SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
ESPN, which laid off 100 people this week, has a multitude of problems, but the basic one is this: It pays too much for content and costs too much for consumers.
That didn't used to matter because, thanks to the way the cable industry "bundled" channels, cable customers were forced to pay for it even if they never watched it. Now, however, as the cable bundle slowly disintegrates, it matters a lot.
[...] But it's a pipe dream to think that ESPN will ever make the kind of profits ($6.4 billion in 2014) that it once did, for two reasons. First, as is the case with so many other industries, the internet has both shined a light on the flaws of the cable model and exploited them. What was the main flaw of the cable model? It was that consumers had to pay for channels they never watched.
And now they don't.
It turns out that there were lots of people, including sports fans, who resented having to pay for the most expensive channel in the bundle. The popularity of streaming led to "cord cutting," but it also caused cable companies to begin offering less expensive "skinny bundles," some of which don't include ESPN.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:02PM (17 children)
If the public would fund stadiums, sports teams wouldn't have such huge expenses. If sports teams didn't have such huge expenses, rights to the games wouldn't cost so much.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:12PM (6 children)
The hell with that, I'm not a football/basketball/baseball/hockey fan and I'll be damned if I want my local taxes building some rich team owner a new stadium. Now, if someone was able to get tax money to build a local bike racing track (like Major Taylor velodrome in Indianapolis), that would be fine with me...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:23PM
I'm pretty sure the OP was being facetious.
No pro-sports stadium has been built in the last couple of decades without massive taxpayer subsidies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:25PM (4 children)
To hell with your silly little opinion. You're going to pay for rich team owners to have an expensive new stadium whether you like it or not. It's going to come from your taxes, and you'll probably need to pay a new tax just for the stadium. What are you going to do about it? Vote for someone different in your municipal elections? Sorry, but all your fellow citizens are going to vote for the guy who pushes a taxpayer-funded stadium.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:26PM
Except in San Diego. We don't do that shit here.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:37PM
Years ago, we had a governor that wanted to reduce income taxes. He then proposed a soft drink tax which was to be used to build publicly funded sports stadiums and arena. He found no support in the statehouse or among the populace.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday May 02 2017, @09:06PM (1 child)
It may be an opinion, but I'd sooner fucking kill that rich bastard than make him richer. Period.
If my taxes go to fund a stadium, it will ONLY be because there were studies and simulations showing the economic benefits of doing so and which classes (poor,middle,upper,owning) that benefit the most.
It goes without saying too, that it the tax payers fund the damn thing, we get to USE the damn thing. Meaning, that cocksucking stadium owner who is an elite piece of shit, gets paid NOTHING on the days the public gets to use the stadium.
My taxes pay for it? You better fucking believe the local high schools get to use it for graduation and things like that. Otherwise? Kill the fucking owner that just got billions of our money in taxes for fucking nothing.
On that note, just how many schools could get made for one stadium? I'm betting that it is more than one, and that it really benefits more than one person too.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:13PM
Sorry, but your ideas are ridiculous. The public getting to use the stadium they paid for? Are you absolutely insane? High schools using it for graduation? That's crazy. If a high school wants to use it, they need to pay for it, just like anyone else, even though it was build with taxpayer funds. The stadium owner *deserves* to get rich off the backs of the taxpayer.
If you disagree, too bad, because most of your fellow citizens in your city think this is a great idea, and they happily vote for politicians who pass taxes to fund privately-run stadiums.
(Score: 2) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:26PM
Sure, like I want my tax money to subsidize a bunch of rich old f*rts trying to make money on sports teams.
Reminds me of the antics of Jim Balsilie - watching his company Blackberry get decimated while jetting around trying to make a sports team and arena deal. No tax money should go to supporting twits like this.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:26PM (6 children)
Why should the public fund the stadiums? That's a business venture: whoever owns the stadium sells tickets, plus all the sundries like food and drink. If the local teams aren't a big enough draw to justify a huge stadium, then maybe a small one. If they can't even fill a small stadium, then they can rent the local school track.
Really, public stadiums are nothing but cronyism at work. Team owners, local architects and property owners - they all profit from the tax dollars spent. As often as not, they also get huge tax breaks, meaning that the taxpayers suck up huge losses. Then the team leaves, or goes bankrupt, and another team wants a newer, better stadium. Rinse and repeat.
It's so easy to spend other people's money...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:59PM (4 children)
In general, I agree with you. Though, to be fair, stadiums generally do have some community benefits that come in revenues to local businesses who benefit from people who attend games, tourists who are attracted to "big name team" locations, merchandising, etc. There are benefits to the local economy, and the health of the local economy is a legitimate concern for politicians.
Unfortunately, it's hard to figure out exactly how big those public benefits are, but they're likely an order of magnitude smaller than the sports industry likes to pretend they are -- which means the public expenses are pretty much way out-of-line with the benefits. Nevertheless, there's SOME benefit. If only the public could convince city councilmen, etc. to actual compute a reasonable estimate for ROI. Aside from the cronyism you note, the other thing is that sports fans tend to be crazy and very vocal. I have no doubt a lot of government leaders feel that they need to give in to demands because of the vocal fanbase, rather than making more rational choices for their constituents as a whole.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:12PM (2 children)
For the purposes of this line of inquiry, let's assume that tax breaks do not constitute a subsidy (they do imo but I don't want to get bogged down in crap).
Any big business moving into a certain area will have some community benefits. I'm sure the new Chick-Fil-A down the road from me has some community benefits. The two year old Costco on the other side of town has some community benefits.
What makes stadiums a special class of business that they deserve any public subsidy?
Does the public also subsidize amusement parks like Six Flags or Cedar Point? (Honestly don't know and too lazy to look it up.)
Should the public subsidize big amusements parks like those if they do?
What is the difference between (Stadiums and big amusement parks if those are subsidized too) and (Chick-Fil-A and Costco)? Scale? Do the profits for the private ownership not scale as well?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:46PM
The difference is that some people are batshit crazy about sports. Subsidizing it with taxpayer money is one of those "ends justifying the means" things if it brings sports to the undeserving masses. The fact that it is a big handout to a business that produces nothing of value but entertainment is lost on them.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 03 2017, @03:38PM
What is the difference between (Stadiums and big amusement parks if those are subsidized too) and (Chick-Fil-A and Costco)?
For one thing, branding. Cities, states, and even countries are frequently trying to attract people (tourists, businesses, etc.) by what makes them unique. Having a Chick-Fil-A or Costco doesn't make your city unique. Having a sports team creates an identity, same as having some sort of monuments or historical sites or whatever (which frequently get tax breaks if not outright support for maintenance and upkeep).
And I do not doubt that even some chains are able to score some local tax advantages or other businesses from local governments if they come to town. I seem to remember a South Park episode all about everyone trying to prove the town was "good enough" to get a Whole Foods. There's certainly a segment of the American population that views having a Whole Foods in a city as some sort of accomplishment or status symbol that makes the city more desirable.
Anyhow, I'm NOT necessarily arguing in favor of governmental subsidies for any of these things (sports or other businesses). But there can be a logic for encouraging local businesses in branding your town or even helping areas within a town/city. For example, many cities in the past couple decades have attempted "revitalization" efforts for their downtown areas. In doing so, they often subsidize demolition and new construction and may even give breaks to businesses or whatever that want to move in there for a while. When successful, such things often benefit lots of people: businesses get revenue, crime goes down, people get more options and a pleasant place to walk around and shop/eat/whatever.
Stadiums are not a "special class of business," but sports franchises definitely play into city identities, just as many other potential business opportunities do.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by charon on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:18PM
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:23PM
We live under inverse-socialism, where the blood, sweat, and money of the masses, trickles up to support the extravagant lifestyles of the few and lucky. It's government handouts for the 1% and bootstraps for the rest of us.
(Score: 2) by mth on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:55PM
You're assuming the price for the broadcast rights was set based on the costs of the teams. I find it much more likely that the price was set based on what television networks were willing to pay for it. The reason top players earn millions is not that no-one is willing to do their job for less, but that top teams can afford to pay that much.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:26PM
Wow, I assume your post was sarcastic but everyone here on SN took you seriously.
FYI everyone, in the USA stadiums are typically tax funded with little revenue to the municipality which paid for it. I assume the parent has seen the very relevant John Oliver segment on this topic exactly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs [youtube.com]