http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/p ... 80274.html

When the Minnesota United, one of Major League Soccer’s expansion teams, reached a deal to build a new stadium in St. Paul, the team agreed to pick up much of the tab.

Under an agreement approved in March, the soccer team will cover the cost for the $150 million stadium itself.

In return, the city voted to spend $18.4 million for improvements around the stadium, including sidewalks, lights, parking and landscaping.

Charlotte’s first proposal for an MLS team would require taxpayers to give much more money.

A proposal presented to Mecklenburg County commissioners in closed session last week calls for the city and county to each spend $50 million toward a $150 million stadium in Elizabeth just outside of uptown. The local ownership group of Bruton Smith, the billionaire race track owner, and his son Marcus, CEO of Speedway Motorsports, would spend $50 million for the stadium.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/p ... rylink=cpy

Nothing new under the sun. Not sure why the public usually agrees to fund stadiums for billionaires but it happens far more often than not.

It'll keep happening until the citizens raise hell. The city should've done it for the BOA Stadium remodel either.

HeffnerIV wrote:It'll keep happening until the citizens raise hell. The city should've done it for the BOA Stadium remodel either.

Did you mean "shouldn't have?"

Yes

Context: this is critical of the broken college athletic system, not Appalachian. We're just stuck in a broken system.

Subsidies for sport teams is regressive redistributive socialism whether it is for professional and college athletics. For professional teams, it takes from taxpayers and gives to billionaire owners and millionaire coaches and players. For college programs, it takes from students and gives to relatively wealthy alumni and rich coaches In college, the free labor also helps line the pockets of fans and coaches. The justification is the same. PR, civic pride, economic development for pro teams, and PR, team spirit and donations for college teams. Research on both pro and college clearly shows that these justifications fail to justify the subsidies. Some taxpayers have wisely opposed it, such as San Diego recently. And some students have wisely opposed it, but don't have the luxury of a referendum to reject it. Both should live by the market since they are private goods (entertainment) that does not warrant subsidies. To the contrary, education does provide a public good and research shows that subsidizing education has been shown to provide enormous returns to society and governments. Its a microcosm of the backwards priorities of our country that we see universities (including us) increase their athletic budget while their academic budget shrink (and for pro teams, see taxes go to stadiums while teachers don't get the materials they need).

App1990 wrote:Context: this is critical of the broken college athletic system, not Appalachian. We're just stuck in a broken system.

Subsidies for sport teams is regressive redistributive socialism whether it is for professional and college athletics. For professional teams, it takes from taxpayers and gives to billionaire owners and millionaire coaches and players. For college programs, it takes from students and gives to relatively wealthy alumni and rich coaches In college, the free labor also helps line the pockets of fans and coaches. The justification is the same. PR, civic pride, economic development for pro teams, and PR, team spirit and donations for college teams. Research on both pro and college clearly shows that these justifications fail to justify the subsidies. Some taxpayers have wisely opposed it, such as San Diego recently. And some students have wisely opposed it, but don't have the luxury of a referendum to reject it. Both should live by the market since they are private goods (entertainment) that does not warrant subsidies. To the contrary, education does provide a public good and research shows that subsidizing education has been shown to provide enormous returns to society and governments. Its a microcosm of the backwards priorities of our country that we see universities (including us) increase their athletic budget while their academic budget shrink (and for pro teams, see taxes go to stadiums while teachers don't get the materials they need).

not fun but true

Soccer..... doesn't ring a bell.

i have often wished that someone would do a comprehensive study here in CLT of the Tax dollars brought in by the 2 stadiums. I was here for the arena fight and it made all the sense in the world. They bring in jobs, tourism, hotel, food, and all the taxes those include. There is no doubt in my mind the BOA stadium is in the black and the Arena is or is close. Shoot the uptown has sprung up around them not to mention changed drastically. If someone told you you could spend $50 but would get $100 back in a short time, would you?
I have never thought this Millionaire/Billionaire argument holds water. It takes money to make money but better yet if no public money then the Public cannot keep any $$ associated with the above.

All that, i am not sure Futbol brings in enough to justify 100 mill, i would like to see that studied. As to App1990, it is not a Zero sum game, just because 1 gets it does not mean the other does not. more often those monies HAVE to be earmarked for on purpose and not the other. a % Hotel, restaurant tax is earmarked for this thing, has nothing at all to do with taxes and monies associated with teacher pay. Teacher pay is not going up if not used. Those arguements are bogus.

The MLS expansion plan has excited cities across the country. Raleigh, Tampa, Charlotte and others are all lining up to get a team. In the end, there are only going to be 2, maybe 3, additional franchises. I'm not sure which market in NC is better positioned to support a team...but the comments from @App91 about the halo effect is spot on. You can't just look at stadium revenue and not look at the impact on the surrounding real estate (positive or negative).

Ask Cleveland if losing Lebron to Miami hurt the local economy? Or if his return helped!

But under that argument every company should get municipal subsidies for their facility. Every business has some "halo" effect (ex., my employees buy gas from the gas station next door to our facility)

HeffnerIV wrote:But under that argument every company should get municipal subsidies for their facility. Every business has some "halo" effect (ex., my employees buy gas from the gas station next door to our facility)

Not to make the case for the stadium as I am neither a Charlotte nor North Carolina resident but cities/states provide all kinds of incentives for companies to locate their headquarters or new plants in their state or locality.

hapapp wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:But under that argument every company should get municipal subsidies for their facility. Every business has some "halo" effect (ex., my employees buy gas from the gas station next door to our facility)

Not to make the case for the stadium as I am neither a Charlotte nor North Carolina resident but cities/states provide all kinds of incentives for companies to locate their headquarters or new plants in their state or locality.

I know, but that's crony-capitalism and it helps the big guy at the expense of the little guy

hapapp wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:But under that argument every company should get municipal subsidies for their facility. Every business has some "halo" effect (ex., my employees buy gas from the gas station next door to our facility)

Not to make the case for the stadium as I am neither a Charlotte nor North Carolina resident but cities/states provide all kinds of incentives for companies to locate their headquarters or new plants in their state or locality.

That is very true and I hate that ever started. I do see a difference though between a business that profits the surrounding area all year long and a stadium that does the same 6-8 times a year.

It's one thing to do that for an NFL or NBA team, but MLS has a much more limited appeal. I'm just not sure how much Charlotte will profit off of having a soccer team.

HeffnerIV wrote:

hapapp wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:But under that argument every company should get municipal subsidies for their facility. Every business has some "halo" effect (ex., my employees buy gas from the gas station next door to our facility)

Not to make the case for the stadium as I am neither a Charlotte nor North Carolina resident but cities/states provide all kinds of incentives for companies to locate their headquarters or new plants in their state or locality.

I know, but that's crony-capitalism and it helps the big guy at the expense of the little guy

I'm not sure I follow your comment. How is bringing a new business to an area "at the expense of the little guy"?

Boone Goon wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:

hapapp wrote:

HeffnerIV wrote:But under that argument every company should get municipal subsidies for their facility. Every business has some "halo" effect (ex., my employees buy gas from the gas station next door to our facility)

Not to make the case for the stadium as I am neither a Charlotte nor North Carolina resident but cities/states provide all kinds of incentives for companies to locate their headquarters or new plants in their state or locality.

I know, but that's crony-capitalism and it helps the big guy at the expense of the little guy

I'm not sure I follow your comment. How is bringing a new business to an area "at the expense of the little guy"?

You're giving the big company advantages the smaller, existing company doesn't have. The small biz is expected to pay the going rates while the new guy doesn't. That's a competitive advantage to the new guy. Plus, the government just shouldn't be picking winners and losers.

There isn't even a plan for MLS to expand to Charlotte. Not sure how this one can get off the ground. I would not want to be in business with Bruton Smith on this either. He has a long history of threats of moving if her doesn't get his way on things.