If the deals are so good, why don’t the franchises pay? Because politicians fall all over themselves to subsidize billionaire owners and millionaire players at our expense? What is next, SNAP for Snyder, Medicaid for quarterbacks. Insanity definition fits nicely when it comes to stadiums and taxpayers.
Why don’t billionaire team owners pay for stadiums? Here’s one reason:
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I don’t care where the Washington Commies put their stadium, it’s not like there’s an unemployment problem in Northern Virginia.
But at least I’m glad Knight is looking out for the taxpayers.
LikeLike
Snyder will probably be forced out of ownership when the NFL investigates and RELEASES publocally the reults concerning the franchises sexaul harrasment of employees.
Any courting for Northern VA should hold off until the outcome is determined. And then NOT contemplated.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand the issue. Should state and municipal governments discriminate against sports team owners because the owners are wealthy? Should governments not compete with one another in attracting business? Should sports be nationalized?
LikeLike
It’s a vicious circle. Owners demand subsidies because they have gotten them in the past. But in reality, there is no more justification for localities building stadiums to draw a team than for me to have expected a city to provide me with a dental office. In fact, in terms of quality jobs created, building health care offices would probably be a better deal.
But as long as cities compete with financial subsidies, that will be how stadiums get located.
‘It’s a strange game, the only winning move is not to play.’
LikeLiked by 2 people
…”in terms of quality jobs created, “…
It’s about quantity and not quality … unless we are talking about the players… when it comes to these types of projects.
LikeLike
Strange indeed. Is the complaint:
You shouldn’t build that?
I don’t want to build that?
Or: I want to build that without you?
LikeLike
I think Don’s point is that if the owner wants it, then the owner should build it.
I tend to agree, unless a HUGE local positive, economic impact is identified AND guaranteed by the owners.
LikeLike
not even then.
The only way to stop the cycle is to step away.
LikeLike
Not at all. If a football team needs a place to play, have paying fans, get lucrative media rights, concession sales, then the owners need to build it. Period. Perhaps they won’t move around so much if they have more skin in the game.
I might relent if a municipality offers to expand some streets, add a few traffic lights, but that’s it.
Selling bonds, borrowing money and then have the team pull up stakes a few decades later leaving the taxpayers holding the proverbial bag is a joke.
A bad one at that. “Let’s go Snyder!”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Did you mean “Let Snyder go!”?
LikeLike