Without the draw for pro sports one would argue that no one in high school or below would play sports as seriously as they do. The question is: could the money used to promote, distribute and sustain professional sports be utilized in a better way?

This has been a Krallum query

4/20/2012 12:46:36 PM

ibtsupplyanddemandargument

4/20/2012 12:47:28 PM

What the hell kind of question is this.

Of course it could. Entertainment is a form of consumption.

Production and Investment are always more productive uses of capital than consumption.

4/20/2012 12:48:10 PM

Keep on Strollin'

4/20/2012 12:48:32 PM

Please define "utilized in a better way."

Quote :

"Production and Investment are always more productive uses of capital than consumption."

This is generally true, I don't know that's I would say always though.

4/20/2012 12:50:59 PM

I feel as if this sounds like the people that pay the players have all that money sitting in their pockets prior to the public spending all the money they do on tickets & jerseys & shit.

Would the audience have to spend that money on "better things" as well?

4/20/2012 12:54:33 PM

Yeah wouldn't that money just get pooled into other forms of entertainment

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

4/20/2012 12:55:48 PM

^^^ There are probably some one off scenarios you can think of but in general my point stands. Always might have been too strong of a word.

One thing is for sure, it is a HORRIBLE deal that the city pays for arenas and the owners keep the profits. Classic case of the public taking all the risks and then privatizing the profits.

4/20/2012 12:57:51 PM

Yes, but public pressure and fan loyalty drives that. Besides, it's not all profit to the team owners. Having a professional sports team drives huge tourism dollars and city prestige. Plus, the NFL typically rewards cities with the Superbowl shortly after building a new stadium which is a huge economic plus. Not enough to offset stadium costs, but it's a big fucking deal.

4/20/2012 1:01:55 PM

the tourism myth has been disproven hundreds of times over...

Here's a good academic paper on the matter http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/MathesonBaade_FinancingSports.pdf


And here's a good synopsis:

Quote :

" Baade and Matheson offer three reasons the impact suggested by proponents of sports fail to appear: The Substitution Effect: Sports are just one form of entertainment. If the Kings didn’t play in Sacramento, the people in Sacramento would simply spend the portion of their entertainment budget currently dedicated to the Kings on something else (i.e. dining out, movies, etc…). The Crowding-Out Effect: Sporting events attract crowds. When people know those crowds are going to appears, those who are not attending the sporting event tend to avoid the general area. For example, Baade and Matheson note that the 2008 Olympics in Beijing failed to increase the number of tourists in Beijing in August of 2008 relative to what the same city saw in August of 2007. Leakages: The Kings do employ very high-priced labor. But many of those players probably don’t live in Sacramento. This means that the income earned by these players doesn’t stay in the Sacramento economy."

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 1:14 PM. Reason : a]

4/20/2012 1:09:33 PM