Do you think it's fair that tax dollars pay Kobe Bryant's $30 million salary

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

More racism. Case closed. Seemingly it's unthinkable to DDD that blacks would be interested in complicated music. If you're a symphony fan you must be white, in DDD's view.

I didn't mention blacks. My points are strictly economic.....Joe Punchclock (black, white, whatever) doesn't care about the symphony. The wealthy care about the symphony. Yet a community is made up mostly of Joe Punchclock, not the wealthy. So sports do matter....way more than the opera.

Again, my Boston example....try New York or LA or basically any city....stop 10 people on the street and ask them what they are more proud of.....local sports championships or the local philharmonic.

We are way off topic. Did you ever find a link for Kobe's salary?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm going to leave aside the question of whether SBA loans are good public policy or not.

If you're going to use Small Business Loans as an analogy why not student loans? Good Lord. Do you think there's a distinction between the federal government making nickle and dime LOANS to small business owners to foster inovation and and stimulate the economy at a grass roots level, and cities and states giving eight figure handouts to billionaire owners who can't turn a profit because they pay guys $20 million a year and up to play basketball?

They are turning a profit!!! where the hell have you been???

Donald Fehr gave this quote and it applies somewhat to basketball:

"There are two things that are a constant in Major League Baseball

1. There's never enough pitching
2. No one ever made any money"

[Mormon Red Death]

btw... the Utah Jazz were bought 23 years ago fro 12 million... They are now worth 200 million. too bad LHM can't make any money on his team.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

They are turning a profit!!! where the hell have you been???

Donald Fehr gave this quote and it applies somewhat to basketball:

"There are two things that are a constant in Major League Baseball

1. There's never enough pitching
2. No one ever made any money"

Andrew Zimbalist, a smart-as-hell economist at Smith College, tackled this issue in May the Best Team Win (2004). He focused on baseball, but it's reasonable to conclude that many of his points translate to all US major-league professional sports.

Here's some info on Zimbalist: http://sophia.smith.edu/~azimbali/biography1.html

Some of his key points:

> The monopolistic nature of major professional sports in the US allows a team to wield disproportionate control over its marketplace (host city). As long as a league prevents teams from freely moving where the money is, teams are able to hold their cities hostage for tax-funded concessions. The threat of moving - with no quick-and-easy way of replacing a departed franchise - carries a lot of clout.

> The "a new stadium will revitalize a slummed up inner-city area" argument is not altogether specious, but is really only a side-benefit to building a stadium. There are cheaper, more profitable ways to develop inner city slums.

> The "build a new stadium and it will get people spending money in our city" argument is weak. People only have so much disposable income. So, a new stadium opens up downtown and people get excited to go watch the Widgets play, spending their hard-earned cash on tickets, beer, and hotdogs. Meanwhile, Bob's Bowling Alley goes broke because the city's entertainment dollars didn't go up, they just went elsewhere. [The response to this argument is that tourists will come, bringing in money from afar. Zimbalist seems to think this influx of tourist cash is confined to big cities, who enjoy tourist cash anyway.]

> Some Major League Baseball teams are, generally, immensely profitable - but they don't have to show it on their books because they all have partnered cable TV companies that help them massage the team's bottom line. "Bundling" a team's station (e.g. the YES network in NYC) has proven extremely lucrative. Those teams that do not seem profitable often choose so deliberately.

> Unless a Major League Baseball team is poised to win it all, it's more profitable to be bad with cheap players (the worst is to be slightly above .500, or still a longshot in the race late in the season). Luxury tax and Revenue Sharing have made it more profitable in some situations to sign small-time, cheap players and rely on Boston and New York (both the AL and NL teams) to make up the difference. Hence, the bad teams that should get the best draft picks often don't use them - because they cost more money. The rich teams end up getting the talented rookies, making the process more entrenched.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

Andrew Zimbalist, a smart-as-hell economist at Smith College, tackled this issue in May the Best Team Win (2004). He focused on baseball, but it's reasonable to conclude that many of his points translate to all US major-league professional sports.

Here's some info on Zimbalist: http://sophia.smith.edu/~azimbali/biography1.html

Some of his key points:

> The monopolistic nature of major professional sports in the US allows a team to wield disproportionate control over its marketplace (host city). As long as a league prevents teams from freely moving where the money is, teams are able to hold their cities hostage for tax-funded concessions. The threat of moving - with no quick-and-easy way of replacing a departed franchise - carries a lot of clout.

> The "a new stadium will revitalize a slummed up inner-city area" argument is not altogether specious, but is really only a side-benefit to building a stadium. There are cheaper, more profitable ways to develop inner city slums.

> The "build a new stadium and it will get people spending money in our city" argument is weak. People only have so much disposable income. So, a new stadium opens up downtown and people get excited to go watch the Widgets play, spending their hard-earned cash on tickets, beer, and hotdogs. Meanwhile, Bob's Bowling Alley goes broke because the city's entertainment dollars didn't go up, they just went elsewhere. [The response to this argument is that tourists will come, bringing in money from afar. Zimbalist seems to think this influx of tourist cash is confined to big cities, who enjoy tourist cash anyway.]

> Some Major League Baseball teams are, generally, immensely profitable - but they don't have to show it on their books because they all have partnered cable TV companies that help them massage the team's bottom line. "Bundling" a team's station (e.g. the YES network in NYC) has proven extremely lucrative. Those teams that do not seem profitable often choose so deliberately.

> Unless a Major League Baseball team is poised to win it all, it's more profitable to be bad with cheap players (the worst is to be slightly above .500, or still a longshot in the race late in the season). Luxury tax and Revenue Sharing have made it more profitable in some situations to sign small-time, cheap players and rely on Boston and New York (both the AL and NL teams) to make up the difference. Hence, the bad teams that should get the best draft picks often don't use them - because they cost more money. The rich teams end up getting the talented rookies, making the process more entrenched.

Thank you. This is the article I was thinking of.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

btw... the Utah Jazz were bought 23 years ago fro 12 million... They are now worth 200 million. too bad LHM can't make any money on his team.

They experience capital gains like the cosa nostra did.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

They are turning a profit!!! where the hell have you been???

Donald Fehr gave this quote and it applies somewhat to basketball:

"There are two things that are a constant in Major League Baseball

1. There's never enough pitching
2. No one ever made any money"

Don't understand how your quote there supports your argument. I guess I just don't get it. As I noted above, studies show if there is money made it's due to government largesse across the league. The capital gains have no correlation to profits. This is the only "industry" where that seems to be the case, outside of biotech and the like, where capital gains is a function of anticipated technological breakthroughs resulting in huge future profits. The NBA is more like a rust belt industry, yet experiences capital gains like a hot biotech. Is this good for society? You know, fifty years ago the NBA was of almost no consequence to anyone. It wouldn't be the end of the world if it just evaporated.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Solon

Andrew Zimbalist, a smart-as-hell economist at Smith College, tackled this issue in May the Best Team Win (2004). He focused on baseball, but it's reasonable to conclude that many of his points translate to all US major-league professional sports.

Here's some info on Zimbalist: http://sophia.smith.edu/~azimbali/biography1.html

Some of his key points:

> The monopolistic nature of major professional sports in the US allows a team to wield disproportionate control over its marketplace (host city). As long as a league prevents teams from freely moving where the money is, teams are able to hold their cities hostage for tax-funded concessions. The threat of moving - with no quick-and-easy way of replacing a departed franchise - carries a lot of clout.

> The "a new stadium will revitalize a slummed up inner-city area" argument is not altogether specious, but is really only a side-benefit to building a stadium. There are cheaper, more profitable ways to develop inner city slums.

> The "build a new stadium and it will get people spending money in our city" argument is weak. People only have so much disposable income. So, a new stadium opens up downtown and people get excited to go watch the Widgets play, spending their hard-earned cash on tickets, beer, and hotdogs. Meanwhile, Bob's Bowling Alley goes broke because the city's entertainment dollars didn't go up, they just went elsewhere. [The response to this argument is that tourists will come, bringing in money from afar. Zimbalist seems to think this influx of tourist cash is confined to big cities, who enjoy tourist cash anyway.]

> Some Major League Baseball teams are, generally, immensely profitable - but they don't have to show it on their books because they all have partnered cable TV companies that help them massage the team's bottom line. "Bundling" a team's station (e.g. the YES network in NYC) has proven extremely lucrative. Those teams that do not seem profitable often choose so deliberately.

> Unless a Major League Baseball team is poised to win it all, it's more profitable to be bad with cheap players (the worst is to be slightly above .500, or still a longshot in the race late in the season). Luxury tax and Revenue Sharing have made it more profitable in some situations to sign small-time, cheap players and rely on Boston and New York (both the AL and NL teams) to make up the difference. Hence, the bad teams that should get the best draft picks often don't use them - because they cost more money. The rich teams end up getting the talented rookies, making the process more entrenched.

I agree with most of the points (as they pertain to this thread), but the only point above that even remotely goes to SU's premise is Point #1.

And in the case of the Sonics, they did not hold Seattle hostage. They just left and went elsewhere. Also, Point #1 begs the question: if these teams really are just a taxpayer drain, why would cities care that they leave?

Does Zimbalist give any specific examples in his article? The link is only a bio, as you had stated. It sounds like an interesting read.

Also, as I am sure you are aware, the MLB is slightly different from every other sports league because it enjoys an anti-trust exemption.

In the past decade or so, which teams have relocated......Houston Oilers, Montreal Expos, Vancouver Grizzlies, Seattle Supersonics, several NHL teams that I couldnt care less about. Any others? Seems that if teams are basically sibsidized by taxpayers, why move? Why didnt these teams just stay and hold their host cities hostage?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I agree with most of the points (as they pertain to this thread), but the only point above that even remotely goes to SU's premise is Point #1.

And in the case of the Sonics, they did not hold Seattle hostage. They just left and went elsewhere.

Does Zimbalist give any specific examples in his article? The link is only a bio, as you had stated. It sounds like an interesting read.

Also, as I am sure you are aware, the MLB is slightly different from every other sports league because it enjoys an anti-trust exemption.

In the past decade or so, which teams have relocated......Houston Oilers, Montreal Expos, Vancouver Grizzlies, Seattle Supersonics, several NHL teams that I couldnt care less about. Any others? Seems that if teams are basically sibsidized by taxpayers, why move? Why didnt these teams just stay and hold their host cities hostage?

Is there a pro football team in LA yet? Are you a Chargers fan?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Is there a pro football team in LA yet? Are you a Chargers fan?

It took you since yesterday evening to think that of that? Nice.

Raiders fan. No team yet, which is shocking since both the Rams and Raiders were making money hand over fist as a result of all those taxpayers footing the bills.

If you will excuse me, I am conversing politely with Solon, who in one post was able to accomplish more than you did in an entire thread.