CodeMonkey Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 The argument here would be that, without government subsidies, the Bills would be more likely to move to some other location. Sure, people could still watch the Los Angeles Bills on television, or listen to said games on the radio, but how many New York State residents would really want to do that? As for the question of subsidies to professional teams in the first place--it's a tricky question. Municipalities and state governments, collectively, face a situation in which they'd collectively be better off if no one offered government subsidies to professional sports teams. But if someone else is offering a massive government subsidy to your city's sports team, then offering a subsidy of your own just became the cost of doing business. In a perfect world, there'd be a federal law against any state or local government handing out a subsidy to any professional sports teams. But such a law would raise questions about federal versus state and local government rights; as well as the NFL's anti-trust exemption. In the absence of such a law, state or local subsidies are the price one pays for retaining one's professional sports teams. It's not complicated at all. Raise the price of tickets etc. such that the team can stay put without welfare. That way the people that enjoy the Bills (or whatever sports team) can fund them without burdening the rest of the state. The last thing we need is more freaking laws, just a little common sense and good old fashioned capitalism is all that is needed here. But common sense is probably too much to ask. Bottom line, there is absolutely no reason on Gods green earth that NYS should be giving welfare to Ralph Wilson. Period. I understand what you are saying and I know that it has become "the cost of doing business", but it sure as !@#$ should not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts