not zero sum for the city of Boston or state of MA.
All that said, I also agree that cities and states shouldn't be providing the majority of funding for these types of facilities.
No, you're reading it backwards. It said:
>> tourism does NOT see an increase as the result of a sporting event
Which is a bit wrong in using the word "event". Sure, city revenues will increase from a home game -- but that evens out when local fans travel elsewhere to see an away game, and spend money there that they otherwise would have spent at home. OK, it works if you take "event" to mean a set of home + away games between two teams... But anyway, having a team that attracts some away fans and their money will logically give no net revenue increase to any one city, since presumably (and on average across all cities, as a mathematical certainty) all away fans spending money "here" are also local fans somewhere else, not spending that away-game money in their home town.
> For example, I'm thinking of all of the people from Maine and NH that come to Boston to watch the Bruins play hockey. Without the team, they'd most likely not go to Boston, but might go to Manchester NH, or Portland ME instead. That's definitely not zero sum for the city of Boston or state of MA.
A) So Bruins fans only watch home games? OK, maybe they're more travel-averse than fans of other teams in the league... But one would think most cities' fans are about equal in this respect, so on average just as much money is siphoned out of the greater Boston area for away games.
B) See that "greater Boston area" above? That's your "city", for the purposes of this discussion. That the "sports-fandom city" happens to stretch across municipalities and even states in your case is kind of irrelevant; in principle it's no different than rivalry between various districts within a city about where to put the stadium. Wherever you put it, of course the immediately surrounding area gets more of that revenue than areas further away. :: It is zero-sum for "the city of Boston" as defined by Bruins-fandom.
Looking at the study the umich study notes that stadium would little effect on net regional exports, which makes sense. However, that betters supports "governments shouldn't pay for stadiums" as a conclusion than narrowly defining it as "cities". That said, the fans come for the team more than they do for the stadium, and I agree with the conclusion that governments shouldn't be paying for these things.
This has been dis proven TONS of time,including in the parent link. Funding of sports stadiums DOES NOT increase economic activity enough to cover the costs
My gut says you have the causal relationship here backwards. The lack of those teams wouldn't ding the city much, if at all.
The article refutes this point.
Did it really say "vacation"? I think they meant "travel" as in going to another city (say, in a chartered bus packed full of fans, and which goes back home afterwards) to see your team's away game; at least that kind of travel is what brings most of the out-of-town spectators -- who are what's under discussion here, right? -- to most of the big inter-city sports events I know of.
For that kind of "travel", going to see a regular game of some sport is the main objective.
But I know people who plan trips abroad, for instance from Helsinki (Finland) to Liverpool and Manchester (UK) etc, mainly to see football. Sure, going that far they do other stuff to -- visit team museums, for instance:-) -- but the matches are the backbone the rest of the journey is scheduled around. Maybe there aren't all that much fewer of that kind of people than there are fanatic foodies? I really don't know. But yeah, of course both categories are a drop in the ocean compared to ordinary tourists.
Which is dumb, though I don't think the stupidity quite reaches "city spends a billion dollars for one particular team" level.
> This also affects other businesses in the city that benefit from the spending done by those that travel into the cities.
Again, the research on this is quite clear: the economic benefits there are meager at best.
> Ever heard of... - London: Arsenal, Chelsea, or Tottenham (Soccer), Wimbledon Championships (Tennis) - Paris: PSG (Soccer), French Open (Tennis)
I've heard of most of those, I guess I've just never heard of my friends or family going to see them, even though many have visited those cities (and myself as well).
If you look close enough, any spending that any governmental body does will have detractors. That's what happens when you spend someone else money.
From art to sports, to schools, to council housing, to foreign wars. There is always someone against it whose taxes end up supporting what they hate.
As opposed to American hand-egg.
In yet another example of why government intervention in markets is mostly to make them worse: the politicians in charge can’t help but build and spend the citizens’ money on flashy vanity projects. Public expenses, private profits. They’ll talk it up like it’s some big “civic” investment in Prestige with all sorts of abstract benefits, rather than just being a handout to the rich — and if you challenge them, well, they will correctly tell you that everybody does it!!!
So what if City X gets some revenue from away-team fans when the City X Team has a home game? That only evens out with the revenue lost when the local fans go spend their money elsewhere on away games.
* American Football
* Basketball
* Baseball
* Ice Hockey
Of which Ice Hockey is the only one really played outside of America (and I believe even that's mostly Canada which is basically America)
And why not city would ever fund a private team's stadium (like PSD or Tottenham), they do sometimes fund national stadiums (like Wembley)
This is typical reverse-American-exceptionalism sneering, where someone assumes that because something differs between the US and the few countries they’re familiar with (usually all in Northern and Western Europe), it must be unique to the US.
Baseball is one of the most popular sports in at least Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba.
Basketball, sure. But:
> Baseball is one of the most popular sports in at least Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba.
Where "at least" is also simultaneously "at most", AFAIK. Six is not exactly "many". And, hey, since you're writing from an American perspective, Cuba doesn't exist, so it's only five. And Venezuela? Four. Taiwan will probably be part of the PRC soon, so we're down to three... And how significant is the Dominican Republic, really, in a global perspective? So you're left with pretty much just Japan and South Korea. And are any teams from there even in the "World" Series?
So, sorry -- and yes, I'm from Northern Europe and everything -- but you guys really make this "typical reverse-American-exceptionalism sneering" all too easy all too often. :-)
The Nordic countries -- Finland is not in Scandinavia. Also Czechia, Slovakia, and perhaps Germany and Switzerland should also be counted. (Surely there can't be fewer hockey players there than there are baseball players in the Dominican Republic?)
Basketball is the second sport in Europe by number of participants, for sure.
Here is just one example - http://www.bayareacricket.org/
Any references for that?
It's the second most popular team sport in most European countries, including the major ones. It's the second one even in England, despite low visibility and significant competition by sports that don't really exist elsewhere [0].
[0] https://www.skysports.com/more-sports/news/36244/12069769/ba...
These are the only hard figures I can find and it puts basketball behind cricket:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/899184/basketball-partic...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/899199/cricket-participa...
It's ahead of rugby union but about the same if combining with the league variant (ignoring recent covid years).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/899308/rugby-union-parti...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/899302/rugby-league-part...
Something to bear in mind when comparing it as a "team sport" is that it's not quite like for like. Basketball is much more accessible like tennis - it can be played casually with a couple of friends. A lot of homes will have a hoop in the garden or driveway.
Cricket and rugby will mostly be organised teams, dedicated pitches etc. If the question was "do you play in a local sports team" then I expect basketball to not be comparable. There might be more people playing with a frisbee in a park than are members of a local rugby team but calling it "a more popular sport than rugby" would feel misleading by failing to account for different level of commitment/organisation required.
Even in England, by participation rates it edges rugby, because it's the second sport in populous inner cities.
It does appear that basketball is very popular outside western Europe though, so I learned something today! It makes sense, I do enjoy basketball myself and think that a lot of sports in Europe persist on the weight of tradition moreso than their fun factor.
So people really believe this shit?
Brittney Griner, a mega star in the WBNA, is currently being detained in Russia on drug charges. What was she doing in Russia in the first place? She was there playing professional basketball for a Russian team. She makes a magnitude larger salary playing in Russia than she does in the WBNA.
Baseball is a major sport in Japan and the Caribbean. There's even an MLB team in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organized_baseball_lea...
A game very similar to American football (Canadian football) has been played in Canada since the late 1800s.
This is hilariously false. Baseball is wildly popular outside of the US, in particular in Japan and the Dominican Republic. Basketball is also incredibly popular outside the US.
Just because it's not soccer and the people aren't white doesn't mean it's not popular. By that same metric baseball isn't even that popular in the US.
The most recent expansion team, Austin FC, sold out 100% of every home game in their inaugural season with an average of 20k+ attendees in a privately-funded city-owned stadium.
Also let's not forget about the USWNT who are the most successful team in international women's soccer.
- Edward Abbey
For what it's worth (vanishingly little), I say that basketball is the most boring sport: everyone runs to one end of the court and somebody shoots and does or doesn't score, then everyone runs to the other end of the court and the same thing happens. This repeats until the last minute or so on the clock, which takes an unbounded amount of time to play because of fouls and free throws.
At least the college kids sometimes miss their shots. :)
Like a more sedate baseball but slower and longer
This is also the best sport to show in an office, because people don't watch anything but the wickets. I used to work on a trading floor where they showed it all day on a screen, no problem.
Not sure you’d wear that in NZ or Australia during the summer. Or maybe the purists would, strange game.
Oh speaking of tea, a thing non-Cricket-knowers might enjoy is that a cricket match will traditionally stop for "tea" during the game. Players will go into a pavilion, have some cakes and sandwiches then resume play a little later.
Well, sorta. That statement is sufficiently true, but technically incorrect; it'd be a stretch to call Canadian and American football different sports entirely, but the differences, even if minor, are multitudinous enough to merit consideration.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_Can...
Olympics (used to) disallow professional athletes in some team competitions. The US basketball dream team of '92 was so fabled b/c it was the 1st time to allow NBA players to partake. So in that regard Olympics don't really count as 'world champion' in pretty much any team sport event. 1980 hockey was no exception and featured "amateurs".
Where the definition of "amateurs" differed wildly depending on which side of the Iron Curtain you were from... Up to about 1985 the ice hockey World Championship was mostly about who would come second after the Soviet Union (usually Czechoslovakia). The Soviet Union's national team was largely identical to CSKA MOCKBA[1], whose players were all officers[2] who probably didn't do much else while on the clock than play, practice, or exercise for playing hockey.
___
[1]: Club Sport Krasnaja Armija, the Red Army Sports Club Moskva (Moscow)
[2]: Long-time goalkeeper Vyacheslav Tretyak ended up a full colonel, IIRC.
No. That makes them Olympic champions.
The world championship is an annual competition[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Hockey_World_Championships
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/nov/02/west-ham-...
I think the only other major team stadium involving government stuff in the UK was the Coventry Building Society Arena (previously the Ricoh Arena) that used to be partly owned by Coventry City Council alongside a charity. But that was more notable for a long rent dispute between Coventry City FC and the stadium owners and various threats to move / build new stadiums etc., so was presumably less of a gift to the team financially. It's now owned by the Wasps rugby team, who also ended up in some sort of rent dispute with Coventry City FC leading to them playing at Birmginham City's ground for a couple of years.
I hear hockey is popular in Russia too, which is hardly “basically America.”
The US government actually does subsidize Marvel movies pretty heavily by giving them free/extremely cheap access to military equipment and personnel. Peace movements pretty heavily criticize these movies for this reason. See for example: https://www.cbr.com/captain-marvel-mcu-military-relationship...
Publicly financing a stadium in that setting might actually be a net positive (plenty of other factors) because all of the spectators are walking through the neighborhood with all the shops, restaurants and bars just to get to the stadium.
Baseball teams play 81 games per year in their stadium. American football teams play 8. That is also a huge difference. There are many stadiums that host both hockey and basketball and thus have 60-70 games per year - plus concerts and other events on top of that. Utilization matters! I don't know if they do anything in winter at Fenway Park, but at Wrigley Field there is a neighborhood ice rink in the winter time. The skate rental/lockers/bathrooms, warming station, concessions, and even Zamboni storage are all inside the stadium. Here's some rambling video showing what "hanging out at the stadium" looks like even when no sport is happening: https://youtu.be/-pgnR7FqkDo
If cities were getting huge economic benefits from their subsidies to pro sports teams, I probably wouldn't be complaining. It's the fact that they get little to no benefit from enormous investments that make the subsidies here dumb.
Stadiums have one use, and they're not generally available to everyone for other purposes at any time.
The studies on cities spending big on stadiums have been clear that the economic benefits are marginal at best, while the spending is big.
I dunno how big the benefits for the military are here, but they're probably not spending very much on letting movie makers borrow uniforms or use shots of F-35's in the background or whatever.
Ehhhh... What?
I could follow your argument until this line but Paris and especially London are absolutely known for sport teams.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/463098/chelsea-now-owned-by...
London-based club Chelsea has been front page news in the UK this week because its Russian owner (Roman Abramovich) has been targeted by sanctions imposed as a result of the invasion of Ukraine, throwing the future of the club (and its massively expensive players) into doubt. Some casual googling shows that this story has been covered by Fox News, Deutsche Welle in Germany, Italy 24 News and others
*least
People would have heard of London or Paris with or without their sports teams. Would you say the same of Manchester or Liverpool if their teams didn’t exist?
Not more, but independently of the cities. At least when the actual city isn't in the team's name: I had heard if Chelsea, Arsenal, and Tottenham long before I realised they're all from London. (Likewise, [Västra] Frölunda being from Göteborg.) And I'm still not quite sure about Crystal Palace and the Queen's Park Rangers... (Only recently I pieced together that Crystal Palace are probably named for the famous wrought-iron-and-glass building at the ~1850s World Exhibition, but I can't recall where that was. Probably also London?)
Wait, they are?
Googles Oh, they're from the London area. I didn't know that. Man, London is huge.
Not that I disagree with the general gist, I had to facepalm at that!
I think the general risk is that a rival politician will promise to bring back sports teams, with some dodgy financial setup that conceals the true cost, and the electorate will gobble it up
British sports are completely orthogonal to American sports, so it seems a bit disingenuous to say that ‘no one visits London for sport’ from an American perspective. No Brit will go to the US to watch MLS. Americans care less about Soccer, Rugby and Cricket, but much of the rest of the world does.
London-based Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham are the 7th, 8th and 10th most valuable soccer teams worldwide. Chelsea won the champions league last year. All three teams play in Europe (almost) every year.
Wembley Stadium is the publicly funded national soccer stadium, and hosted the recent Euros final. It is a regular host of European club competition finals, including the Champions League.
Lords is the home of cricket. It hosted the World Cup final a few years ago, and is a mandatory stop on international tours. It almost causes diplomatic incidents if a tour of England skips Lords. London also has The Oval, traditional host to the last test of the summer. Accordingly, many famous test series have been won there.
Wimbledon is the most prestigious and historic tennis tournament in the world. It’s staunch traditionalism is polarising online, but it’s perpetually sold out, and ‘ground passes’ (a ticket to all the smaller courts) have queues for days. I’m an annual queue-er, I’ve met people from all continents.
All?!
I think you're undermining the rest of your argument (which I personally think is pretty decent) by defending the "sports in London/Paris/etc doesn't matter" angle so hard across multiple subthreads.
I actually believe that even on a back of the envelope calculation it's hard to imagine how one can come up with this being a net positive. Let's argue that a stadium brings in 1M visitors a year (which is a high number) . If a stadium costs 1B then the city (through taxes etc) needs to make around 100 per person for it to be a good investment (10% return). And we haven't even considered the costs of externalities, like large traffic jams during games, cleanup etc.. I find it difficult to imagine that this works.
> needs to make around 100 per person for it to be a good investment (10% return)
The goal of a government isn't to make a profit.
I tried googling more directly for global popularity/famousness, but couldn't find any hard data.
And of course there's the issue of "has well known sports teams" vs "well known for their sports team". The former you could probably get data on somewhere, but the latter, I doubt it.
Travel outside the USA and every kid you meet has heard of Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham. If I were French or Spanish rather than British, these kids would say PSG or Real Madrid instead.
The fans don't have as much money as Americans, but there are 10-15x as many followers on Facebook.
But I would argue England is well known for its sports teams rather than London. (There's also Manchester, Liverpool etc.)
I think what you mean by "travel outside the USA" might be "travel in Europe". I'd bet that you'd get more recognition of the Lakers in, say, China than any of those Premier League teams.
> But I would argue England is well known for its sports teams rather than London. (There's also Manchester, Liverpool etc.)
That's fair, those two cities are probably known for their football teams moreso than anything else.
I may be out of date for China, I haven't been there for over 10 years.
My place of birth (in my passport) is an English city with a football team named after it. Outside Europe, in places with not so many tourists, it is very common for staff in hotels to recognize this and make some comment on it. Kids (and adults) who talk to me in the street will also comment on it — on the city's team if I say where I'm from, or with Manchester, Chelsea etc if I just say England/Britain.
I look up the names of the famous players before I travel to Africa or South America, so I don't seem like some ignorant idiot when hotel staff (or in one case, a border guard) open my passport and say "Thomas Partey! What a goal!".
Bear in mind the best European football teams often have a lot of foreign players. Chelsea currently have players from Spain, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Brazil, France, Croatia, Belgium, USA, England (only 8/26), Senegal, Mococco and France. Arsenal add Ghana, Norway, Portugal, Japan, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Switzerland. Tottenham Argentina, Ireland, Korea, Colombia, Sweden, Uruguay.
Many people are aware when if a player from their country plays for a famous European team. They often also play for their national team, or used to.
(I have no interest in football myself, which is partly why it's so noticeable to me when people ask me about it so much.)
Hard disagree on this one. It is in fact "outside the USA" because globally (not just in Europe), English Premier League teams like Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, etc. are extremely popular, especially in China.
> The National Basketball Association (NBA) has been named the most popular sports league in China in a recent survey undertaken by Ampere Analysis.
> Soccer’s English Premier League and Uefa Champions League ranked second and third respectively, in the report that conducted research with Chinese internet users.
So, the EPL is indeed popular there...but not as popular as the NBA.
Also, you see people wearing NY Yankees hats globally. Some of them don't even seem to know anything about baseball and just think it is some sort of NY merch. But still there are absolutely American sports teams that have recognizable brands more globally.
It's really not that hard.
> It's really not that hard.
Depends what you mean by football. The GP, for example, apparently meant actual foot-ball football, not American hand-egg. Does that change your assessment?
I'm also going to have to disagree on the Europe point.
South America, Mexico and Africa in particular are obsessed with football, and Russia, China and some parts of SEA are also huge football fans. Many of these will be well aware of the top British and Spanish football teams. On the other hand, basketball is also very popular in Asia so I don't know exactly how that would break.
You got any data on that? AFAIK lots of younger people have no idea what the Beatles were.
You are still forgetting a few continents. I know from experience that Central and South America complexity stop for Champions League finals.
I it’s quite possible that Liverpool is known more for The Beatles than football.
Instagram.
Arsenal (#38 from your list) has 21.9m followers and Dallas Cowboys (#1 from your list) has 3.9m followers.
But it's almost certainly not more popular than soccer.
At the very least WWE is not 6x as popular as the Dallas Cowboys.
Another example that occurred to me: I understand that American sports actually have regular breaks specifically to facilitate adverts. Whereas football (soccer) matches have two uninterrupted halves with a single 15 minute break in between.
Living here and experiencing the carnage common after football matches, I can promise you that a shit load of international and domestic tourists come to watch football.
For example, it would be totally unacceptable to large parts of the country for Manchester United to go bankrupt and be sold off in parts as would happen in a normal business. I don't even really care and I think I'd find it outrageous too. The political sphere here is well aware of the value communities place on their FCs and protecting that system is commonly a part of political debate.
I feel like treating sports as a regular business is questionable. If we wouldn't allow a business to fail, it's not a real business, and looking at what literally just happened with Chelsea, it's clear we won't allow it to fail in the same way as a normal business.
You could say the same about monarchy, religion and, not long ago, smoking.
I couldn't care less about football. I doubt as many women care as men as well. "large parts of the country" can pay for their own shit.
Imagine a taxpayer bailout to support the settlement a paedophile is having to make.
Yes, the impact isn't zero, but I feel like the answer to the question of "How many people know about London" would change relatively little if you removed the pro sports teams.
But yeah I probably should've picked better examples. I think Tokyo works fine, Japan's pro baseball league doesn't have nearly the same global popularity as the EPL. Maybe Berlin? I lived in Munich and don't remember Berlin's football team, if they have one, really coming up much.
A city with a sports team benefits in numerous intangible ways. These teams serve as marketing for a city, both internationally and externally. It is a marker of quality for a city, a stamp of approval. They help contribute to a public identity of a city. There is value in having a communal identity. It unites people and helps them work together on more serious problems.
People also love following the local sports team. Yes, this is entertainment similar to other forms, but it can often be free. You don't need to buy tickets to a game to enjoy it. For example, every soldout NFL game is broadcast for free over-the-air in their local market. Marvel movies don't premier for free on the TV in my home.
It's amazing how twisted adult mindsets about sports are. Notice how not caring about watching pro sports teams is, in your mind, "not liking sports." As if the primary function of "sports" is to be watched, rather than, y'know, played.
> It is a marker of quality for a city, a stamp of approval.
I really don't think so. It's more likely that causation works the other way: cities that are successful tend to attract sports teams to take advantage of the local market.
Take Seattle: lost its NBA team, lost its NHL team until very recently. Was just found to be the most desirable city for new college grads anyway. Nobody's been thinking that Seattle sucks because they only had two of the four major US pro sports present in the region.
The way people frame and phrase things is quite revealing.
> It is ok if you don't like sports (which is obvious from your comments about Tokyo, London, and Paris which all have notably big sports cultures), but you don't have to pretend that other people don't find value in it.
Your comment would have been sooo much better if it hadn't started with a personal insult.
I am also not convinced about your argument there. I have no idea about what teams or even what kinds of sports teams those cities have, yet to me those cities are famous. I see little connection with a city's fame and sports in general except for rare circumstances. I may know for some cities that there also are sports teams, but I doubt those cities' fame was much changed by having them. I'm sure there's one or the other anecdote where a city became significantly more famous because of some team, but I doubt that this is even close to significant. For example, I think the German founder of SAP sponsored a local soccer team which let them buy a lot of to players, and with it he made an unknown town (and an unknown local team) kind of famous. That's not exactly the norm. Usually even such magnates prefer already well-known cities for their pet teams.
I'm not saying Tokyo, London, and Paris are famous only because of sports. That would be ridiculous. I am saying that sports is a part of their cultural identity. It provides unity to those cities. It helps attract people to those cities. Those cities are also historic. This effect is more prominent in cities with less history. For example, Buffalo and Rochester are two metro areas in New York of roughly equal size. I would bet that many Americans could tell you a lot more about Buffalo than Rochester and that is likely because of Buffalo's two professional sports teams.
What are you talking about? I responded with multiple points. Look at the comment chain.
A part of the reason why I live where I live is good access to live sports I'm interested in. Even within the city where I currently live, I chose the area in the city based on good transit options to the stadiums or decently close geographic distances. While it wouldn't be a deal breaker to move to a place where I don't have access to those live sports, it would be a part of the considerations on my move. And then its not even just the sports but also all the other events which go on at such stadiums and venues.
I wouldn't say Seattle sucks because they didn't have an NHL team, but it absolutely would have impacted my math on moving at least some amount and would have affected where I would have decided to live in Seattle or the surrounding area. Now that they are soon to have an NHL team again, I'm more likely to find it agreeable to move there. I wouldn't even consider myself a major sports fanatic.
London has Chelsea, Arsenal, West Ham, Tottenham in the premier league. People come from all around to watch them play. I say this as someone who cares little about football.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure German cities like Dortmund and Leverkusen are primarily known because of their soccer teams (at least among those who are into soccer, and that is a lot).
There are probably otherwise-sad US cities with decent pro sports teams that help bring name recognition...but does that actually translate into anything productive? The data on economic benefits seems to indicate the answer is 'no'.
Paris has Paris St Germain, who currently own two of the most recent top international players on the world stage.
Both cities also have lots of too-tier clubs from other sports, e.g. rugby.
These cities do have plenty of other attractions beside sports though to attract tourists and investment, so without these teams the cities would likely be fine.
As already the old Romans knew: panem et circenses is what you need to keep your population from uprising - aka, providing them with food and entertainment.
> You may as well argue that the government should be subsidizing new Marvel movies, or Call of Duty, because those are popular forms of entertainment too.
Movies, including blockbusters such as the MCU, are already subsidized. As for games - the European Union subsidizes developers since 2014[1], Germany runs an additional program since 2019 [2].
> For a while, the Olympics were able to basically threaten their way into huge subsidies from even developed countries, but this seems to have mostly gone away now, as everyone collectively woke up from the delusion that the Olympics were a major economic boon worth investing in.
The subsidies for Olympic Games and FIFA World Cups were for a very long time mostly housing, public transport and the stadiums that were sustainably usable for many decades (just look at my home city of Munich if you want to see an example). Only after corruption took over decisionmaking and sponsors demanded special laws (e.g. in Brazil with beer [3]), liberal democracies decided to not participate in the racket, and so dictators bought their way in.
[1]: https://www.treffpunkteuropa.de/wie-die-eu-die-entwicklung-v...
[2]: https://www.bmvi.de/DE/Themen/Digitales/Computerspielefoerde...
[3]: https://www.t-online.de/sport/fussball/wm/id_53306408/fifa-v...
But you might not know that about the most popular pro sport in the world.
I used to be on a torrent site that released edited versions of NFL games where they cut out all breaks, interruptions and uninteresting instant replays. The games were all under an hour and actually really fun and exciting to watch.
> Seriously, though, if you are not into sports even slightly, why do you persist on making so many comments and statements about the popularity of sports and teams.
Why not? It's an interesting discussion, even if I'm not into watching pro sports.
A sports team and a stadium have a very narrow appeal and is inaccessible to a large segment of the population either due to disinterest or lack of funds.
I get your gist here but I think it's pretty easy to make a distinction between these things. Even the most hardened Libertarian would agree that public spaces like parks are a net good.
Distracting and pacifying the populace with athletic spectacle is a trick governments have used for longer than history has existed. Major league sports are just the latest iteration in a long line of bread and circuses.
There are counter examples as well. The New York Yankees? The Dallas Cowboys? Toronto Maple Leafs? Take away the sports franchises from those cities and it would definitely be a huge economic and cultural hit to those cities.
But what I really want to know is who pays $200 for a sports ticket and $20 for a beer? There is money to be made hand over fist, but I just don’t understand why that is true at all. I’d rather not have these sports teams either if only for the traffic they generate on game days. But if you want to blame someone, blame the customers for this stuff, not the local government that is just giving them what they want.
Also, Tokyo is a really bad example of you are failing against prestige boondoggles. How many sky trees and Tokyo towers does the world really need?
Maybe the more apt example is Green Bay, a city that would otherwise be a total unknown. Mid-tier cities like Indianapolis as well. There's a number of other cities like Liverpool that are known for the Beatles and a sports team. For those cities, you can see why the mayor might think it's worthwhile to help out the local sports team. Nonetheless, it's still likely the case that it's really a waste of money.
Genuine question: isn't it absurdly rude to respond to something somebody said in this way?
1) There are no new facts likely to come out any time soon & the situation is unlikely to change.
2) This is a question of public spending.
3) Joining dots, someone is being taxed to fund other people literally just entertaining themselves.
Eg, say I don't like team sports and there are some homeless people living nearby. Why should I be paying taxes for an uneconomic football stadium? The people who use the stadium can pay for it. If they can't afford it, it shouldn't be built. There are real problems in the world that are more important than people distracting themselves.
And from that perspective, downright contempt for pro-public-spending-on-stadiums seems a plausible position.
Not disagreeing with your overall argument, but London is the home of several Premier League clubs, with Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham having global followings.
Paris has PSG, which is infamous for spending seemingly limitless money to bring in superstars like Messi, Neymar, Mbappe and others. Their ownership by a Qatari sovereign wealth fund is the subject of constant conversation among those who follow football.
Tokyo I will grant you. They have the baseball Tokyo Giants, but I don't think they are closely followed outside of Japan.
This also works for the Green Bay Packers (American Football). To raise money for an upgrade / expansion of their stadium, they just issued more ownership certificates, and the fans of the team bought them. GB has a unique ownership model compared to the rest of the NFL though.
The state of Rhode Island burned a huge amount of cash on by funding a loan for a video game company. That didn't pan out.
You are kidding yourself if London and Paris are not known for sports. Baseball is big in Tokyo. Have you been to State de France? You think Wembly stadium, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Tottenham aren’t a global brands and icons?
Tokyo - 2020 Olympics
London - 2012 Olympics
Paris - 2024 Olympics
What a beautiful way to shoot down your own post, well done.
Government subsidize movies and art for their cultural value.
can't believe what i'm reading. go read some cold war history, or even pre-WW2 history.
My point was supposed to be less about major world cities having famous teams and more about the impact of those teams on said cities. Okay, Tokyo doesn't have world-recognized sports teams the way London does. Does that seem to hurt it?
> Also the only way to stop these gifts to private companies is likely with a new federal law banning them. It is simple game theory. These businesses will go where the profit is. Any city or state that refuses pay will lose out until every city or state refuses to pay. The best way to force that is with a federal ban.
No. You can just...refuse to subsidize them. Seems to be working fine for Seattle, where IIRC the renovated stadium for their new NHL team was privately funded.
And if they do go somewhere else, what's the downside? Seattle lost its NBA team a while back, which was a bummer for basketball fans, obviously, but otherwise what was the harm to the city or region?
Plenty of high prestige world cities like Tokyo or London or Paris aren't known for their pro sports teams. They seem to suffer little for it.
For a while, the Olympics were able to basically threaten their way into huge subsidies from even developed countries, but this seems to have mostly gone away now, as everyone collectively woke up from the delusion that the Olympics were a major economic boon worth investing in. Sports team stadiums could easily go the same way.
edit:
Okay, obviously I should've picked different world cities as examples, but even taking those: Tokyo's pro sports teams don't have anywhere close to the foreign popularity that London's EPL teams do. Does that seem to hurt it?