Great timing - Bill introduced to eliminate tax subsidy for pro sports stadiums

[The 9 Isles]

Bill introduced to eliminate tax subsidy for pro sports stadiums

 

“Super-rich sports team owners like Dan Snyder do not need federal support to build their stadiums, and taxpayers should not be forced to fund them,” Beyer said in a statement. “Billionaire owners who need cash can borrow from the market like any other business.”

 

more complications. 

[JoPoy88]

Very unlikely this even gets to a vote, let alone passes. 
 

Edit: as others have said, this is likely a tactic from Congress to persuade the NFL to cooperate with their sexual harassment inquiries. Owners (including the Bills’) looking to build new stadiums now are more likely to place more pressure on their peers to dial back their stalling and obstruction.

 

Anything that gets Dan Snyder out of the league asap I’m on board with.

Edited February 23, 2022 by JoPoy88

[DJB]

Im confused. 

 

Are the Patriots getting more comp picks now? 

[CA OC Bills Fan]

Although I dislike (hate?) the idea of taxpayers paying for stadiums, having laws to determine free markets always have consequences. In this case, it means it's easier for teams to move for the best deal and less likely that smaller markets that won't support high stadium prices will lose teams.

[WhoTom]

10 minutes ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Although I dislike (hate?) the idea of taxpayers paying for stadiums, having laws to determine free markets always have consequences. In this case, it means it's easier for teams to move for the best deal and less likely that smaller markets that won't support high stadium prices will lose teams.

 

Seems to me that corporate welfare (i.e. government subsidies for billionaires) is the opposite of a free-market economy.

 

[DallasBillsFan1]

I will always defend the taxpayer as they are over-burdened as it is.  The want and "need" for taxpayer money is insatiable ... federal, state, local, and corporations.  As much as I love my Bills and the NFL product ... and as much as I am a capitalist pig ... the taxpayer should not be funding these stadiums.  It's that simple.  Too many institutions are suckling from the public teet, and its killing the country.

[DCofNC]

1 minute ago, DallasBillsFan1 said:

I will always defend the taxpayer as they are over-burdened as it is.  The want and "need" for taxpayer money is insatiable ... federal, state, local, and corporations.  As much as I love my Bills and the NFL product ... and as much as I am a capitalist pig ... the taxpayer should not be funding these stadiums.  It's that simple.  Too many institutions are suckling from the public teet, and its killing the country.

There’s no need for federal funding, local jurisdictions that gain substantial benefit should be allowed to do what they want.

[HardyBoy]

8 minutes ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Although I dislike (hate?) the idea of taxpayers paying for stadiums, having laws to determine free markets always have consequences. In this case, it means it's easier for teams to move for the best deal and less likely that smaller markets that won't support high stadium prices will lose teams.

 

Nothing about the nfl is free market though.

 

Also, I think the argument is that the money could be better spent to help children in really tough situations. Children made zero choices to get in those situations, so the personal choices have consequences argument does not apply.

 

Very acceptable initial position to take that tax money is consistently not spent wisely (I don't think this is a slam dunk though), but if you take the position that tax money is spent poorly, then spending tax money on a stadium is an example of poor spending of tax money.

 

If all is spent poorly, then that would include sports stadiums. Otherwise, one opens up themselves to saying that tax money is spent poorly unless they see a direct benefit while others do not, and that is just a pretty massive contradiction.

 

Unless you go zero taxes, which then how do you pay for roads and other infrastructure, you are always going to have fewer benefits of some taxes and more from others. And taxes don't always help only those without...taxes spent on a toll road for example, those roads are inaccessible to people without cars or who cannot afford to pay the tolls.

 

It's a messy, complicated, nuanced conversation ultimately that I'm not sure we are capable of having with the current two sides and not being able to acknowledge good points by others because it amounts to some fictitious "win" that we cannot allow them to have.

[DCofNC]

3 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Nothing about the nfl is free market though.

 

Also, I think the argument is that the money could be better spent to help children in really tough situations. Children made zero choices to get in those situations, so the personal choices have consequences argument does not apply.

 

Very acceptable initial position to take that tax money is consistently not spent wisely (I don't think this is a slam dunk though), but if you take the position that tax money is spent poorly, then spending tax money on a stadium is an example of poor spending of tax money.

 

If all is spent poorly, then that would include sports stadiums. Otherwise, one opens up themselves to saying that tax money is spent poorly unless they see a direct benefit while others do not, and that is just a pretty massive contradiction.

 

Unless you go zero taxes, which then how do you pay for roads and other infrastructure, you are always going to have fewer benefits of some taxes and more from others. And taxes don't always help only those without...taxes spent on a toll road for example, those roads are inaccessible to people without cars or who cannot afford to pay the tolls.

 

It's a messy, complicated, nuanced conversation ultimately that I'm not sure we are capable of having with the current two sides and not being able to acknowledge good points by others because it amounts to some fictitious "win" that we cannot allow them to have.

Well said.  I also don’t think this is the forum for a political discussion on the subject.  This may impact the Bills funding, but overall, this is a political pissing match just waiting to break out.

[BuffaloBillies]

How about...

 

Tax payer help = NO PSL and cheaper tickets

No tax payer help = PSL and more expensive tickets

 

Either way they'd get theirs.

 

But, tax payer help AND PSL AND more expensive tickets = not cool

[Don Otreply]

18 minutes ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Although I dislike (hate?) the idea of taxpayers paying for stadiums, having laws to determine free markets always have consequences. In this case, it means it's easier for teams to move for the best deal and less likely that smaller markets that won't support high stadium prices will lose teams.

  So the multi billionaires that own the NFL monopoly should not carry their own weight, and wage earners should come out of pocket to build their corporation infrastructure?  
 

  I for one don’t care if folk are or get rich, that doesn’t mean they don’t have to pay there way anymore. 
 

  This corporate worship really does need to stop. 

[Punching Bag]

Considering almost every senator or representative ends up much richer when they leave office or are in office for substantial period of time sometimes cashing in donations when they retire they should stop feeding off the public trough. The Senate and House of Representatives has proven many times that it can’t play by the rules and when they are caught they change the rules.

[Don Otreply]

29 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

There’s no need for federal funding, local jurisdictions that gain substantial benefit should be allowed to do what they want.

So you are saying that the county government via taxpayers wages foot that portion alone? I’m thinking the folk that live their aren’t down with that…, 

[BillsVet]

I don't care for state and local money tax revenue and tax expenditures paying for stadiums.  That said, those who make spending decisions are duly elected (for the most part) and their constituents have a say.  

 

The Federal government passing a law to bar public spending probably doesn't even survive a committee vote.  Kinda late to be even thinking this way given that it's been a practice for decades already throughout the nation.  

[HardyBoy]

23 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

Well said.  I also don’t think this is the forum for a political discussion on the subject.  This may impact the Bills funding, but overall, this is a political pissing match just waiting to break out.

 

Totally agree, and when I said we can't have a civil nuanced conversation on it, I didn't mean this board, but society in general.

 

I think if you look at the posts so far, 90% if not really 100% are basically saying the same thing, from different perspectives.

 

People get really hung up on the words people use instead of what they are trying to actually say. The other side of that though is people intentionally saying things in a certain way to get reactions out of people to then be able to say see I can't say anything without being attacked.

[msw2112]

I'm going to talk out of both sides of my mouth here and be a total hypocrite, but here goes:

 

1.  Generally speaking, I don't think there should be public funding for professional sports stadia.  They are used by private entites to generate private revenue.  If the state/county/city own the facility and rent it back to the team, and it can be shown that the rent and/or stadium taxes results in the state/county/city breaking even or making a profit, then I'm OK with it.  That said, and I am not an economist, but from what I have read, these situations are always money-losers for the public entities.

 

2.  Specifically as a BILLS FAN, I support public funding.  If we are talking a true capitalist/free-market concept, the Pegulas could move the Bills to bunch of other markets (Austin, San Antonio, Portland (OR), Toronto, maybe even St. Louis) and make more money than they would in Buffalo.  In order for a small market to compete with larger markets and get or retain a team, the community may need to step up and help out.  Given the positive psychological impact of having major league sports in a market such as Buffalo, I believe it's worth it to have the taxpayers contribute.  I realize that the Pegulas will make money either way, as the NFL TV contract is the primary source of revenue, but there's no question they could make more money (A LOT MORE) in a larger market.  In larger markets, teams can have more skyboxes and fancy bars & restaurants in the stadium, charge more for tickets, charge more for concessions and parking, get more corporate sponsorships at higher rates, etc.  I have been to NFL games in Dallas and LA, where it costs $100 or more more to park your car.  Would that fly in Buffalo?

Edited February 23, 2022 by msw2112

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

If this passes ( which I doubt)...say goodbye to the Bills.

 

But, the way government operates, by the time this passes, the new stadium will have been built.

[RangerDave]

1 hour ago, DallasBillsFan1 said:

Too many institutions are suckling from the public teet, and its killing the country.

Hmmm...makes me wonder.  Do governments in other countries pay for stadiums for things like soccer, hockey. cricket, etc?  That would be interesting to know.

 

29 minutes ago, msw2112 said:

1.  Generally speaking, I don't think there should be public funding for professional sports stadia.  They are used by private entites to generate private revenue.  If the state/county/city own the facility and rent it back to the team, and it can be shown that the rent and/or stadium taxes results in the state/county/city breaking even or making a profit, then I'm OK with it.  That said, and I am not an economist, but from what I have read, these situations are always money-losers for the public entities.

Don't other businesses get public funding to build things like factories, restaurants, hotels?  I know a small town in upstate NY where I lived got $10m for "downtown revitalization".  That means taxpayer money went into renovating or building places for private companies.  The only difference I see is the huge difference in money involved.

[Albany,n.y.]

1 hour ago, DallasBillsFan1 said:

I will always defend the taxpayer as they are over-burdened as it is.  The want and "need" for taxpayer money is insatiable ... federal, state, local, and corporations.  As much as I love my Bills and the NFL product ... and as much as I am a capitalist pig ... the taxpayer should not be funding these stadiums.  It's that simple.  Too many institutions are suckling from the public teet, and its killing the country.

When the county stops owning stadiums, then you can say you don't want taxpayer funded stadiums, but the bottom line is Erie County is the owner of the stadium & the land & it wouldn't make a lot of sense for the Bills to pay everything for something they don't own.  

 

When municipalities stop building stadiums on municipally owned land, the taxpayers will be able to stop funding stadiums.  Until that actually happens there is no reason to expect the Pegulas to foot the entire bill to build a stadium on Erie County's land.  

 

Every time the state, county, town or city builds a new building on land they own, from a tiny garage to an office building to a stadium, the taxpayers pay for it.  

 

What you really want are private stadiums on private land owned by private individuals-Good luck with that.

1 hour ago, DCofNC said:

There’s no need for federal funding, local jurisdictions that gain substantial benefit should be allowed to do what they want.

It's really a local/state's rights issue that the federal government shouldn't come anywhere near. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Albany,n.y.

[Albany,n.y.]

26 minutes ago, RangerDave said:

Hmmm...makes me wonder.  Do governments in other countries pay for stadiums for things like soccer, hockey. cricket, etc?  That would be interesting to know.

 

Don't other businesses get public funding to build things like factories, restaurants, hotels?  I know a small town in upstate NY where I lived got $10m for "downtown revitalization".  That means taxpayer money went into renovating or building places for private companies.  The only difference I see is the huge difference in money involved.

When olympics are held in a city for the1st time, new stadiums & arenas are built with government funding, often at a loss since there are no permanent tenants.  Real Sports once did a segment on this.

 

There are a lot of private buildings built after tax breaks have been granted so that a building can be built in a specific municipality.  Many times with the promise of bringing hundreds of jobs into the area.  

 

If the Bills were to leave, there would immediately be fewer jobs from people directly employed by the Bills all the way to restaurants and motels in the area that gain customers on football weekends.  

Edited February 23, 2022 by Albany,n.y.

[Gugny]

47 minutes ago, RangerDave said:

Hmmm...makes me wonder.  Do governments in other countries pay for stadiums for things like soccer, hockey. cricket, etc?  That would be interesting to know.

 

@GunnerBill

@Blokestradamus

[White Linen]

Stadium Lottery?

 

You know because it works so well with education.  

[SoMAn]

1 hour ago, msw2112 said:

I'm going to talk out of both sides of my mouth here and be a total hypocrite, but here goes:

 

1.  Generally speaking, I don't think there should be public funding for professional sports stadia.  They are used by private entites to generate private revenue.  If the state/county/city own the facility and rent it back to the team, and it can be shown that the rent and/or stadium taxes results in the state/county/city breaking even or making a profit, then I'm OK with it.  That said, and I am not an economist, but from what I have read, these situations are always money-losers for the public entities.

 

2.  Specifically as a BILLS FAN, I support public funding.  If we are talking a true capitalist/free-market concept, the Pegulas could move the Bills to bunch of other markets (Austin, San Antonio, Portland (OR), Toronto, maybe even St. Louis) and make more money than they would in Buffalo.  In order for a small market to compete with larger markets and get or retain a team, the community may need to step up and help out.  Given the positive psychological impact of having major league sports in a market such as Buffalo, I believe it's worth it to have the taxpayers contribute.  I realize that the Pegulas will make money either way, as the NFL TV contract is the primary source of revenue, but there's no question they could make more money (A LOT MORE) in a larger market.  In larger markets, teams can have more skyboxes and fancy bars & restaurants in the stadium, charge more for tickets, charge more for concessions and parking, get more corporate sponsorships at higher rates, etc.  I have been to NFL games in Dallas and LA, where it costs $100 or more more to park your car.  Would that fly in Buffalo?

I'm with you on both. 

I don't know how the economic impact of the Bills in an area like WNY can be calculated.  Few NFL cities have a culture that is as symbiotic as the Bills and Buffalo.

So much of Buffalo's identity is tied to the Buffalo Bills. The impact is certainly greater than the immediate jobs connected directly to the team and local OP businesses.

I'm guessing the domino effect could be a perception in the business world that Buffalo is a second-rate city and isn't a desirable locale for some Fortune 500-level company considering WNY as a home base. Just as the Buffalo area is experiencing renewed growth, it could come to a screeching halt if the Bills left. Could that be a precursor to the Sabres exodus and the end of big league sports in the area?

 

How do you measure the unique nature of the Bills' and WNY and the impact economically?

 

I'm in Atlanta. If the Falcons were moved, there would be many disappointed loyalists, but compared to the heartache hundreds of thousands of Buffalo residents would experience,  a Falcon team relocation would be a collective shoulder shrug in Georgia. They'd get over it just as quickly as they did when the NHL's Flames and Thrashers left town.

 

Whatever happens, a new stadium has to happen for the Bills to remain in Buffalo. How about selling shares for ownership of a facility?

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

3 hours ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Although I dislike (hate?) the idea of taxpayers paying for stadiums, having laws to determine free markets always have consequences. In this case, it means it's easier for teams to move for the best deal and less likely that smaller markets that won't support high stadium prices will lose teams.

 

It likely would balance out as there won't be new cities offering a boatload of cash either as they won't be paying  for anything.  It would strictly be a matter of where the owner want to spent his $1 bil to build a new stadium.  Could argue likely costs less to build a stadium say in a smaller city like Buffalo than in a bigger city.  The bigger the city, likely need a fancier stadium to compete with other places for people to spend their money.

 

I'm also a bit confused, I'm no finance expert here but aren't these bonds and other money all coming from the state.  So how does the fed have a say in how and where the state places their funds?  Could see maybe in DC as that is more funded with federal $$??

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Is there a return on investment for stadium tax dollars? Seems like an answer to that question would matter.

[Utah John]

This bill is an attack on the NFL for the continuing problems with misogyny and sexual harassment, in general, and with the behavior of the Washington Commanders in particular.  The way to attack the NFL is to go after money, so the bill links up an unrelated issue -- public financing for sports stadiums -- with the women's issues.  I look at it like a big bomb dropped near the real target, that gets debris on the target but also makes a big splash that gets everyone's attention.  

 

Should stadiums get tax breaks?  That's a good topic for a discussion and possibly for changing things.  Let's have that but let's keep these two unrelated issues separate.  And certainly the women's issues need to be addressed.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Utah John

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

3 hours ago, DJB said:

Im confused. 

 

Are the Patriots getting more comp picks now? 

free massages for life 

[GunnerBill]

49 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

@GunnerBill

@Blokestradamus

 

It happens but not often. In the UK it tends to happen at lower levels. So small towns for whom the professional soccer club is community asset and a boost for the economy will occasionally make small contributions. I remember that happening with Stoke City's new stadium in the late 90s for example when they were outside the Premier League and struggling to finance the entirety themselves. They bought the council out in 2010. 

 

For big clubs, no they finance themselves and, in fact, often they don't just have to finance the stadium but in return for planning permission are required to pay towards infrastructure upgrades around about too. Arsenal had to provide a certain number of key worker apartments on the site and upgrade a local overground rail station as a condition of getting planning permission to build on Ashburton Grove. 

 

It's a completely different culture. 

[DCofNC]

3 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

So you are saying that the county government via taxpayers wages foot that portion alone? I’m thinking the folk that live their aren’t down with that…, 

Please explain why somebody in New Mexico should pay for a stadium in NY.  The benefit is solely to the local economy.  The Feds are going to get their income tax no matter what, so what is the benefit of the whole country paying for a venue that benefits locals?

 

The state and the local jurisdictions should be the only ones looking to negotiate, if at all, on the stadium.  Their tax base is the only one that serves to gain or lose anything by having a team or facility there. 

[bigK14094]

5 hours ago, The 9 Isles said:

Bill introduced to eliminate tax subsidy for pro sports stadiums

 

“Super-rich sports team owners like Dan Snyder do not need federal support to build their stadiums, and taxpayers should not be forced to fund them,” Beyer said in a statement. “Billionaire owners who need cash can borrow from the market like any other business.”

 

more complications. 

About half the revenue the NFL  generates goes to players......so tarring the billionaire owners is a half  truth....need to say  "billionaire owners and multimillionaire players"

[Don Otreply]

45 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

Please explain why somebody in New Mexico should pay for a stadium in NY.  The benefit is solely to the local economy.  The Feds are going to get their income tax no matter what, so what is the benefit of the whole country paying for a venue that benefits locals?

 

The state and the local jurisdictions should be the only ones looking to negotiate, if at all, on the stadium.  Their tax base is the only one that serves to gain or lose anything by having a team or facility there. 

Maybe you didn’t notice that I am 100% against any tax money being awarded to help multi billionaire’s to build their businesses infrastructure…,  

[DCofNC]

Just now, Don Otreply said:

Maybe you didn’t notice that I am 100% against any tax money being awarded to help multi billionaire’s to build their businesses infrastructure…,  

I did.  In that case, no tax benefits at all, I’m with you.

[CA OC Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, WhoTom said:

 

Seems to me that corporate welfare (i.e. government subsidies for billionaires) is the opposite of a free-market economy.

 

On one level, I agree. However, as with anything, there's supply and demand. There is a set supply of NFL teams. The locales that have them are in some aspects customers of these. Communities paying for the stadiums is kind of bidding to get (or keep) those teams. We want the team and are willing, as a community, to pay for it. Not close to perfect because many could care less and possibly even prefer that there was no NFL team in their area. Also, cities routinely give tax benefits or other incentives to get employers in their area. That positive impact is more straightforward since it creates jobs which ultimately puts more money into the area and also creates more income tax from those employees, but it also is a method of corporate welfare.

 

I've thought for years that we shouldn't allow this practice with sports teams, but I really don't see it overall helping.

[PromoTheRobot]

Just when it's Buffalo's turn, they want to change the rules.

[BuffaloBobs]

This will not get a vote and is a total publicity stunt.

 

It also isn't small government for the federal government to dictate to a state or local government how they spend their resources. As to the merits of public investment in a new stadium the calculus is clear: any developer investing hundreds of millions of dollars in New York is getting significant public support. The Buffalo Bills are a valuable enough asset for the region that public investment makes perfect sense when combined with a significant private investment from the Pegulas.

 

 

 

 

[dwight in philly]

I am in the dark about the intricacies of most of Stadium funding , etc., the whys. wherefores ,but isnt NY State the one assisting with the funding of the new stadium? The proposed law is a Fed thing. Again , am clueless if/how this would affect the Bills plans. 

[SoCal Deek]

I’ve never understood this discussion. If you don’t want taxpayers to spread out the cost of the stadium then you better be prepared to pay a BOATLOAD of money to see a live football game. Now, that’s a perfectly legitimate position to take but I think it’s really odd to see it on a message board devoted to football fans. 

[TBBills]

All this means is someone wants some extra kick back money and it will go away.

[albanyfan]

5 hours ago, DCofNC said:

There’s no need for federal funding, local jurisdictions that gain substantial benefit should be allowed to do what they want.

Damn right. Orchard Park can afford it….

[Tuco]

59 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

Please explain why somebody in New Mexico should pay for a stadium in NY.  The benefit is solely to the local economy.  The Feds are going to get their income tax no matter what, so what is the benefit of the whole country paying for a venue that benefits locals?

 

The state and the local jurisdictions should be the only ones looking to negotiate, if at all, on the stadium.  Their tax base is the only one that serves to gain or lose anything by having a team or facility there. 

 

First of all, I agree that the federal government shouldn't be involved in subsidizing any business. While at the same time it should be the state and local privilege to decide where they want their tax dollars to be spent. But that's a much bigger argument than just a handful of stadiums around the country. The fed gives all sorts of tax breaks to all sorts of big businesses all over the place. The taxpayer in New Mexico vs the stadium in NY argument could go on endlessly. Why does a tax payer in NY pay for a new building for Boeing in Seattle, or why does a tax payer in Florida pay for a farm subsidy for all the farm land Bill Gates bought in Montana? This argument is practically endless when talking about ways the fed gives away tax dollars to rich people.

 

Now in many cases these arguments are dealing with immediate taxpayer handouts to these rich people. They take federal tax dollars and give them, directly, to rich people. But what we're talking about here isn't any sort of federal negotiation regarding how much federal tax money will go directly to funding any NFL stadium. What this bill is talking about is eliminating the ability of the NFL to use interest free federal municipal bonds (interest free loans) to fund their stadium.

 

They're basically talking about the portion of money that the NFL matches from the team owner (look up NFL G4 program), both of which are generally financed (and repaid) with these interest free municipal bonds. In effect, the fed isn't paying for the stadium or any portion of it outright. They're not even giving any direct tax subsidy like they do with so many other businesses and rich people. They're just lending the money to the team and the owner - and possibly the state for all we know  - and letting them repay it without interest.

 

This, of course, all looks good on paper. The fed helps state and locals build bigger and better by lending out interest free bonds. And it does technically "cost" the federal government money in the form of lost interest. But not nearly as much as an outright tax subsidy where the tax dollars are just given to the businesses. The fed isn't giving the tax dollars to the team and league, they're loaning it to them without interest. Just as they do with thousands of other businesses.

 

Now if we want to eliminate federal tax dollars, subsidies and interest free federal loans to all businesses, I'm all for it. But that isn't what's happening here. Any news story about this bill begins with the fact that some Washington politicians aren't happy with Dan Snyder's Commanders and their behavior and lack of cooperation. In the world of federal tax subsidies to businesses, eliminating interest free federal loans for sports stadiums amounts to a grain of sand on a large beach. And this bill is clearly much more about a political pissing match than it is saving the fed any substantial amount of money. And, as others have said, it probably won't go anywhere. It's just a publicity ploy being used by unhappy politicians against Dan Snyder - and unfortunately - the rest of the league.

 

But of course we'll have to watch it closely as our Bills are one of the few teams currently looking to build new. Thanks Dan Snyder.