Public Money for Sports Stadiums

[Tmy]

The Montreal Expos baseball team is looking for a new home cause french canada has never been to $upportive ofthe team. I guess the DC area and Portland Ore are tryingto get the team. Which always means a new stadium!

I was always OK with public money going these stadiums (within reason). Rarely do these places get built wh all private money. As ususal you getthe 2 sides city-state could use the money for better things vs. increase cash flow due to the sporting events.

What do people think about the public fronting the money for these places. I feel it can be quite benefical to land a sports team. The income taxes on the players salaries alone can bring in millions. Not to mention the visitors to the city, the jolt to the local economy, and the taxes that go with.

Plus theres the intangible civic pride that comes wh a sports team.

[The Don]

How ridiculous, I cannot think of a less deserving group of individuals.

[shanek]

It's ridiculous.

We can argue all the time about welfare for the poor. I would disagree, but at least I can see the motivation behind those in favor of it.

But how on Earth can you justify welfare for multi-multi-billion dollar industries? Let 'em build their own damn arenas! If they can pay their athletes millions of dollars a year, it shouldn't be a problem! Building a stadium is just the cost of doing business.

Here in NASCAR country, there are a lot of racetracks that I imagine are every bit as expensive as sports arenas if not more so. And yet, none of them to my knowledge were built with public money. Some of them have been taken over by the cities that "host" them, but I don't know of any that were ever built by them.

Here are some great throughts from Libertarian comedian Tim Slagle:

Times are lean for America’s favorite pastime. Ball parks are way bigger than the fans appetite for it. Watch the clips the next time you’re forced to sit through a television sports report. All you see is home runs being hit into empty seats. Personally, I don’t pay any attention to baseball anymore. The Fan’s Union hasn’t given me my back to work order yet.

I have the solution for the ailing sport. First sell all municipal, county, or state owned ball parks to the teams. If they don’t want to buy them, tear them down and let them find their own park. If they leave town, wipe a tear, blow your nose and wave good-bye. After all, it’s only a game. Despite what the owners tell you, pro-sports do not help the local economy. Unless you consider a team owner's pocket as a local economy.

Once the facilities were in private hands, owners would have to not only run a team and turn a profit, they would have to maintain their facility. Real business decisions would have to be made. Down sizing would occur. Stands would be built closer to the field Prices would drop. Salaries would plummet. Players would have to decide whether they would play out of love, or quit. Humility would return.

How can a multimillionaire limousine riding, lifetime Washington resident ever claim to represent me? In both baseball and politics, there is a sense that royalty is claiming to be ordinary citizens. I think that’s a lot of the reason why people aren’t interested in baseball any more. There was a time when you could believe that the ball players were representing you. They made about the same amount of money as you, and they played a game that you grew up playing. You would go down to the ball park so your boys would have someone rooting for them. You paid a reasonable admission to a well kept park, and were grateful to pay a little extra for the concession men, as you didn’t have to haul in food and beer from home. If your team lost so what? You were still outside on a beautiful summer evening. The smell of the turf and the crack of the bat just seemed right. Now you have to pay way more than the show is worth. How can anybody enjoy spending a couple hundred bucks to take the family inside a dome to see millionaires playing on the carpet. A team used to feel privileged to have loyal fans. Now, you’re made to feel as if it is a privilege to watch a baseball game.

People are just as convinced that because some of the Olympic Athletes are wearing our flag that we take part in their victories also. Granted we are paying for the spectacle. 500 million Federal taxpayer dollars were being used to fund these ridiculous games. It is the same mentality that equips a high school football team before it buys a book. I know a campaign to prohibit the federal funding of the Olympics would be doomed from the get go, people really get a kick out of these things. There is a sense that we’re charting human achievements.

You’re not. No matter how fast a runner is, he will never complete a one minute mile. Sorry it’s impossible. I don’t even think a two minute mile is achievable. There are strict limits to the ability of the human body. In our cars, a one minute mile is quite attainable. In fact there are cars on the road that can do a half minute mile. No matter how good a jumper is, he will only stay aloft for a moment. But aircraft can stay up for portions of days, and reach heights a pole-vaulter could never dare. Monster trucks combine the speed of a hurdle jumper with the spectacle of a circus. A javelin’s distance is measured in meters, but we have created missiles that have traveled all the way to the moon. And hit dead center. The original marathon was a race based on the run of a messenger. We can now transmit messages to the far reaches of our solar system in less time than it takes to run a marathon. Are these not human achievements? They are achievements of the human mind and by comparison they dwarf the achievements of the body.

http://www.timslagle.com/vonSchloeg/Na0103.html

[Tmy]

Originally posted by The Don
How ridiculous, I cannot think of a less deserving group of individuals.

Yes, the French Canadians are not deservin. But its not really about them.

I think what usually happens is that the city owns the building and the teams get some sort of sweetheart lease. High profile corporate welfare. At least in this situtaion the general public seems to enjoy the benefits. Plus every city needs a stadium. To host other events and such...

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tmy
... Which always means a new stadium!
(...snip...)
What do people think about the public fronting the money for these places. I feel it can be quite benefical to land a sports team. The income taxes on the players salaries alone can bring in millions. Not to mention the visitors to the city, the jolt to the local economy, and the taxes that go with.
I think it's an excellent idea. Because if the government can afford to give some of the richest guys in the world $300 million* to open a new retail establishment for the marketing of their product, they can afford to give me $50,000 ** to build an add-on to my house so I can move my little steamer trunk-refinishing enterprise out of the garage. My little business won't bring in millions in tax revenue, but then again, I'm not asking for a gift of $300 million.***

Anyone else want a government handout so they can open up a store? The line forms to the left...

* Of your money.
** Of your money.
*** Of your money.

[Tmy]

"After all, it’s only a game." : Obvioulsy Slage is not a Red Sox fan


"Despite what the owners tell you, pro-sports do not help the local economy"- Really? Ever go to a game. pre n post game there is a hell of alot goin on in the areas bars, resturants, stores, hotels, and parking lots.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
"After all, it’s only a game." : Obvioulsy Slage is not a Red Sox fan

He's apparently not much of a sports fan at all. One more reason I like him. :D

"Despite what the owners tell you, pro-sports do not help the local economy"- Really? Ever go to a game. pre n post game there is a hell of alot goin on in the areas bars, resturants, stores, hotels, and parking lots.

That little bit nowhere near offsets the amount of money taken from the economy by the politicians who built the arena.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


That little bit nowhere near offsets the amount of money taken from the economy by the politicians who built the arena.

Is that $300 mill taken from the ecomony? More like poured into the economy in form of labor and goods to build the place.

Your usual corporate welfare is in the form of big tax breaks. At least in this situtaion you have a capitol investment.

[c0rbin]

Houston, TX has a huge a widely spread out population.

Houston, TX has only two emergency rooms equiped to handle the highest emerngency (gorgive me, I forget what that kind of ER is called).

Did the city do the right thing and build or fund new top rate ERs?

Nope.

We have Reliant stadium.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is that $300 mill taken from the ecomony?

Yes, since it's being spent in a way that delivers a very poor ROI.

[shanek]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Houston, TX has a huge a widely spread out population.

Houston, TX has only two emergency rooms equiped to handle the highest emerngency (gorgive me, I forget what that kind of ER is called).

Did the city do the right thing and build or fund new top rate ERs?

Nope.

We have Reliant stadium.

Well, at least you don't have zoning. Here, we have a crappy hospital*, no stadium or anything of the like, AND zoning.

*-I'm serious. Everyone here goes to a hospital in Charlotte because they know the county hospital is a death sentence. When my father had his heart attack, he told the rescue workers, "Take me anywhere but Lincoln County Hospital!"

[Hexxenhammer]

Uh. This comes up every year in Minnesota. The Twins want a new stadium. Now the Vikings and Gophers want a new stadium. If it meant losing the Twins, and it was on the ballot to help fund it, I might vote for it. I don't think it's up to the state to do it for sure. If the county wants to, that's a little more reasonable. It should be up to the city to do it however. They are the one's who are going to reap the benefits. And if they raised Minneapolis sales tax, I can shop in the suburbs.

[VicDaring]

Take a trip down to the Baltimore Inner Harbor area sometime. It's a picturesque, accessible, safe and all around terrific area.

Restaurants, taverns, shops, hotels, a nice convention center, etc.

You know when this area began its transformation from a crumbling old warehouse district to a source of great income for the city?

When Oriole Park at Camden Yards was built. That's when.

If done correctly, a sports venue can be the cornerstone of a larger, far-reaching renewal/restoration effort.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Houston, TX has a huge a widely spread out population.

Houston, TX has only two emergency rooms equiped to handle the highest emerngency (gorgive me, I forget what that kind of ER is called).

Did the city do the right thing and build or fund new top rate ERs?

Nope.

We have Reliant stadium.

Well let the hospitals build the ER rooms!!! ARe you saying if the stadium was not built you would have all these extra ER rooms??

Im not saying cities should get hosed by the teams. Here in Mass the owner built a new Stadium for the Patriots and the state made improvements to roads n other infrastructer.



Another thing about Slages article. Why do so many people begrudge athletes for their salaries. I figure its little guy finally making it big. Id rather have a bunch of new millionaires rather than billionaire owner haveing more money on his pile.

No one bashes Bill Gates for the amount of money he makes. Should he just run Microsoft "for the love of Windows".

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Uh. This comes up every year in Minnesota. The Twins want a new stadium.

Baseball has tipped its hand because of all the expansion. back in the day teams could blackmail cities wh threats to move the team to Tampa, Miami, Dever, Pheonix. Now those places have teams.

Its no threat to to say your going to move your team to Portland, Charlotte, Salt Lake or any other 3rd rate mudhole city that cant support a team for more than a couple of years.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, at least you don't have zoning. Have you ever been to Houston? Rather than using it as an example of how great things are with less government interference, you libertarians should be explaining away Houston like a Catholic priest with syphilis.

Anyway, I'm much more supportive of public financed arenas than of single-use stadia. An arena that hosts basketball, hockey, concerts, ice shows, circuses, etc, is a valuable civic assets, and can generate a profit for a municipality. Of course, such venues can be private as well, but at least the community funding them is getting something valuable to a large cross section of the community in return, as well as possibly a source of revenue.

[Ladewig]

"Despite what the owners tell you, pro-sports do not help the local economy"- Really? Ever go to a game. pre n post game there is a hell of alot goin on in the areas bars, resturants, stores, hotels, and parking lots.


That depends a great deal on the ballpark. Wrigley Field in Chicago has a large number of businesses that are dependent on the ballpark. The Astrodome in Houston didn't and While Houston's new baseball stadium does have a lot of restaurants and nightclubs nearby, the people who drive in for the game are often afraid of downtown and drive out immediately after the game.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Have you ever been to Houston? Rather than using it as an example of how great things are with less government interference, you libertarians should be explaining away Houston like a Catholic priest with syphilis.

There are a lot of undesirable things about it, sure, but it does serve as a real-life debunking of all the reasons people say we need zoning. And no matter how many politicos say so many Houstonians are fed up with all of these "problems," it seems like Houston can never have a zoning referendum that gets more than 10% voting in favor of it.

And it's not completely unregulated. There are some land use ordinances, but of all the US major cities it's the closest one to completely free market land growth.

In Bellaire and West University, two small cities Houston has grown around, housing values have fallen while the land value in the surrounding areas of houston (which are unzoned) have risen. That's according to Meredith H. James, "The Effect of Zoning on Residential Values," privately published, 1991 and "Tracking Houston's Home Prices," The Houston Post, July 23, 1993, G-4.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Another thing about Slages article. Why do so many people begrudge athletes for their salaries. I figure its little guy finally making it big. Id rather have a bunch of new millionaires rather than billionaire owner haveing more money on his pile.

The only problem I have with it is that the owners who pay them those millions go crying to the government that they can't afford to build arenas.

[Dancing David]

I cxan undserstand why a city might want to build a new sports complex as part of a downtown revival.

But my objections are two fold (I would not support a city building a new stadium)
A. This is a cspitalist country, so why should the team owners get a handout, just because they threaten to move? Oh waawaawaa
B. It seems to be a slim investment for the city, I remember when the LA Rams used to go around LA asking for donations to the team, to support the stadium and the tea. Where did it get the people who gave that money> Where did the tax money benefit the city? The RAMs moved away. So all that money was down the toilet.


More corporate welfare. (You can tell I am a real sports fan, I used to watch football but stopped in 1979)

[davefoc]

Well, I expected 100% agreement that this is the most egregious use of government funds imaginable.

Haven't there been enough studies claiming that there is almost no ROI to cities funding the building of stadiums to make people wonder about this. The megastadiums have become albatrosses for the cities that built them.

Sure you create jobs, 30 or 40 millionaire jobs, and a few thousand part time minimum wage jobs. But you create the minimum wage jobs at the expense of minimum wage jobs elsewhere in the city. Yes maybe business local to the stadium get a boost, but only at the expense of other businesses farther from the stadium.

Does anybody seriously think that we wouldn't have professional sports unless the cities and states subsidized the stadiums? Professional sports are run by the drop dead greediest people in the US. The latest scheme by major league baseball is a perfect example of this. They have more or less run out of places to build more stadiums so to put pressure on existing cities they decide to arbitrarily reduce the number of teams so the can keep extorting existing cities with threat of moving.

Has anybody ever heard of Al Davis? He was the owner of the Raiders, that within weeks of the Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles threatened to move his team unless the Coliseum was repaired and upgraded to his standards. Then after the city spent a bunch of money on repairing and upgrading the LA coliseum he moved the team anyway. He moved the team to Oakland where the city literally took money out of their underfunded schools so the city could have a football team. And now Al Davis is rewarding them by suing them.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Dancing David
This is a cspitalist country, so why should the team owners get a handout, just because they threaten to move? Oh waawaawaa


Because someone gives it to them. As you said, it's a capitalist country.

BTW, anyone really interested in this should look to the San Francisco Giants as the shining example of how to do it right. They built their own stadium, one that is currently leading the ESPN survey as the best ballpark in the country. They fill it up all the time, and seem to be doing just fine in this area where everyone thinks there is a "small market" team right across the bay.

Of course, having the best ballpark is only part of it. Having one of the best baseball players of all time doesn't hurt, either. Regardless, they did it without a public financed stadium.

[Tricky]

Hey! Building stadiums has been great for some people. Consider this failed businessman. After his oil company folded, he scrounged up $600,000 from family and friends to invest in a baseball team. Working behind the scenes, he convinced the local taxpayers to fund building a new stadium. Seven years later he sold his part in the team for $14.9 million, due in great part to the increased value of the taxpayer-supported team. It is a touching story of how corporate welfare helped one man (http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html) raise himself out of failure and on to greater things.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by shanek
There are a lot of undesirable things about it, sure, but it does serve as a real-life debunking of all the reasons people say we need zoning. And no matter how many politicos say so many Houstonians are fed up with all of these "problems," it seems like Houston can never have a zoning referendum that gets more than 10% voting in favor of it. So? It’s still an ugly, inefficient, dangerous pit of a city.And it's not completely unregulated. There are some land use ordinances, but of all the US major cities it's the closest one to completely free market land growth. It’s also the one most like a third world city. It just has more cash.In Bellaire and West University, two small cities Houston has grown around, housing values have fallen while the land value in the surrounding areas of houston (which are unzoned) have risen. That's according to Meredith H. James, "The Effect of Zoning on Residential Values," privately published, 1991 and "Tracking Houston's Home Prices," The Houston Post, July 23, 1993, G-4. That's pretty funny. I suppose if you knew nothing at all about the characteristics and history of Bellaire and West U, or the surrounding areas of the City of Houston, the enormous leap from changing land values to zoning being the cause might at least seem plausible.

However, lets consider a few facts. Those two enclaves were rich and powerful enough to avoid annexation into the mess that is greater Houston. They are old and established. Are housing values declining? Two obvious factors: The housing stock is aging, and the neighboring area (unzoned) is developing in such a way as to ruin some of the enclaves’ previous charm. Are land values falling in these areas? There’s no indication that they are.

Are land values going up in the rest of Houston? Of course they are. They are going up everywhere, plus Houston suffered a dramatic decline in property values when its economy collapsed with the oil bust of the 80s. Property had been well undervalued, and is still catching up.

Finally, homes in Bellaire and West U are far more valuable than those in surrounding areas of Houston. I could just as legitimately claim that this is due to zoning. The poorest areas of Houston are also the least regulated. Does this prove that regulation produces wealth? Of course not.

[Thanz]

I wouldn't have a problem with giving government money to finance a stadium if the government then owned the building and received fair market rents from the team. Either that or if the money came in the way of loans that charged market interest rates I would be just as happy.

I think that there are economic studies supporting the idea that stadiums are a boost to the local economy, just as there are studies that show the opposite. There is however, a certain civic pride that attaches (rightly or wrongly) to having a pro sports team in your city. It is this pride that teams rely on in their extortion efforts, and it is this pride that is hard to quantify.

If a stadium can be used as part of an overall project (Camden Yards) great. If it is just a way to extort money from the government, bad.

[c0rbin]

So? It’s still an ugly, inefficient, dangerous pit of a city.

Hold on a minute, there.

My commute is a 40 minute affair, I live in a clean developing suburb with access to mass transit into the city where I work (for a Mar-Comm consulting firm). I have lived in West U, I have lived in the artsy area, and I have lived in the Heights.

While traffic is a problem during rush hour, and I would not want to be in parts of South and East Houston at night, I wouldn't call Houston ugly, inefficient, or any more dangerous than cities of its size (like LA, Chicago, New York).

Don't tell Tony, but Houston has an amazing cross-section of cultures drawn to it for all kinds of reasons, business (energy), education (medical), and the arts.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tmy
The Montreal Expos baseball team is looking for a new home cause french canada has never been to $upportive ofthe team. I guess the DC area and Portland Ore are tryingto get the team. Which always means a new stadium!

I was always OK with public money going these stadiums (within reason). Rarely do these places get built wh all private money. As ususal you getthe 2 sides city-state could use the money for better things vs. increase cash flow due to the sporting events.

What do people think about the public fronting the money for these places. I feel it can be quite benefical to land a sports team. The income taxes on the players salaries alone can bring in millions. Not to mention the visitors to the city, the jolt to the local economy, and the taxes that go with.

Plus theres the intangible civic pride that comes wh a sports team.


http://www.melbournepark.com.au/randimages/home1.jpg

This arena http://www.melbournepark.com.au/ was built with public money for tennis. Melbourne hosts one of the tennis Grand Slam events, and was in danger of losing it because the old stadium was just too small and unable to generate the funds needed to pay the huge prizes and fees that international tennis requires.

At the time, the conservative opposition slammed the social-democrat government for wasting tax payers money and, with the help of the murdoch press, got stuck into the whole idea.

Of course, once the conservatives won and the stadium was finished, they couldn't get enough of it.

The stadium has been such a success that it has been expanded. The Grand Slam event is doing well, and many other events are hosted there as well. The net economic benefit for the state is huge, as tourism, hotels, international recognition, tennis in general, employment all benefit.

The same scenario is now being replayed with the next social-democratic governments initiative to build a cyclotron for research purposes in Melbourne. The conservative opposition is weighing in with accusations of waste of public money, while medical research and science are queuing up to start using the thing.

[a_unique_person]

Of course, this tennis stadium was not built for a private individual, but for a semi-government organisation.

States here regularly try to outbid each other to offer subsidies to entice a new business to set up shop in their state, the most recent being Richard Branson's Virgin Airlines. Now, this sort of competition is totally self defeating. The business just has to go for the best offer, and make it's profits, which it would have made anyway, only now it gets subsidies to do it's business in one particular state rather than another one.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Of course, this tennis stadium was not built for a private individual, but for a semi-government organisation.

States here regularly try to outbid each other to offer subsidies to entice a new business to set up shop in their state, the most recent being Richard Branson's Virgin Airlines. Now, this sort of competition is totally self defeating. The business just has to go for the best offer, and make it's profits, which it would have made anyway, only now it gets subsidies to do it's business in one particular state rather than another one.

We kind of had that problem here in Philadelphia.

Then Mayor Ed Rendell gave a very lucrative deal to a German ship building firm to keep the naval yard open. (The naval base was being closed due to consolidation.)

I remember the tax breaks and subsides were worked out by a local paper. It was indeed self-defeating because the money lthe city lost in revenue was far more than the total payroll of the place.

[American]

You can get major league sports teams on your license plate in massachusetts (red sox and bruins). Yup, private businesses on state plates.

OK, fair enough. Now I want a Hustler plate for my car. Or Budweiser, Joe Camel... where's my state-recognised lifestyle? How about crosses for christians? Pink triangles for queers? I guarantee it's coming soon.

Such crap. I really hate the Commonwealth. North Carolina's looking pretty good right now.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Hold on a minute, there.

My commute is a 40 minute affair, I live in a clean developing suburb with access to mass transit into the city where I work (for a Mar-Comm consulting firm). I have lived in West U, I have lived in the artsy area, and I have lived in the Heights.

While traffic is a problem during rush hour, and I would not want to be in parts of South and East Houston at night, I wouldn't call Houston ugly, inefficient, or any more dangerous than cities of its size (like LA, Chicago, New York).

Don't tell Tony, but Houston has an amazing cross-section of cultures drawn to it for all kinds of reasons, business (energy), education (medical), and the arts. I agree, Houston has many great qualities. I just left there after 13 years, and have many fond memories of the people. However, when it comes to planning and infrastructure, it's a disaster. For example, if yours is like most developing areas outside of the city, it has done nothing to plan for the runnoff development has caused, and likely whenever it rains even a moderate amount in your neighborhood, the runnoff is dumped into storm sewers, where it overwhelms capacity down the line, and some other neighborhood gets water shooting out of man hole covers, or a bayou threatening to spill over its banks. Likewise, have you noticed how often you sit at an intersection in Houston, waiting for the light to change, when the lanes which have the green light are traffic free? Most American cities updated their signals to sense traffic in the 70s and 80s. Houston is just starting to.

And New York, Chigago, and LA are vastly larger cities than Houston. Houston is a city more in line with cities like DWF and Atlanta. http://www.proximityone.com/metros.htm

[c0rbin]

For example, if yours is like most developing areas outside of the city, it has done nothing to plan for the runnoff development has caused, and likely whenever it rains even a moderate amount in your neighborhood, the runnoff is dumped into storm sewers, where it overwhelms capacity down the line, and some other neighborhood gets water shooting out of man hole covers, or a bayou threatening to spill over its banks.

I know nothing about civic engineering, and while I have seen a great many torrential down-pours and the odd hurricane/tropical storm, I have never seen water spewing out of manhole covers.

Not to say it doesn't happen, just never seen it myself or on the news.

I have seen a ***** load of water and quite a bit of flooding, But I am not sure what any manner of civic engineering will do in the face of deluge.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by c0rbin


I know nothing about civic engineering, and while I have seen a great many torrential down-pours and the odd hurricane/tropical storm, I have never seen water spewing out of manhole covers.

Not to say it doesn't happen, just never seen it myself or on the news.

I have seen a ***** load of water and quite a bit of flooding, But I am not sure what any manner of civic engineering will do in the face of deluge.

Maybe you are blessed the county that I live in was once covered by slough, a phrase that means wet when it rains and usually full of water.

Both of the local cities are constantly feuding over who is responsible for drainage, especialy when we have a five inch rain in an hour. And yes the water does fountain out of the storm sewers.

[Shinytop]

Three years ago I was in Houston when my favorite team was playing at Enron Field. I went to two games. Each game cost me $50 for my ticket, a hot dog, drink, and chips. How many families are able to fork over $50 a head for a family to enjoy a game. How often can they go. Ball parks and watching games have become venues for the rich and famous. The days of a common fan being able to afford to watch $25 million dollar players act out their fantasies are gone. Given that, I say let the businesses and the rich people build the damn stadiums. When they learn how to cater to the common fan and quit paying such ridiculous amounts I may return to ball parks.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Not to say it doesn't happen, just never seen it myself or on the news.Interesting. I saw it regularly, both in person, and on the news.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Three years ago I was in Houston when my favorite team was playing at Enron Field. I went to two games. Each game cost me $50 for my ticket, a hot dog, drink, and chips. How many families are able to fork over $50 a head for a family to enjoy a game.

You were at the game. How many were there? I'll answer that: an awful lot, in fact.


How often can they go.

More than they used to, that's for sure. Baseball attendance, while maybe down a little from all-time highs (achieved within the last 10 years), is still historically as high as it has ever been, with more teams and more fans attending and watching (notice how many _national_ broadcasts there are these days?).

Baseball prices, including tickets, have only slightly increased over the last 35 years (by maybe 20%) when adjusted for inflation, and the increase in ticket prices can be attributed to increased demand resulting from ... new stadia. According to Zimbalist in "Baseball and Billions," the highest ticket prices in real dollars were in about 1970.

This fall, take your $50 and try to get in the doors of an NFL or NBA game. Good luck. And if you do get in, bring your binoculars because you aren't going to be near as close to the action as you were for your $35 ticket in Enron park.