Why do taxpayers pay billions for football stadiums?


gather around their televisions surrounded by loved ones,
to watch the Big Game. And the pinnacle event of the most profitable sports league in the world is more often than not played in a
new state-of-the-art stadium with super-sized digital displays retractable roofs luxurious box seats and suites. Teams generally earn the lion’s share of the revenue from the stadium. But for 28 of the 32 teams it’s the taxpayers in the team’s host city
who paid to build it. If the privately owned teams earn the stadium’s revenue why are they built with public money? A new NFL stadium is being built nearly every year and their price tags are reaching into the billions. This chart shows all the different home fields NFL teams have played in since 1960. Stadiums built in the ’70s and ’80s have lasted, on average, over 30 years. But now a stadium’s lifespan
may be less than two decades Washington’s owner started asking for a new stadium back when FedEx Field was only 17 years old. Though some stadiums, like the Giants/Jets MetLife Stadium are built with 100% private financing public tax dollars have financed the vast majority of NFL stadiums built in the last 20 years. That’s over 7 billion in public money going towards building and renovating NFL stadiums. NFL owners argue that a new stadium will generate new construction
jobs while the venue is being built all the new spending from ticket sales,
hotels, parking, tourism would cascade into the community, the wider area and would create a boom in the local economy I asked an urban planning economist if
stadiums really are a good public investment. Most of the stadiums we have
built in United States, they do not provide any positive impact – most of them. What else you could have done with this money? Let’s say they are raising 200 million dollar
and there is investing in a stadium. Instead of doing that, if they spend that money on roads, infrastructure, shopping malls, or public parks. Things that benefit the whole public,
not just football fans. For team owners, new stadiums mean
millions more in profits. They sell the name of the stadium to other corporations, host the Super Bowl, and owners maximize revenue
by building more and more luxury suites and club seating in the place of general
admission seats. Over a third of the seats are premium in the
Cowboys’ 82,000 seat stadium and a luxury suite can cost as much
as $30,000 per game. The push for new stadiums comes down to increasing profits for the owners, but cities try to
meet these demands because there’s more to a football franchise than the bottom line. Residents want teams and the hometown pride that comes with it. Even for people who never attended a game there’s a shared experience,
a collective enthusiasm for the home team. In one poll three-quarters of Indiananpolis citizens said losing the city’s NFL team would hurt the city compared to 68% who said it would hurt to lose all the city’s museums. This is coming from a city and state that
funded 86% of their new stadium even though the previous
stadium still owes millions in debt. Team owners, they have successfully tied this stadium to a civic pride. And that’s why When cities refuse to build new stadiums owners threaten to move their teams to
somewhere that will. That’s what happened in 2016 to St. Louis and 2017 to San Diego and Oakland. New stadiums aren’t the economic
powerhouses owners promise they’ll be. But as long as there are more cities
that want a home team than there are franchises, it looks like the taxpayers
are gonna keep footing the bill.

100 thoughts on “Why do taxpayers pay billions for football stadiums?

  1. They need to invest this money into stopping stuff like school shootings! And or infrastructure which is very poor in the US!

  2. I mean im Fairmess to lambeau field recieving almost 90% public funds (gross exageration of actual precentage) it is a historic lamdmark. Its been around since 1920s. Its like wrigley field or Fenway park.

  3. It's def not an ideal balance. I hate that teams move because they cant squeeze tax payers because it really is a public pride.

  4. At the beginning you said the nfl is the largest sports league in the world when the premier league is the largest league in the world

  5. It's simple: American politicians are owned by corporate america. The politicians in power are happy to build the stadiums that benefit the corporations that help finance their election campaigns. If they can sell it to the dumb voters as "infrastructure" or "a tourism venue" then they're even happier.

  6. It’s not just football games in there…in Houston at NRG they host concerts, rodeo, soccer, conventions, graduations, etc in there so if you add that up I’m sure it has some sort of positive impact

  7. I feel like the Mercedes-Benz stadium in atl actual did do good because it’s all ways packed in Atlanta standouts always do more than just sports even though it’s main reason was to house the falcons and the five stripes (atl United)

  8. I feel votes are rigged. Whether the city wants a 🏟 or not it's not up to them, it's going to get built. Once big bucks come into play, there's something going on behind the scenes and someone is pulling the strings.

  9. The NFL is garbage anyway
    Don't umderstand how people can watch that crap. 5 seconds of play…1 minute of standing around. Repeat.

  10. First, 'most profitable', yeaaah, nice way of saying that it is not the most watched, or with the most investments in it.
    Second, it is football (you call it soccer for some reason, but no one else does) of course.
    Third, it is very clear that sports in the states, such as American football or basketball, have no tradition whatsoever. Teams are moving to other cities and states to gain more profits while leaving supporters behind. This really shows that American football is a 100% commercial project, with no real fans and activism behind it. You guys should take a look at Europe, you will find teams with genuine supporters.

  11. so proud of San Diego for refusing to pay for a new stadium for the chargers. hopefully more cities will fully suit and insist the bilionaires have it privately funded.

  12. Let’s just note that both the Raiders and Rams/Chargers are building their new stadiums from private money. And also that no city is ever forced to pay for a new stadium, if the people want to keep the team and use their tax money on keeping a team in town, why is it such a big problem.

  13. "The most profitable league in the world", is that true?, even more profitable than Premier League or Spanish League "La Liga" (futbol soccer)?

  14. The majority of voters (Democrats and Republicans) with an uncouth and bogus sense of civic pride are low I.Q, indolent scum whose priorities are misaligned with what our society truly needs. And the parasitical wealthy sports team owners are more than willing to take advantage of such buffoonery to line up their pockets.

  15. Its called wealth transfer. The idea is take money from the people and put it in a select few pockets. Its becoming an epidemic problem.

  16. Wrong, the Patriot's Stadium was privately funded. All Boston Sports Arenas were privately funded.
    Please fix.
    "It was announced as a 68,000-seat stadium at a cost of $325 million, with the entire cost privately funded. Boston is thus the only city in professional sports in which all facilities are privately owned and operated." – Wikipedia

  17. Down in Austin, TX, they had two Futball teams wanting to move in, both major (MLS) and minor league. The minor league was able to move in to a spot at COTA, Circuit of the Americas. The major league team which originally was going to be the Columbus Crew moving in but now is a separate team entirely, wants a new stadium. After over a year of negotiations, the city said that the stadium's construction would be tax deferred until after the first season, instead of exempt or paid, and after the construction the lot owner would have to pay property tax.

    I personally don't care for either teams and not so much Futball to begin with, but I give credit for Austin to hold its ground. With that being said I'd much rather go see the Commanders in San Antonio in the AAF who just rents out the Alamodome for a dozen weekends out of the year.

  18. I'm from the UK, and I would strongly object for a local authority to help finance the construction of a new stadium.

    I have no problem with the local authority helping them with planning issues, exemptions from local bylaws, etc.

  19. Waste of tax payers money and it's full of corruption fueled by greed…Sports is just entertainment only and i'd rather watch a movie instead? now that's entertainment!

  20. Americans allow this because they neither have a history of monarchy to recall nor a good historical grasp of countries that did. This is nothing less than the development of an Ancien Regime in the U.S., and because Americans have been socially engineered to worship celebrity so much it will only get worse.

  21. It’s super manipulative that they total take advantage of people’s love for football to force the cities to pay taxpayer money. Who cares about these teams and let’s be 100% honest your most likely only watching them on tv not actually at the stadium anyway so why bother making new ones so often. It’s such a waste.

  22. The sad thing about vox is that this is something that seems legitimate, but due to all your obvious lies on other videos, it is hard to take you for your word. I feel like there is some background information you are leaving out or masking. Honestly, that is sad.

  23. In the case of some cities such as Seattle, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, getting a new football-spec stadium was justified because the cookie-cutter (football/baseball) stadium model left much to be desired not just for the players, but YOU the fan as well…….the sightlines were mediocre at best for both football and baseball in one venue. Not to mention Americans have (in general) gotten fatter so wider seats were needed. Not to mention that many older venues were non-compliant with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

    Furthermore, just because a team's value is over $2 billion DOES NOT mean its owner makes that much money.

  24. In Minnesota’s defense, the Metrodome which is what we just replaced was having costly repairs being needed for the roof as it kept breaking due to heavy snow buildup. That and there were also safety concerns iirc and those two issues culminated in needing a replacement stadium.

  25. Billionaire team owners want the public to subsidize their stadiums. But when it comes to a public option in healthcare… "IT'S SOCIALISM!"

  26. It still upsets me Atlanta spent hundreds of millions on Mercedes Benz stadium. But at least it came from the hotel/motel tax. And although it could have gone to much needed projects throughout the city, our new mayor Keisha i believe is making up for it. And I have to admit… that stadium is an experience. they completely revolutionized what it is for sports fans and concert goers. I’m in awe every time I go for the United games. And for all my fam that work in and around it, it seems to have paid off.

  27. We have 7 billion for sports stadiums that can build themselves but we dont have clean drinking water in some parts of america

  28. America is the only nation where the government pays for football stadiums for someone else, but not for their own people's well being.

  29. @3:14 That’s the whole thing right there. Like it or not teams have successfully tied sports franchises with civic pride.

  30. Interesting video. People get so worked up about 'muh taxes' when it comes to affordable healthcare, but they don't bat an eyelid over billions being handed to private companies to build entertainment venues, which then earn them money privately.

  31. The Green Bay Packers are a publicly owned team. Lambeau Field was built using private donations from the citizens of Green Bay Wisconsin and any renovation has been and continues to be made possible by the financial responsibility of the Green Bay Packers Board of Trustees and share holders.

  32. Why do you think the NFL limits the league to 32 teams ? If every city had a team, like baseball, they couldn't take city govt hostage by the threat of leaving. Nobody ask the taxpayers, in ATL we were told for years the team would fund it, it was an ongoing cycle of lie upon lie.

  33. We are providing funding. To watch meaningless games. So that we do not focus on what matters. Like climate change and politics.

  34. We spend tax money on football stadiums because football is better then any other sport, if it was a soccer stadium then we have a problem.

  35. They don't ask if we want to use tax money for them, they just plan it and build it. In 3 year's we got 3 new venues in Vegas just because. We even have a fkn ice sport in the desert.

  36. By technicality the Rams did have a publicly financed dome (We (Missouri) are still in debt paying off the old stadium until 2020 when the last payment is due). You can’t forget about STL’s one last offer either, the 1.1 billion dollar dome that would include 400 million in public funding. I know I am not alone on this but I am glad they are gone.

  37. It’s technically 2 teams because both of the ny and la teams will share a stadium so it’s acts as one and I know I wondered that weirdly.

  38. The revenue from the stadium would help the tax pay itself. On the other hand, anyone can drive to an already established park. Plus you can’t charge a kid to climb a 🌲.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *