One of the greatest times of the year has finally arrived: the start of the Major League Baseball season. Will Boston Red Sox ace David Price have another poor year? Will the Chicago Cubs reign supreme for the second straight year? Will the Atlanta Braves finally be relevant again?
Who knows what will happen in 2017? The only thing we know is that United States taxpayers are striking out.
According to a new study by the Brookings Institute, MLB franchises have received $1.41 billion in federal subsidies since the year 2000; roughly one-third of that went to the brand new Yankee Stadium.
Baseball teams are either given a direct subsidy or a bond from the federal, state or local government. Both funding mechanisms are approved by the government in the name of economic boom. However, numerous studies over the years have yet to find any correlation between taxpayer-funded sports arenas and economic growth.
Here is one example the Washington Examiner gives:
If any organization has mastered the fundamentals of this hit and run approach, it’s the Atlanta Braves. The franchise has not only convinced taxpayers to pick up not only their tab, but also those of their minor-league affiliates throughout the south. They started small with a base-hit single when they convinced Rome, Ga., to fund a new stadium for their Class A affiliate.
They knocked a double off the wall when the Class AA team moved to Pearl, Miss., and the town sold bonds to cover $28 million of the new stadium costs. Pearl even pledged to cover the shortfalls of the stadium. This pledge has led to Pearl spending 5 percent of the town’s general fund revenue to cover the stadium, and caused the town’s bond status to move to junk status.
The Braves’ triple-A affiliate – which moved from Richmond, Va., to Gwinnett, Ga. – has fared little better. The promise of a shopping center around the stadium never materialized, and their attendance is second to last in the league.
Finishing their cycle of screwing taxpayers, the Braves hit a home run for themselves when they convinced Cobb Country to kick in almost $400 million for a new $722 million stadium to replace Turner Field in Atlanta. Why the Braves needed a publicly-funded stadium to replace one less than 20 years old is anyone’s guess. This money was handed out without taxpayer approval and has already caused the county such financial stress that they were unable to purchase park land – a move that actually was approved by the residents of Cobb Country.
In 2013, Miami Mayor Tomas Relgado admitted that the city was raped by the Miami Marlins franchise.
“[Owners] insulted the taxpayers, and then they insulted the fans. It was: We did it to you—and screw you. Miami has a history of bad deals, but I would rank this No. 1. The residents of Miami were raped. Completely.”
This is yet another example of corporate welfare, billion-dollar owners and teams seeking assistance from the taxpayers for a new stadium. When a team decides to yell “catch ya later” and threatens to leave the market for another one that will subsidize their transfer, the government gets nervous and decides to pony up the cash.
It seems club owners are having a ball on your dime.
Regarding why the Braves needed a new stadium to replace a 20-year-old one: The All-Star Game will soon find its way to the new stadium. This is the pattern: New stadium, next All-Star Game (that is open on the schedule, since these are lines up a few years in advance). Check the pattern since the 1990’s: The All-Star Game follows the pattern of new stadium construction.
Regarding the raping of the local fans, I have a suggestion for the relevant locales. That would be to stop allowing your city name to be used by the team owners. The teams should start being named for their owners instead of the cities where they reside. This will help the “fans” understand who the teams belong to. And it isn’t the cities where they reside. And the leagues insist that the stadiums be publicly funded; they object to the teams funding their own playgrounds.
Another detail about the economic impact studies done to justify locating a team in their cities is that there is no real increase in economic impact; it just results in the money being put to use for different purposes than it used to. It results in higher spending for game tickets, but other retail activities are where the money comes from. People spend the money to go to the stadium instead of going to a movie theater. Instead of going to a quick-serve restaurant near their home, they’ll spend the money at a noisy bar after the game.