Despite claims from local officials and team owners that the construction of these stadiums would create jobs and economic growth, research from the Journal of Economic Perspectives showed “there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development,” specifically aimed at income growth or job creation.

If this is true, cut off the funding even if the players stand for the anthem.

Good. Cut off tax subsidies.

The second they move to actually do it, the GOP will be cowed by libmedia screaming they are trying to destroy America's sport, blah-blah-blah.

And Corey Booker typically ensures that nothing he sponsors ever becomes law or has any impact whatsoever. How stupid can those NJ voters be to elect him more than once to anything? Booker is all virtue-signals but determined to leave no actual paper trail of legislative success. He avoids any opportunity to pass his own bills and somehow thinks this will qualify him to be prez.

How stupid can those NJ voters be to elect him more than once to anything?

What is the alternative? A Republican?

If this is true, cut off the funding even if the players stand for the anthem.

It is certainly true and it has been known for some time. In exactly the same way that the Olympics always hurt the local economy of the city and the country that hosts them. Not that that ever stops them. Just more pols piling up debt to aggrandize themselves and screw the little people who have to ultimately pay those huge bills and accrued interest over the long haul.

If we can't stop this kind of wasteful spending, can we stop anything?

It is discouraging to think about.

What is the alternative? A Republican?

Like Christie? He could probably eat and digest entire elementary schools of children. Or Frank Lautenburg? Or Robert Menendez?

I just hate NJ. If Kim Woh Fat launched a nuke at us, I'd probably hope that it hits NJ. It is an incredibly sucky state, full of douchebags.

It is an incredibly sucky state, full of douchebags.

Snookie for Governor!

If we can't stop this kind of wasteful spending, can we stop anything?

We could stop all of it and make things right. Whether we actually WILL or not is an open question.

You aren't cheering me up.

After having gotten a good spanking by Jesus and adopting a resolution to be nice and not do things like call Republican politicians "shitstains" anymore, I am more hopeful than I have been for awhile.

I do see the social welfare aspects of health care moving where I want it to go, and once that gets put to bed I really see a lot of good development in things.

People are fed up about the national anthem, and that's starting to spill over in lost billions to TV stations and sports teams. And because the other side is resisting, the issue now is lateralizing into the question of tax breaks for stadia. This is the sort of thing that can just grow and grow, like yeast, and do so much incredible damage to the people who stand on the other side, without really doing any harm at all to those who just turn off that form of entertainment and move on to something else.

Their model doesn't have to die, but if THEY choose to sacrifice their wealth and profession to make an obnoxious political statement, I am more than happy to see it all fall apart and shut down.

It's symbolic of something new. If we can get past instituting public health care there is a lot we can do, socially, just as we for the most part have accepted Social Security as necessary.

Things are going in the right direction. There is hope. Football is symbolic of a new time ahead. Winter is coming, and it will be glorious.

Well, we'll see if Trump can actually #MakeFootballGreatAgain. I have doubts.

He can't. But we can. Or rather, we can walk away and the swells who run football can fix stuff in order to save their businesses. Or they can cut off their noses to spite their faces. Either way, I win.

He could withdraw Homeland Security support for NFL games, since they're such a big private enterprise. He could withdraw all military displays and costly flyovers.

He could tell Sessions to find a few compromised individuals working in or around each of the NFL teams to make statements and testimony that steroids and amphetamine use is rampant on those teams and send in the DEA with warrants to bust them and drug test them all, investigate their doctors, investigate their owners, et cetera. IOW, use the FBI to bust illegal drug use in the NFL the same way they busted the KKK and the Nazis decades back.

Then there are all the phony charities and foundations that the playas use to fund their entourages as tax dodges. Those might be worth the time of the IRS to investigate.

Trump could do a lot of things to truly rip up the NFL.

Trump could do a lot of things to truly rip up the NFL.

I'd prefer he shut down the Russia investigation and turn the FBI into doing all that to the Clintons and their cronies.

Because that whole corrupt Democrat skein of power has REAL influence. A bunch of meatheads throwing around a ball in front of stadia and living rooms filled with meatheads is essentially harmless.

I'm not saying Trump should do those things but he has incredible power if he chose to use it. And Roger Stone's reptilian brain to cook up such dirty tricks for him.

Yes, the President DOES have incredible power. Including the power to impose a litmus test on Supreme Court nominees. Democrats do.

That's why I hold the Republicans fully responsible for the continued existence of Roe v. Wade. I know that the Republican majority Supreme Court of Nixon's day was from a pre-conservative day and time. But since that time, since Reagan and the "Moral Majority" election, Republicans have appointed NINE justices - NINE! The whole court.

That Roe is still the law of the land means that Republican Presidents, with all that massive power, CHOSE to leave it be, by not nominating the judges who would kill it, by not applying a litmus test.

That the Clintons are uninvestigated is because the President doesn't want to. That he continues to let himself be investigated and the country distracted is, likewise, his choice.

I think the NFL CEO gets more than many top producing CEO's combined! There just something wrong here. Exxon is worth 3 times what the NFL is worth and works all over the world. Amazon, Apple and EXXON are worth 20 times more than the NFL but the CEO's of those three combined make near half of what the NFL CEO makes.

I guess I missed the part where NFL finally decided under pressure to stop its nonprofit status in 2015. NFL CEO was upset that people knew how much he made!

I think the NFL CEO gets more than many top producing CEO's combined! There just something wrong here. Exxon is worth 3 times what the NFL is worth and works all over the world. Amazon, Apple and EXXON are worth 20 times more than the NFL but the CEO's of those three combined make near half of what the NFL CEO makes.

Well, they can also get stock options and incentives. You have to look at total compensation packages.

I guess I missed the part where NFL finally decided under pressure to stop its nonprofit status in 2015. NFL CEO was upset that people knew how much he made!

Well, the NFL was under pressure from its own executives like Goodell who wanted to cash in big time. Goodell wanted to make a lot more and it was easier to squeeze a lot more out of the owners if they could keep it secret how much they were paying that turd. I expect that Goodell is making at least $60 million a year, probably more. Other top NFL executives would be in that range as well.

Well, they can also get stock options and incentives. You have to look at total compensation packages.

I looked up 2 of them and it was total compensation. Crazy money! LOL

I think there should be laws to prevent any team from leaving a city that has built it a stadium with public funds. I wouldn't allow the citizens to be bilked and would require the teams to do maintenance and upgrades. And no leaving town. If a stadium is built with taxpayer dollars, it stays in that town forever or goes out of business in that town. And no blackmail attempts of any kind to grab more tax dollars.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/news/companies/nfl-taxpayers/index.html

NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers

by Chris Isidore
@CNNMoney January 30, 2015: 10:53 AM ET

If you're a U.S. taxpayer then you're subsidizing the wildly profitable National Football League, regardless of whether you're a fan.

The NFL is the most profitable pro sports league in the U.S., raking in an estimated $1 billion in profits on $10.5 billion in revenue last season, figures that are sure to increase this year.

[...]

Stadium construction: Twenty new NFL stadiums have opened since 1997 with the help of $4.7 billion in taxpayer funds, according to an analysis by the advisory firm Conventions, Sports and Leisure. Local governments pony up to build these venues to attract or keep teams in their towns.

Two more stadiums now under construction in Minneapolis and Atlanta are being built with $700 million in government funds.

[...]

Tax breaks for the NFL's biggest customer: Corporate America: NFL teams sell between $1.5 billion to $2 billion worth of luxury and high-end club seats a year, according to Bill Dorsey, the chairman of the Association of Luxury Suite Directors. A single suite can cost as much as $750,000 a season. Almost all suites and club tickets are bought by corporate clients, which write the cost off as a business entertainment expense.

[...]

Not for profit: The NFL's not for profit status strikes critics as particularly unseemly, given its financial might. But it's categorized that way because the league's profits are distributed to each of the teams, rather than kept by the league itself.

The league probably only saves about $10 million a year as a non-profit, according to Richard Phillips, research analyst with Citizens for Tax Justice, which is a rounding error for a league as profitable as the NFL.

That last part about the NFL not-for-profit status got so embarrassing that the NFL gave it up on their own initiative. The above article is from January 2015 when the NFL was still incorporated as a 501(c)(6) nor for profit corporation.

In April 2015 the NFL announced that it was give up its non-profit status.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/04/28/the-nfl-is-dropping-its-tax-exempt-status-why-that-ends-up-helping-them-out/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-no-longer-non-profit-giving-tax-exempt-status-article-1.2202484

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/why-the-nfl-decided-to-start-paying-taxes/391742/

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/04/29/why-did-the-nfl-give-up-its-tax-exempt-status/

Why Did the NFL Give Up Its Tax-Exempt Status?

By Larry Kaplan Larry Kaplan
Non-profit Quarterly
April 29, 2015

[excerpt]

The NFL hardly qualifies in our mind for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(6), because the beneficiaries of its trade association functions are not football clubs across the board or the sport of football generally, but the 32 specific for-profit professional football clubs. But former commissioner Pete Rozelle so strongly sought this tax status that he had it written into the 501(c)(6) statutory definition. Why? Was it simply a throwaway? Something doesn’t add up here.

One benefit for Goodell and the NFL is that without having tax-exempt status, they won’t face the pressure of full disclosure for their big-ticket salaries, including Goodell’s enormous salary, which was over $40 million in 2012. Of course, we only know that because the NFL was tax exempt, even though the NFL tried to get itself exempted from the disclosure requirement long ago.

But if the tax exemption wasn’t all that important to the NFL, and dropping it won’t materially affect the NFL’s operations going forward, doesn’t that sound odd? Counterintuitive, like there’s something more to the story? Was the NFL able to jigger its finances so that it could use its tax-exempt status for its benefit and then drop it, still manipulating the numbers, so that without it there would be no adverse impact?

Given the NFL’s huge size, enormous salaries, and massive income-generating track record, it sounds like there’s a step that should be taken, either by the IRS, if the IRS’s tax-exempt division were operating with resources and capacity, or by some other watchdog with the ability to take a deep dive into the complexities of the NFL’s financial structure. Let’s hope some watchdog goes back over several years of the NFL’s Form 990s and figure out what the benefit of the tax exemption has been to the NFL in concrete terms—that Rozelle clearly wanted so much to stick it into the law.

Moreover, someone should assess the NFL’s filings to see what the NFL did and didn’t do in terms of compliance with required disclosure. Until this point, the NFL had wanted to protect its tax-exempt status but circumvent various disclosures. What do watchdogs think the NFL should have been reporting on? What should it have been held to in terms of nonprofit standards of behavior and disclosure? Can we assess what benefits the NFL captured through its tax-exempt status and compel a recapture of the economic benefits that the NFL now sees as able to be ditched without much financial impact?

Now is the time to reassess not only the NFL’s history as a tax-exempt entity, but others’ whose tax-exempt status is also questionable, since as (c)(6)s, they have functioned with a tax exemption that gave benefits the NFL is demonstrating they perhaps may not need.—Rick Cohen and Larry Kaplan

The second they move to actually do it, the GOP will be cowed by libmedia screaming they are trying to destroy America's sport, blah-blah-blah.

Right about now, they could win awards by making the NFL owners appear humbled.

One benefit for Goodell and the NFL is that without having tax-exempt status, they won’t face the pressure of full disclosure for their big-ticket salaries, including Goodell’s enormous salary, which was over $40 million in 2012. Of course, we only know that because the NFL was tax exempt, even though the NFL tried to get itself exempted from the disclosure requirement long ago.

Yeah, I knew. The rest of the article drew out some of the tax angles that I had only suspected but it was always clear that their motives were financial secrecy and increased salary/benefit packages.

They wanted to dip their beaks a lot deeper.