Hockey is our world. Money makes the world go 'round. Worlds are colliding...
The Calgary Flames are in need of a new building. That's no secret. The Saddledome's over thirty years old and, much like their former goalie tandem, in desperate need of being replaced. This is hardly new for any arena. However, this has relaunched on of the more heated debate in sports, should public money be used to help build a privately owned arena?
I've thought about this a lot over the last few years, and seen both sides of the argument. At first I found myself siding with my brethren, the everyday fan, people who said hell no, but strangely enough, I've started to come around. This wasn't out of some sort of misguided sympathy towards this wealthy lot as, lets be honest, its not as if the billionaire owners couldn't afford to put up the money for the facility, it was more about the economic realities of it. For as much as we perceive it to be a sport, reality is it's a business, so, if I were in their shoes, (as much as I can relate) why would I?
Think about the handouts, tax brakes and other perks given to large corporations who want to set up in a city. The municipal and other levels of government do everything they can to ensure this financial gain for their city yet this is hardly ever met with the same level of scrutiny as when its a sports team even though the principle is essential similar. These big corporations could afford to build their own facilities or pay the taxes they get a break on, they're just looking for a break, a sweetheart deal if you will, because they understand what they can mean to the community. So why wouldn't a professional sports team? After all a team may profit from the arena but it's the city who reaps all the other benefits.
If (when...?) I owned a team I'd look at the overall impact it brings to a city. Living here, I'll use Ottawa as an example. If you head down to Elgin st. a popular street downtown which is lined with bars and restaurants (it's designated the Sens Mile during the playoffs) its usually a reasonably busy spot, especially considering the very 9-5 then off to the suburbs nature of the city. However, when the Sens are in the playoffs its the difference between a quiet Tuesday night game in Arizona and a jammed packed Saddledome. There's hardly a seat to be had. Pints flow like the Ottawa River and the happiest people around when the Sens are doing well are the owners and staff at these places, as the extra income generated is huge. I've spoken with a number of people, either managers or bar staff about this impact, (even sober on some occasions) and it's definitely not something that can be ignored. It's a major influx in the economy that would otherwise never happen.
Now I understand the main counter argument and I realise there is also much more significant, necessary infrastructure this money could be spent on, ie: schools, hospitals, roads etc. but by investing in an arena you're generating money back for the economy unlike these other expenditures (Not that we shouldn't fund them, obviously!) The thing is having a viable NHL franchise in town isn't a financial loss for the city so to say it takes away from these other necessitates wouldn't be entirely accurate. It's putting money upfront that inevitably you'll get back. An investment in the community itself. Basically it comes down to cost, which it should. There shouldn't be a burden on a city to handle all the expenses. Period. However, by contributing and ensuring the franchise stays around everyone benefits. It's a simple cost benefit ratio. Look at the NFL franchises that have recently moved. The Rams & Chargers to LA and the Raiders are heading to Vegas before long. This was mainly because the amount of money required to build an NFL stadium is so significant. We're talking...one billion dollars!!...(had to). John Oliver did a great in depth look at these costs on his show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs
Now while the revenue stream is significantly higher with an NFL team, that doesn't necessarily offset the cost for a city and so, understandably, citizens were not ready to spend that type of money. With an NHL team however, the cost is much, much lower, so really its comparing pucks to oranges. I'd understand people's outrage more if their taxes were going to be raised a significant amount, (again what one considers significant is another topic all together) but the difference it would make to the average citizen definitely isn't a major one.
Then there's the organisation as a whole. I've posted a link below where you can see the operating profits of NHL teams from a few years ago. Spoiler, they're not enough to build a new arena...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/193744/operating-income-of-national-hockey-league-teams-in-2010/
The people who own these teams didn't make their megabucks from owning them. The value of the teams may have risen of late as the league has had more success but this sure as hell isn't a get rich quick scheme.
The Arizona Coyotes who have threatened to move well, I've lost track at this point, actually tasered a local politician as part of a fund raising campaign to keep the Coyotes in town. Shane Doan made a passionate plea talking about what would happen to the people not just with the organisation, but the staff who work at the arena for various events. These arenas generally employ hundreds of people for numerous different events and should they be laid off, it'd certainly be a hit to the local economy. Not to mention the taxes generated from the players salaries themselves. The average NHL team salary here in Canada would dump millions back into the city with the taxes they pay, thus helping to cover the costs, that granted they were responsible for incurring, but you see how it all works out in the end. The other major difference that has to be taken into account is that Calgary isn't a team haemorrhaging money like a drunk guy in Vegas (which the league will enjoy soon enough). I understand, even applaud, a city's reluctance to throw good money after bad as in Arizona or Florida, but this is a viable market that would eventually pay for itself. They league and city's posturing aside it should get done amicably for gone are the days of the Big O boondoggle where a city is left paying for an outdated facility decades later...I hope...
Another issue is the small market nature of many of these teams. If you look at the list of top earning franchises its clear the major markets are at the top and with good reason. They have the population and in most cases history, to make money. People tend to look at these haves and assume everyone is in the same boat. This isn't to say they don't all have rich owners, obviously, but they don't all make the same profit and can't all rely on a packed house regardless, (ie: Toronto or Montreal) of how the economy or team are doing. They need to work hard to turn a profit, and in order to get people out they need to create an atmosphere around the arena like they've done with a new facility in Edmonton (which the city helped fund) and are planning to build here in Ottawa in the near future. These facilities also bring concerts and other major events to town that otherwise wouldn't be possible, again generating more money and are a draw for the city itself.
This is by no means a cut and dry issue. It's complicated and as I've said I've wrestled with it a lot. I get that it ticks people off to see rich people getting public money, to feel as thought they're being given preferential treatment, and realise its particularly tough to separate the business side of sport from the game we love, but there's a certain value that comes with having a team that can't be put down to dollars and cents. It has a certain prestige, and civic pride. Why do you think groups in Seattle and Quebec City are so eagerly clamouring to get franchises? They, like all the owners, understand the impact this has on community, how few things bring us together like sport, unite an entire city, provide those "remember where you were when" moments or move us to tears? Maybe I'm a sucker for sentiment, but that's gotta count for something.
No comments:
Post a Comment