Question of the Day: Time for Taxpayers to Take a Knee?

 

A Louisiana State Representative argued to cut millions in state tax dollars, exemptions, and credits for the New Orleans Saints after several of the team’s players protested the national anthem. The Question of the Day: Should local, state, and federal governments cut these sweetheart deals with the NFL?


The Ricochet Question of the Day poses a question about the news, then at the end of the day, we’ll post the best comments. Join the conversation!

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 25 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Ricochet Editors’ Desk: Should local, state, and federal governments cut these sweetheart deals with the NFL?

    Being a classical liberal in nature, I would say they never should have happened in the first place, and any excuse will do to get rid of them.

    • #1
  2. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Yes.

     

    • #2
  3. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Ricochet Editors’ Desk: Should local, state, and federal governments cut these sweetheart deals with the NFL?

    Being a classical liberal in nature, I would say they never should have happened in the first place, and any excuse will do to get rid of them.

    Hat’s off to San Diego, who waved goodbye to their Chargers rather than wave goodbye to a gigantic pile of money building the Chargers a new stadium.

    • #3
  4. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    I really, really, really don’t like the state entering into issues like this at all, but I don’t believe the state should have ever been subsidizing football.  Ever.

    • #4
  5. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Ricochet Editors' Desk: Should local, state, and federal governments cut these sweetheart deals with the NFL?

    No. The economic benefits of these deals are extremely thin. They simply do not pay off.

    Calgary is going through this argument right now with the Calgary Flames, and building a new arena complex. The city is being extorted for a new building with design proposals ranging for $300 million to $1 billion. Even in Canadian dollars that’s real money.

    I understand the prestige a city gains from having a pro sports franchise and top notch venue for concerts and other events – but tax dollars shouldnt be ‘invested’ in such pork projects.

    • #5
  6. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    You could say this was “Strike 4”. Let’s go full Federal sweetheart deal cut. Bring on the competition!

    1 ) Domestic violence; 2 ) Concussion Issues; 3 ) the ‘Redskins’ (c’mon man!); and now 4 ) Disrespect the Flag. #EndTheMonopoly

    Congress has the NFL in its crosshairs … is even Maxine siding with Donald on this?! DC Congresswoman files bill to strip NFL of antitrust protection

    • #6
  7. Muleskinner Member
    Muleskinner
    @Muleskinner

    Of course we should, a colleague of mine who did some work on the Vikings stadium turned me one to this:

    Field of Schemes “is a play-by-play account of how the drive for new sports stadiums and arenas drains $2 billion a year from public treasuries for the sake of private profit. While the millionaires who own sports franchises have seen the value of their assets soar under this scheme, taxpayers, urban residents, and sports fans have all come out losers, forced to pay both higher taxes and higher ticket prices for seats that, thanks to the layers of luxury seating that typify new stadiums, usually offer a worse view of the action.”

     

    • #7
  8. Kent Lyon Member
    Kent Lyon
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Yes, by all means yes. Those deals have been a boondoggle for the taxpayer forever. Now would be a great time to cut off the prima donnas of the NFL.

    • #8
  9. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Yes, but not because of the anthem protests, just because.

    • #9
  10. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    I don’t like these deals, but I like the government punishing private entities for their political stances even less. In this specific case, I say no.

    • #10
  11. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    No government entity should subsidize one dollar of any sports venue.  Studies have been done by multiple economists on multiple stadiums and arenas, showing that they are a net loser for cities and counties.  The reason normally given for giving sports teams bags of taxpayer money is all the money they generate, over and above ticket sales.  This has always been false.  Not one more taxpayer dollar.  The National Anthem kerfuffle should just be the nail in the coffin.

    • #11
  12. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):
    I don’t like these deals, but I like the government punishing private entities for their political stances even less. In this specific case, I say no.

    You and I are close to the same page, I think.  But I also feel that private entities that take money from the government agree in some way to having their funds subject to scrutiny per political whims.

    I mean, making the Redskins change their names by actually making their trademark illegal is one thing.  Keeping taxpayer dollars from flowing to a private entity via a public subsidy seems different to me.

    Is this only a distinction in my own head?  Or a distinction with a difference?

    • #12
  13. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Most of this subsidizing is done in the name of demonstrating a city runs with the big dogs – that it is vibrant enough to attract a Major League Team!

    Perhaps, once upon a time that was true. Like before the era when cities subsidized professional sports teams to move there. When team placement was purely done for private sector economics, team owners picked the cities which gave the best return on investment. That meant choosing the most economically vibrant cities.

    Since public sector financing began, the economic realities for teams changed. Today, getting a major league team in your town is really a signal that the local government is made up of insecure clowns, who lack confidence in the viability of their communities. It is a community-level equivalent of an individual taking out a home mortgage they cannot afford to show they are “middle class” and so there.

    For that reason, I am still good with cities, counties, and states subsidizing professional sports teams if, and only if those officials voting to provide those subsidies are willing to tattoo “I lack faith in my community” on their foreheads. Otherwise, no. If a town is big enough, vibrant enough, and enough of an economic draw, sports teams will settle there without requiring public money.

    Seawriter

    • #13
  14. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    There should be no tax breaks for them.   While classic liberalism declares it never should have happened I will come at it from a different angle, since it has happened.   A business that was built on draping itself with the flag now endorses their employees wiping their bottoms with the Stars and Stripes.   They have picked sides in an existential war for the United States and I want them to suffer because of their choices.  This is a personal issue now and state/local governments should take it personally.

    • #14
  15. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Not only with the NFL, but with all private entities that have asked to have a seat at the trough of public money called our federal Treasury. The general government has been reduced to a great piggy bank accessed by those who are able to marshal their forces in such numbers as to gain the attention of the legislature or with forces whose pockets are deep enough to whet the apatite for power of the legislators. Our general government has whored itself out to the great Johns of private enterprise, and the services they offer are the slippage into our pocket books the phallic hands of “private enterprise.”

    • #15
  16. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):
    I don’t like these deals, but I like the government punishing private entities for their political stances even less. In this specific case, I say no.

    It would not be a punishment but a restoration of sound governance and proper stewardship of the people’s riches.

    • #16
  17. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):
    I don’t like these deals, but I like the government punishing private entities for their political stances even less. In this specific case, I say no.

    It would not be a punishment but a restoration of sound governance and proper stewardship of the people’s riches.

    If you get rid of all subsidies to all entities, then you’d be right.

    If you specifically end subsidies to a particular entity that has annoyed the government while maintaining others, which is the scenario put forth in the OP, that’s punishment.

    • #17
  18. Mrs. Ink Inactive
    Mrs. Ink
    @MrsInk

    Should local, state, and federal governments cut these sweetheart deals with the NFL?

    NO!

    • #18
  19. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):
    I don’t like these deals, but I like the government punishing private entities for their political stances even less. In this specific case, I say no.

    It would not be a punishment but a restoration of sound governance and proper stewardship of the people’s riches.

    If you get rid of all subsidies to all entities, then you’d be right.

    If you specifically end subsidies to a particular entity that has annoyed the government while maintaining others, which is the scenario put forth in the OP, that’s punishment.

    See my original statement.

    • #19
  20. Nick H Coolidge
    Nick H
    @NickH

    I see some confusion in the comments about what the question means. Does “cut these deals” mean should they make these types of deal? Or does “cut” in this case mean get rid of them? From context, it’s clear that some commenters have interpreted it one way and some the other. I think that most would agree that it would have been best if the governments had never cut (as in made) these deals in the first place, and that the deals should be cut (as in eliminated) now because of the actions of the players. I agree with the former sentiment but disagree with the latter. Once the deals exist, they are legal contracts. Unless there are terms in the deal that the teams are guilty of violating, the deals should be honored until they expire. After that I see no need to renew them. Not because of the player protests, but because they are not in the public interest. The best way to handle the protests is to ignore them while working to address any valid concerns that exist.

    • #20
  21. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    DocJay (View Comment):
    There should be no tax breaks for them. While classic liberalism declares it never should have happened I will come at it from a different angle, since it has happened. A business that was built on draping itself with the flag now endorses their employees wiping their bottoms with the Stars and Stripes. They have picked sides in an existential war for the United States and I want them to suffer because of their choices. This is a personal issue now and state/local governments should take it personally.

    I agree. And the NFL should lose its non-profit status.

    • #21
  22. James Golden Inactive
    James Golden
    @JGolden

    Ralphie (View Comment):
    And the NFL should lose its non-profit status.

    I wasn’t going to comment because @arahant and @robertmcreynolds already said things perfectly, but I didn’t know that the NFL has non-profit status.  That is truly outrageous.  What possible justification could there be for that?

    • #22
  23. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Ralphie (View Comment):
    And the NFL should lose its non-profit status.

    The NFL gave up its non-profit status in 2015.

    Seawriter

    • #23
  24. James Golden Inactive
    James Golden
    @JGolden

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    Ralphie (View Comment):
    And the NFL should lose its non-profit status.

    The NFL gave up its non-profit status in 2015.

    Seawriter

    Good to hear!

    • #24
  25. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    James Golden (View Comment):

    Ralphie (View Comment):
    And the NFL should lose its non-profit status.

    I wasn’t going to comment because @arahant and @robertmcreynolds already said things perfectly, but I didn’t know that the NFL has non-profit status. That is truly outrageous. What possible justification could there be for that?

    As I understand it, the league was considered a non-profit governing body while each individual team was treated as a corporation unto itself.

    • #25
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.