Re:Cities should not pay for new stadiums
by meekaaku on Tuesday March 15, 2022 @05:30AM
(#30683286)
I agree with your basic point. Businesses (the sports teams are) should fund themselves, apart from common things paid for by taxes like roads, bridge and such infrastructure. But London/Paris are well known for their sports teams. London alone as Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal which are big Premier league teams. Others lesser known Watford, westham, Crystal Palace are all basically London teams. Besides all? of PL teams are city based, Manchester City/Utd, Liverpool, Leeds, Leicester etc.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Cities should not pay for new stadiums
by TulliusCicero on Tuesday March 15, 2022 @05:34AM
(#30683323)
Originally I wrote "particularly known" before removing the "particularly", maybe I should've left it in.
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.
Re:Cities should not pay for new stadiums
by cycomanic on Tuesday March 15, 2022 @07:57AM
(#30684247)
I would argue that London is actuallyba very good example. I would wager that a significant portion of non UK soccer fans would not even know that all these teams are in London (let's not even talk about non soccer fans). So yes the OP was correct London is not known for their sports teams. I think Manchester is probably an example of a city that is known mainly for its sports team.