sports players' salaries

I see where Cano signed with Seattle for an ungodly amount of money. Something north of $230 mil. Really? He's worth that?
Not really the point that I want to make however. This kind of hits on something that has always bothered me. I feel that these players are able to get these ludicrous sums of money, in part, because taxpayers subsidize the teams stadiums. I would think that if we stopped subsidizing the stadiums then there would be less paid to these players and I think would make their pay more reasonable. Would a Cano balk at say $100 mil? Why should taxpayers support the much higher salaries? Just venting I guess....sorry.

deleted

Quote: steeldco

I see where Cano signed with Seattle for an ungodly amount of money. Something north of $230 mil. Really? He's worth that?
Not really the point that I want to make however. This kind of hits on something that has always bothered me. I feel that these players are able to get these ludicrous sums of money, in part, because taxpayers subsidize the teams stadiums. I would think that if we stopped subsidizing the stadiums then there would be less paid to these players and I think would make their pay more reasonable. Would a Cano balk at say $100 mil? Why should taxpayers support the much higher salaries? Just venting I guess....sorry.

I have the same thoughts about players' salaries - then I think, well, if a team's payroll is $150million/year…then the team owners are surely making multiple times this amount to even cover that expense. It is all relative…that being said—I do agree that if the stadiums were not subsidized by the taxpayers…then the team would be forced to become thriftier…however, that being said (lol) - the entire economy surrounding the team being in a city would then suffer.

deleted

Quote: steeldco

This kind of hits on something that has always bothered me. I feel that these players are able to get these ludicrous sums of money, in part, because taxpayers subsidize the teams stadiums. .

Exactamundo!

Quote: aceofspades

I have the same thoughts about players' salaries - then I think, well, if a team's payroll is $150million/year…then the team owners are surely making multiple times this amount to even cover that expense. It is all relative…that being said—I do agree that if the stadiums were not subsidized by the taxpayers…then the team would be forced to become thriftier…however, that being said (lol) - the entire economy surrounding the team being in a city would then suffer.

I don't know that a city would necessarily suffer. Maybe a few might. Teams would move, not necessarily to get stadium deals, but for other economic reasons. I think it would be a net neutral. Taxpayers would win. Players would end up getting paid closer to what they're worth.

Quote: steeldco

I don't know that a city would necessarily suffer. Maybe a few might. Teams would move, not necessarily to get stadium deals, but for other economic reasons. I think it would be a net neutral. Taxpayers would win. Players would end up getting paid closer to what they're worth.

I meant those associated with the team tangentially

Quote: steeldco

I don't know that a city would necessarily suffer. Maybe a few might. Teams would move, not necessarily to get stadium deals, but for other economic reasons. I think it would be a net neutral. Taxpayers would win. Players would end up getting paid closer to what they're worth.

During last year's lockout, Buffalo area bars, restaurants, hotels, etc certainly suffered from the lack of Sabres games. Granted, it's already a depressed area, but the loss of an arena will certainly change the city from which it's lost.

Quote: Face

During last year's lockout, Buffalo area bars, restaurants, hotels, etc certainly suffered from the lack of Sabres games. Granted, it's already a depressed area, but the loss of an arena will certainly change the city from which it's lost.

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. Yes. You are right. I meant to say that it may hurt one city while helping another. Net neutral, but not necessarily to one area.

Quote: steeldco

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. Yes. You are right. I meant to say that it may hurt one city while helping another. Net neutral, but not necessarily to one area.

Ah, gotcha. I thought you were saying that the loss of a stadiums' ambient revenue would be made up by the taxes that now weren't being taken.

In any case, for whatever reason, yeah, athletes' salaries are jacked. Of course, it's the whole "what the market will bear" and just goes to show where everyone's priorities are. Entertainment. A guy like our own SOOPOO is tasked with effectively killing you and bringing you back to life so that you can continue your life, and he makes a pittance compared to some bloke that can catch a ball real good.

Life is funny like that =)

when a team moves its not revenue neutral for the left behind city. Sacremento didnt care and feel better that seattle was going to get all the revenue that they were going to lose if the Kings moved. No net revenue was going to be lost to local business. Are u kidding?

Itwas asked why municipalities pay for stadiums...its true..its for the economic gain of the surrounding area, they get a cut of the gate, a cut of the parking, the sales taxes from local businesses

By Leila Atassi, Northeast Ohio Media Group
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on November 22, 2013 at 7:33 PM, updated November 23, 2013 at 7:47 AM


Email


CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The city of Cleveland’s lease with the Cleveland Browns for FirstEnergy Stadium long has been a sore spot for some City Council members, who voted against the agreement 15 years ago and say the deal continues to favor a wealthy sports franchise over a city struggling to make ends meet.

But Browns executives, under the stewardship of new team owner Jimmy Haslam, contend that the lease offers more perks and protections for the city than almost any other lease for a publicly-owned stadium.

The city’s eight percent admission tax is nearly unheard of in the NFL, said Browns CEO Joe Banner in a recent interview. And the city gets to keep all parking revenue from city-owned lots on game day, while many other NFL teams are entitled to at least a cut of that money, he said.

As the Browns and city administrators prepare to ask council on Monday to dip into the general fund to help finance a wave of costly stadium improvements, cleveland.com has taken a closer look at the 30-year lease – examining the expense of owning the facility versus the money it brings in.

Check back next week for another installment, in which we compare the FirstEnergy Stadium lease with those of similar stadiums in several other NFL cities.

The cost and profit of game day

The Browns pay $250,000 a year in rent and are responsible for utilities, ushers, concessions, security and other game-day expenses during their eight home games a year. The team also must foot the bill for grounds-keeping, snow removal, janitorial services and maintenance of the field.

But the team sets ticket prices and keeps all profits. That includes advertising revenue at the stadium, concession sales and naming rights -- which the team sold to FirstEnergy Corp. for about $100 million earlier this year.

The city owns three parking lots near the stadium, with about 3,700 spaces. Most cost $20 to park on game day; a handful of them cost $5. And the city keeps that revenue, amounting to about $570,000 a year.

However, the city commits 120 additional police officers to direct traffic, patrol tailgating at the Municipal Parking Lot and detain lawbreakers in a prisoner van, a police spokesman said Friday. More than half of those officers get paid on overtime.

Evening games require more time on post than 1 p.m. games, and two more officers are assigned to the Muni Lot when the Browns play arch rivals Pittsburgh and Baltimore, the spokesman said.

Admission tax

The city collects eight percent tax on each ticket.

Although the city budget projects about $10.8 million collected in admission tax this year from entertainment venues citywide, city Communications Director Maureen Harper would not disclose how much of that will come from FirstEnergy Stadium. Nor would she say how much is collected in income tax from Browns players and visiting teams, citing laws protecting taxpayers’ privacy.

A Browns spokesman said Friday that the city should expect to collect $3.5 to $4 million in admissions tax from Browns tickets this year. He would not say, however, how many tickets are sold per game or how much the tickets cost, on average.

Other stadium expenses

The city pays all property taxes on the land beneath the stadium, which totaled $646,922.84 in 2012, according to the Cuyahoga County Auditors website.

And to date, the city has paid nearly $68 million of the $296.3 million stadium construction cost. The city expects to finish paying the debt in November 2028 – the year that the Browns lease ends.

Stadium debt had been covered by money collected through the countywide tax on alcohol and cigarettes, known as the “sin tax.” Beginning this year, however, that money will be used exclusively for stadium repairs, while the city taps its general fund for just under $10 million a year to pay the construction debt.

The lease requires the city to contribute $850,000 a year to the stadium’s capital repairs fund, with those payments ballooning to $5 million in the lease’s final five years.

Last year, repairs to the stadium totaled about $5.8 million, and included refurbishing seats and replacing ramps, bridges and other concrete. Picking up that expense allowed the city to forgo its contribution to the repair fund for about seven years.

The city expects to collect $750,000 from the sin tax this year to meet future repair needs, but without voter approval, the tax will expire in 2015, leaving the city coffers to pick up the rest.

The controversy over proposed upgrades

The key issue at Monday’s council meeting will be whether the city is bound by the lease to contribute more than what already is in the capital repair fund toward $120 million in proposed upgrades to the “fan experience” at the stadium.

Banner and Mayor Frank Jackson announced Tuesday that they had reached a tentative agreement on financing the project, which would include two enormous scoreboards, faster escalators and a state-of-the-art sound system.

The Browns would cover half of the expense with loans from the NFL and take out a bank loan for the remainder. The city would contribute $30 million over 15 years – estimated at $22 million at the present-day value of the dollar – to offset that cost.

The city also would give the Browns organization more input on how to spend about $12 million of the $24 million already in the capital repair fund. In exchange for having that input, the Browns would allow the city to reduce its payments to the fund in the final years of the lease.

But the lease is unclear on which aspects of the Browns’ proposal would be the city’s obligation.

The lease calls for the city to cover the expense of all emergency fixes or repairs of the stadium’s roof, foundation, structure or utilities, whether or not the money is within the repair budget. When it comes to capital improvements –- defined as modifications and amenities that would rank the facility among the top NFL stadiums -- the lease only requires the city to pick up the tab if the money is available in the capital repair fund.

Upgrades, no more than once a decade, to components of field lighting and the scoreboard, including message boards, bulbs and circuit breaker panels, are listed among required improvements. And Browns officials have argued that the current scoreboards are so obsolete, replacement parts will no longer be available in the next few years.

But the question remains whether the new scoreboards slated for installation at FirstEnergy Stadium – which are three times larger than the current boards – are a necessary upgrade or a capital improvement.

If the latter is true, the lease states, “in no event shall the city be required to make Capital Improvements to the Leased Premises in excess of the amounts allocated to Capital Improvements in the Capital Repair Fund Budget.”

The lease does not call for the city to siphon from its general fund to pay those expenses.

Return to cleveland.com on Monday at 9:30 a.m., when we cover the city council hearing live. And check back for our second installment, comparing the lease agreements of similar, publicly-owned stadiums.

Below is an excerpt from Bloomberg. I'm not a guy who believes that just because it's in print, it is accurate. However, I do believe that the below is materially accurate.

New York Giants fans will cheer on their team against the Dallas Cowboys at tonight’s National Football League opener in New Jersey. At tax time, they’ll help pay for the opponents’ $1.2 billion home field in Texas.
Muni Debt Shouldn't Pay for Stadiums, Packwood Says
2:14

Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bob Packwood talks about the use of municipal debt to finance professional sports teams' stadiums. (Source: Bloomberg)

That’s because the 80,000-seat Cowboys Stadium was built partly using tax-free borrowing by the City of Arlington. The resulting subsidy comes out of the pockets of every American taxpayer, including Giants fans. The money doesn’t go directly to the Cowboys’ billionaire owner Jerry Jones. Rather, it lowers the cost of financing, giving his team the highest revenue in the NFL and making it the league’s most-valuable franchise.

“It’s part of the corruption of the federal tax system,” said James Runzheimer, 67, an Arlington lawyer who led opponents of public borrowing for the structure known locally as “Jerry’s World.” “It’s use of government funds to subsidize activity that the private sector can finance on its own.”

Jones is one of dozens of wealthy owners whose big-league teams benefit from millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Michael Jordan’s Charlotte, North Carolina, Bobcats basketball team plays in a municipal bond-financed stadium, the Time Warner Cable Arena, where the Democratic Party is meeting this week. The Republicans last week used Florida’s Tampa Bay Times Forum, also financed with tax-exempt debt. It is the home of hockey’s Lightning, owned by hedge-fund manager Jeffrey Vinik. None of the owners who responded would comment.

$4 Billion

Tax exemptions on interest paid by muni bonds that were issued for sports structures cost the U.S. Treasury $146 million a year, based on data compiled by Bloomberg on 2,700 securities. Over the life of the $17 billion of exempt debt issued to build stadiums since 1986, the last of which matures in 2047, taxpayer subsidies to bondholders will total $4 billion, the data show.

Quote: steeldco

I see where Cano signed with Seattle for an ungodly amount of money. Something north of $230 mil. Really? He's worth that?
Not really the point that I want to make however. This kind of hits on something that has always bothered me. I feel that these players are able to get these ludicrous sums of money, in part, because taxpayers subsidize the teams stadiums.

That's not the only thing taxpayers are subsidizing. Did you know that sports leagues are tax exempt?

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=5c07d043-64c3-4408-a7ad-4f582b2dfa72

Jerry Colangelo once majority owner of the Suns and Diamondbacks, stepped on taxpayers and property owners to get his two sports venues in downtown Phoenix. Who cares what the economic impact was or is........ Typical crony capitalist deal.

Thanks MathExtremist. I just don't see these industries as ones that need taxpayers economic help. They can do very well on their own.....they may make a bit less, but they'll do very well nonetheless.