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

[Ross Murdock]

Well unless the Bills win a Super Bowl next year, seems very likely Josh will be hoisting the Bills Super Bowl trophy in Austin or San Antonio. Both cities have said they would fully fund a stadium through local tourist industry taxes like  Hotel - Car Rental - Entertainment industry. These "Tourist" based taxes do not impact local populations which is why they are easy to pass. If the Bills become available (Now very likely if state funding dries up) Other cities will look up ways to get one of the hottest teams in the NFL. Almost any other large city in the USA or even Canada will have a better chance of using local tourist taxes to fund a team vs. Buffalo which has almost no tourist industry to tap. Very sad day for Buffalo.    

[ToGoGo]

7 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. 

 

Good. The Pegulas can stop holding the fans hostage, and then gaslighting anybody who has the nerve to suggest they pay for it themselves with their billions or take out loans. 

 

Lots of fans say things like "Pegulas own the team, they can do whatever they want with it, deal with it", but then out the other side of their mouth say "The public needs to pay to keep the team here! It's a privilege!" Which one is it? They make the decisions, have all the control, and all the profits, but we pay the costs? Sounds like a raw deal to me. 

 

Sick of the ultra-wealthy playing the general public like a fiddle. So obvious once you know what to look for.  

 

 

[BillsfaninSB]

This is a federal bill right?   Has nothing to do with State and local incentives.

 

Seems like this is more symbolic and is not applicable to the Bills situation. 

[HardyBoy]

3 hours ago, Utah John said:

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.

 

 

 

Congress can only investigate things if there is a legitimate legislative reason...WFT, the nfl and some other teams (Cowboys and Rams for sure) are about to get some serious subpoenas imo.

1 minute ago, BillsfaninSB said:

This is a federal bill right?   Has nothing to do with State and local incentives.

 

Seems like this is more symbolic and is not applicable to the Bills situation. 

 

See above.

[Mango]

7 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.

Why? In theory a city like LA or Austin wouldn’t be able to help with the increased building costs due to cost of land acquisition, labor, or materials in those cities. 
 

I am not sure the Rams move without a brand new, free stadium to play in. 
 

I am not sure the free market favors the private sector fully funding 60-80k seat buildings in big, dense, expensive cities. 

[without a drought]

I'm ok with my taxes funding a new open air stadium, I  can hardly wait for my first check from the NFL for the return on our investment.

 

This is going to be a great partnership...

 

 

Wait, what, it doesn't work that way, no return on my investment. But I can still visit the stadium for a game for just the price of a ticket, PSL's and parking. Throw in a $7 bottle of water and I'm feeling very fortunate. 

[Mr. WEO]

Federal funds?

[Buffalo716]

2 hours ago, Ross Murdock said:

Well unless the Bills win a Super Bowl next year, seems very likely Josh will be hoisting the Bills Super Bowl trophy in Austin or San Antonio. Both cities have said they would fully fund a stadium through local tourist industry taxes like  Hotel - Car Rental - Entertainment industry. These "Tourist" based taxes do not impact local populations which is why they are easy to pass. If the Bills become available (Now very likely if state funding dries up) Other cities will look up ways to get one of the hottest teams in the NFL. Almost any other large city in the USA or even Canada will have a better chance of using local tourist taxes to fund a team vs. Buffalo which has almost no tourist industry to tap. Very sad day for Buffalo.    

 

2 hours ago, Ross Murdock said:

Well unless the Bills win a Super Bowl next year, seems very likely Josh will be hoisting the Bills Super Bowl trophy in Austin or San Antonio. Both cities have said they would fully fund a stadium through local tourist industry taxes like  Hotel - Car Rental - Entertainment industry. These "Tourist" based taxes do not impact local populations which is why they are easy to pass. If the Bills become available (Now very likely if state funding dries up) Other cities will look up ways to get one of the hottest teams in the NFL. Almost any other large city in the USA or even Canada will have a better chance of using local tourist taxes to fund a team vs. Buffalo which has almost no tourist industry to tap. Very sad day for Buffalo.    

You are a troll

 

And a pathetic attempt at one

 

The bills aren't going anywhere... Terry is not selling them, and not moving them..  New York State doesn't want to lose the bills

[Donuts and Doritos]

All the lawmakers talk about in that article is Dan Snyder & his scandals. Appears that & Not a genuine concern for spending taxpayer $ on stadiums is the concern & focus. Seems like a pressure point to get what they want from the league then they drop it. Even if they don't drop it, doesn't mean it passes. Wonder what the online wager line would be on Congress of all places being able to agree & pass a bill like this? 🤔 IMO this goes nowhere.

[Saxum]

3 hours ago, TBBills said:

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

 

Actually it is the opposite.  Those sponsoring bills do not get campaign donations from those owners.  They are not sitting in reserved owners boxes.  It is easy for them to make noise this way for "it is no skin off their teeth".

[billsherd]

Can we afford a a dome now?

[GregmoBuffalo]

11 hours 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.

 

Factories, restaurants, and hotels make money every day and contribute.  Given the weather in Buffalo, no dome, and a location in Orchard Park, it will only be used for 8-12 football games a year, a few summer events, and maybe a hockey game.  Otherwise, it's sitting and doing nothing for $1B because the league wants a new stadium.

 

[Mr. WEO]

21 hours ago, Albany,n.y. said:

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.

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

 

Well, the stadium is county owned on county land because that's who it came into existence decades ago.  There's nothing preventing the county from selling the land to Pegula (which would be a great idea) for him to build his stadium.  Also, nothing from Pegula from leasing the public land and building a private stadium. This isn';t uncommon.  Land lease agreements are the norm elsewhere.

 

20 hours ago, Utah John said:

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.

 

 

 

So some in Congress are chasing to "attack" the NFL by putting forth a bill that really would not  impact on how NFL stadiums are funded anyway.  Why wouldn't the NFL ignore this posturing?  They are already feeling actual heat for the things you are describing. 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Mr. WEO

[FLFan]

Political grandstanding. Federal funds do not fund stadiums.  The federal government cannot dictate such a ban to states and localities on how to spend their own funds.

[Saxum]

32 minutes ago, FLFan said:

Political grandstanding. Federal funds do not fund stadiums.  The federal government cannot dictate such a ban to states and localities on how to spend their own funds.

 

They actually can.  They have in past withheld federal funds unrelated to issue to force states to make changes.

Examples include requiring states to raise drinking age to 21 even though they allowed such people to die in military service.

[uticaclub]

17 hours ago, ToGoGo said:

 

Good. The Pegulas can stop holding the fans hostage, and then gaslighting anybody who has the nerve to suggest they pay for it themselves with their billions or take out loans. 

 

Lots of fans say things like "Pegulas own the team, they can do whatever they want with it, deal with it", but then out the other side of their mouth say "The public needs to pay to keep the team here! It's a privilege!" Which one is it? They make the decisions, have all the control, and all the profits, but we pay the costs? Sounds like a raw deal to me. 

 

Sick of the ultra-wealthy playing the general public like a fiddle. So obvious once you know what to look for.  

 

 

Pro team's and stadiums generate a ton of tax revenue, so the owners aren't the only ones to benefit. Everything from parking spots, tickets, merchandise and concessions are taxed, with no team that tax stream dries up. Every player and coach pays taxes where the game takes place, more tax revenue gone. If the governments didn't benefit from helping with stadium costs, it wouldn't be an issue, but they do so it's a discussion. 

 

Having a pro team is ultimately good for the community and if you look at the overall state budget spreading out the cost of the stadium over 5 years is a piss in a pool

Edited February 24, 2022 by uticaclub

[Nextmanup]

On 2/23/2022 at 11:07 AM, 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 just want to call out and applaud your use of the term "stadia."

 

 

[ToGoGo]

3 hours ago, uticaclub said:

Pro team's and stadiums generate a ton of tax revenue, so the owners aren't the only ones to benefit. Everything from parking spots, tickets, merchandise and concessions are taxed, with no team that tax stream dries up. Every player and coach pays taxes where the game takes place, more tax revenue gone. If the governments didn't benefit from helping with stadium costs, it wouldn't be an issue, but they do so it's a discussion. 

 

Having a pro team is ultimately good for the community and if you look at the overall state budget spreading out the cost of the stadium over 5 years is a piss in a pool

 

Nice job memorizing the PSE script. You get a promotion! 

[Utah John]

6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

So some in Congress are chasing to "attack" the NFL by putting forth a bill that really would not  impact on how NFL stadiums are funded anyway.  Why wouldn't the NFL ignore this posturing?  They are already feeling actual heat for the things you are describing. 

I agree with you, WEO.  The real purpose of this bill is to attract political attention, not to solve anything.  As you said, the sexual harassment issues are already being addressed.  If anything this bill just lets the NFL know that Congress expects action on that issue.  As for the stadium funding question, that's just to attract attention.

[uticaclub]

2 hours ago, ToGoGo said:

 

Nice job memorizing the PSE script. You get a promotion! 

That money is being spent if there's a stadium or not