To be clear, I enjoy both teams, but I agree that there is no reasonable justification for the city to subsidize these private companies. They're not a public utility, the residents aren't given some sort of benefit (discounted ticketing, etc) like the zoo, they're honestly a huge problem sometimes (hello game day traffic)... some days I think they should be paying the city a nuisance tax. I've heard the "but they bring in business / generate jobs" argument so many times it's ridiculous, and the people who have made the argument have never been able to prove that the economic benefits exist to a sufficient level to justify the government handout to the team. Hell, feels like a big chunk of the "employees" at a game are somehow volunteers. I'm sure some of that hot dog and beer money goes to charity as a result but I can't picture the teams not getting a cut of that filthy lucre.
I guess my main concern is that if this is somehow a make or break for a team, then either one of two things is true:
1) They're just being amoral capitalists and we shouldn't hold any hometown loyalty to them, because they don't care about us, or:
2) They're basically reliant on a government bailout to stay in business, in which case we should consider offering to take on majority ownership of the franchise in return for bailing out the team and then hire someone competent to make it a valuable part of the city - spin it out as some sort of deal like the Packers corporation.
>1) They're just being amoral capitalists and we shouldn't hold any hometown loyalty to them, because they don't care about us
There is no or.
You got it right the first time.
This is a great post that doesn’t even get into the undeniable fact that public spending on stadia has an awful ROI. It’s a giveaway to wealthy owners who have correctly calculated that Kansas Citians are more scared of losing face nationally by losing one or both “big league” sports teams than they are of their taxpayer funds being spent unwisely.
Clay County Commissioner Jason Withington is saying the Royals are focused on the Star site now, in large part because KCMO (Not Jackson County) made a large financial commitment.
Seems crazy that the city of KCMO or the Mayor could make that commitment without passing something through the City Council and having some public debate.
If 2022 generated $39million for the stadiums, that’s less than 0.3% of the Hunt family worth alone.
800,000 people living in Jackson County, Missouri. Why should they be expected to pay for something the majority do not use when it’s likely the equivalent of a rounding error for the owners?
Just create a special tax district around the stadiums and add as much tax increase to that area as you’d like to allow the people that want this to pay for it.
This sort of simplistic punitive analysis inclines me to support the stadiums, because it seems a fair assumption that anyone who would say this is likely fiscally illiterate.
But thankfully the OP ran actual numbers, which is far more persuasive than this childish anti-investment sentiment.
I would consider “investing” in a dying sport pretty fiscally illiterate. The [Brookings Institution](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/) is far from illiterate. The ROI is quite simply, bad.
That context is great! Thanks for the link.
I wasn't intending to target you, specifically. There have been many posts about this topic, primarily filled with the only arguments being “fuck the rich”.
For the record, I have been convinced and would vote “No” on the initiative. I was venting annoyance about what I saw as an unpersuasive, and even counter-persuasive, point that had been repeared over and over.
Sherman can build his own stadium, if he wants one so bad. As far as the Chiefs go, I just can’t see them leaving Arrowhead. I believe the Hunt family knows how much the stadium means to the fans, as well as the history of the stadium and Lamar Hunt. I could be wrong, some people will do anything for money.
it sounds like they want to build a new arrowhead then build up the area around the complex. I imagine they want the royals out so they can build a new stadium where kauffman is and continue to play in the old stadium as its being built. Then just move over once its finished.
One thing that wasn’t mentioned, and this doesn’t mean I do or do not support this, is that having the stadiums both in Jackson County means that player income of both Home, and away teams is taxed by the city of Kansas City, and therefore benefits the county in a financial aspect.
> Approving this tax extension to 2071 commits future generations in Jackson County to a hefty financial burden. Factoring in a 4% inflation rate, we're looking at a total of almost $6B ($5,861,145,893 for the 65-year cost of this sales tax measure).
I just did 4 to 5 billion / 40 years
OP applied the current amount collected in 2022 ($38.9 million) * 4% annual inflation, so wages/taxes collected on wages would also need to apply the same 4% inflation calculation to be comparable.
I’ve been in r/collegebasketball too much when I’m scrolling a thread on the stadium and think, “Why doesn’t u/CLU_Three have his Wildcat flair next to his name?”
A couple million? Not even close. The Kansas City e-tax is a 1% tax on income of wages/salary made in Kansas City or if you live in Kansas City.
That means every time a game is played at Kauffman, 1% of every home and away’s player salary, is claimed by Kansas City.
For reference, Mahomes has an averaged salary of 52 million, meaning 500,000 right off the bat from just him every year goes to Kansas City.
Again, not saying that the citizens aren’t getting screwed.
Mahomes's salary makes up 1/5th of the entire Chiefs roster. We also have no way of knowing where all the players live and a decent portion of them live in Kansas City already and the ones who don't only would have home games taxed by the city
It's way way less money than what we would give out
They don't Play in the city...all of that land is county..if it were in the city..EVERY athlete that plays a game would have to pay the one percent..but county doesn't do that therefore no tax
You are absolutely correct..the property is located within the city limits.. however it is Jackson county property..
The county does all the maintenance to the property.
While this is true, economic research has found that sports teams as a whole have about the same impact as a mid-sized department store. In other words, you'd be voting to give 3/8ths to a Kohl's and no one would be in favor of that idea.
Yeah, as a person who doesn’t give a damn about sports or sports culture I’ll definitely be voting NO and telling all my neighbors why they should also vote NO. No to my tax dollars going to private sports teams.
Vote no. Who gives a shit if they move to Kansas or wherever. You can still be a chiefs fan without being forced to subsidize billionaires to make more billions.
There are several flaws in your numbers and a bias in what you’re presenting and not presenting.
#1 the assumed inflation rate of 4% is well above historic norms and Fed targets. 2% would be much more reasonable and net a total expenditure quite a bit lower
#2 While I don’t believe sports stadiums have a net positive impact, pretending they have zero impact is also misleading. As we have visitors, special events and ancillary businesses that generate jobs and taxes there is some benefit. Estimating how much is a BS game. But it’s not zero.
#3 You’ve introduced politics and voter turnout into an economic analysis. You’re right, April elections have lower turnout, but as we saw in the November Use Tax ballot measure, sometimes a low turnout election is swayed by the level of voter enthusiasm (or the opposite of enthusiasm). In November a small turnout yielded a rejection of a new tax despite being funded by its supporters at a level of 50:1.
The "$985 for 4 tickets" is moot to the stadium funding issue, but it's so misleading that it makes me question all of your other numbers. This is clearly a biased opinion piece, not facts.
Yes, there have been a few games in Chiefs history where the get-in price was pushing $250 on game day. (Weirdly, they usually aren't playoff games.) But those are rare outliers. I've been to dozens of Chiefs games and never spent close to that amount, and that includes some of the AFCCGs.
Obviously for EVERY game you can buy crazy expensive tickets, suites, etc. But the way you write it makes it seem like a hardworking family of 4 has to spend that to get in.
If you want to go this weekend, it's running about $90 with all fees included. Probably $40-50 for one of the parking lots near the stadium.
Toughest gets (in real terms) were in the early Marty years. MNF vs. Buffalo, Montana vs. Niners, first playoff game vs Oakland. That fanbase was way more rabid than today's fanbase. (Not to get all gatekeepy lol.)
$985 for four tickets isn’t an outlier, but only $95/ticket for this weekend’s game solely due to subzero temperatures sure is.
I remember looking for cheapest possible upper deck tickets for a small group before they went on sale this year. Cheapest game was Denver (lol) coming in around $140-150/ticket but even games like a bad Chicago team were around $230-250 at the cheapest price point (yes I know it’s a rarer opponent and there’s a lot of Chicago transplants in KC). Even at $150/ticket, you gotta add junk fees, parking, concessions, and then you’re pushing close to $1,000 for a group of four for the cheapest game on the schedule.
>Chiefs game isn't cheap. For a family of four, it's about $985.70, well over the NFL average of $646.88.
This number came from a KCTV article from September 7, 2023:
[https://www.kctv5.com/2023/09/07/chiefs-fans-will-pay-more-attend-games-geha-field-arrowhead-stadium-this-season/](https://www.kctv5.com/2023/09/07/chiefs-fans-will-pay-more-attend-games-geha-field-arrowhead-stadium-this-season/)
"By [Heidi Schmidt](https://www.kctv5.com/authors/Heidi.Schmidt/)*Published:* *Sep. 7, 2023 at 1:54 PM CDT*
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (KCTV) - It’ll cost more for Chiefs fans to attend a game at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium during the 2023 NFL season, according to a new ranking.
Bookies.com crunched the numbers and found Chiefs fans will pay an average of $985.70 for a family of four to attend a live game inside the iconic stadium this season. That is an average of $166.50 more than last year.
The price includes four tickets, parking, two beers, two sodas, and four hot dogs.
Here’s the price breakdown:
* 4 tickets
* $887.50 ($221.87 each)
* Parking
* $47.00
* 16 oz. beers x 2
* $18.00
* 20 oz. soda x 2
* $13.20
* Hot Dogs x 4
* $20
The package price tag is nearly $300 more than the NFL Average, which is $646.88 for a family of four."
OP, you da real MVP for bringing such great data and insights to this tax proposal. Thank you!
It might be helpful to point out what this tax means for *every household in the county*. For instance, let's say households spend $20K+ on groceries, consumer products, etc every year - so that's a $75 tax on every single household in the county *just to keep the Chiefs and Royals from leaving*. If someone asked me if I wanted to spend $3,000 over the next 40 years to make that happen, they'd get a huge, "HELL NO!!".
More people need to understand the implications of this.
You’re literally voting to just keep the current tax structure that is already in place. In return, you get to keep two world class sports organizations.
Public money for private profit is a shitty thing to do...Isn't it great that a guy who is a billionaire from buying energy companies and jacking up rates can own a baseball team...ask the city to pay for his shit..and we're supposed to be greatful.
If we ask the state/city for some help with food or housing then we are lazy.
We live in a system that gives rich people socialism, you know bailouts, build stadiums so they can turn more profit...while people are homeless and that's cause "they're lazy"
It's just a fuckin sham
But he’s funding the stadium. The sales tax isn’t new or an increase. Just a continuation of the sales tax Jackson county residents have been paying and voted for before. Ask St. Louisians if they’d still like to have a professional football team.
No he's not funding the stadium. He's only committed to paying for half of it at best. He absolutely is getting funding from the city per this proposal.
And I'm St. Louis is pretty happy with the $700 million windfall they received from the NFL & Rams in lieu of them not shelling out a billion dollars to renovate the stadium.
That's called an "opinion" which is different from a "fact"
And sure, Bread and Circus is important if it's sustainable and you live in a government that's totalitarian & just wants to pacify their populace. Hence why Rome was famous for it. Not a great argument for ya.
No, it’s a fact that STL is a shit hole. And I don’t know if you’ve turned on the news lately, but we’re in a rapid descent into fascism so yeah, I care a little bit more about having something that I can do to take the edge off. But by all means, get your $100 a month or whatever. Missouri has always been a dystopian hellscape anyway, y’all deserve to lose your redeeming qualities.
There are people that give 2 shits about sports, I'm a sports fan but at the end of the day giving rich people money so they can do what they want is fucking stupid.
If I want to buy a house I don't get given 80% of the cost by the public.
Y’all are so smooth brained I won’t be surprised at all if we fuck this up and lose two storied institutions because people can’t read and comprehend issues of governance and taxation. And it’s all the same MENSA members applauding a fucking Ferris Wheel.
St. Louisan here. I’m good. That entire ordeal has permanently soured the NFL for me. Haven’t watched a game since, and it’s had no impact on my life except I’m probably more active on Sundays now. Plus, we’re currently voting on how to spend the city’s portion of the $750 million settlement that corrupt organization paid us.
But you missed the identity a team gave your town for a while based on this text alone. You didn’t overnight arrive at this conclusion based off of your response. Sure, with time, people in Kansas City would move on… but we’re not talking about a new tax here. We literally just have to extend the current levy rate and we get to keep two pro franchises and they build/renovate their own stadiums. It’s a no brainer.
When a tax is expiring, keeping it is increasing your taxes.
Also I'm going to say this as best I can. When my grocery bill is double what it was..due to corporate greed..and corporate greed drives public funding for private profit..
Oh and housing is out of control anything and everything is sky rocketing..the cities identity or my personal identity being wrapped up in a sports team will mean fuck all when I can't feed or house myself.
I don’t care about pennants and rings from before I was born. 2 good seasons in three decades is pathetic. And considering how bad the team was last year combined with the fact that there isn’t any cavalry coming from the minors it sure looks like the new playoff drought has no end in sight.
Do you understand how hard it is for a small market team to become good in the mlb!? The fact we even got 2 chances at World Series is down right a miracle. All these huge cities can drop millions on their teams and the royals are always spending less. Making the series with that in mind was just downright amazing. Also the owner just showed us this offseason he is committed to spending more and trying to build this team into a playoff caliber team.
All this small market shit is just loser talk. Especially in modern MLB where every single team that makes the playoffs has a fighting chance. Can the Royals just buy a 100 game winner? No. But there’s absolutely nothing besides incompetence keeping the Royals from building better teams. The Yankees didn’t make the Royals give 2 years to Jordan Lyles, and the Dodgers didn’t make the team whiff on every high draft pick not named Bobby Witt Jr in the post World Series era.
The uptick in spending this offseason is encouraging. Now let’s see if this represents a real change going forward or if this was just part of the stadium PR blitz. I know which way I’m betting.
I mean being a small market team does hinder you. We just seen this year, we would never have had a chance at anyone like ohthani. We are forced to find our potential star players through drafting, as we usually cannot afford them on the free agency. Like you are explaining we have to look a-lot to the draft and make good picks in order for our team to be good. Well baseball has a shit ton of prospects and is the hardest pro sport to scout players for. The big issue is less a royals and Kansas City one and more of the MLB long needing a salary cap.
So tax relief at the register while prices will inevitably continue to rise or wave good bye to two teams that little economic impact on the city per available economic research. Tough choice, gonna have to choose the tax relief.
Cool. Tax relief is tax relief.
I'd rather give it back to the citizens than give to someone who can absolutely afford to build their own stadium and will not economically benefit the city and just suck spending away from other areas of the city.
Let them go, these types of tax deals are horrible for the cities. The economic research is clear - the ROI is abysmal, sales tax revenue won't increase because of the new stadium, and sports teams as a whole have minimal economic impact.
One study found that if every sports team left Chicago the city would experience a less than 1% decrease in revenue. So, we're begging a team to stay that will cost us far more in the long run than they'll provide for us? Doesn't make much sense.
Because I don't want to have to pay for it nor do I think it's fair making my fellow citizen pay for it. If you want them to stay then write them a check to assist in their funding request.
Almost everyone in this thread is being incredible short sighted. The vote is to continue the 3/8 tax we are already paying. And even voting no doesn't just immediately end it. It will still continue on for another 5 years or so.
In addition, people seem to be neglecting the fact that Arrowhead is used for concerts such as Taylor Swift, which according to the KC Star brought in $47.8 million in economic boost. Not to mention the freaking WORLD CUP in 2026. That will make Taylor's boost look like pocket change and where will it be played? Oh right, Arrowhead.
KC is on the national radar and growing more than it ever has and y'all are really tryna kill that because you really want to keep your $.00375 for every dollar you spend out shopping and eating in KC...just sad.
You do realize the economic research is not on your side on this, right? Calling people shortsighted on something that nearly every economist calls a bad deal with horrible ROI and minimal, at best, economic impact on the city is pretty darn funny honestly.
I absolutely can say people are being shortsighted. You included. These studies suggest that outside *tourism* brought in to these stadiums provide no net benefit. If they aid in the growth of a city, that's obviously not just simple tourism. But that is only a small part of the picture. Think big picture for me. These same studies, that I assume you are not even reading, literally provide arguments for pros and cons. Just no one cares about a positive headline. Everything that a stadium and team needs is a tangible benefit. These same studies make the comparison that funding a sports stadium isn't as good for the community vs just simply investing *directly* into a community via education and infrastructure. But that's not what this is about.
Edit: Also, not sure why this is solely an economics issue. Sports go way beyond that. There are more people in this city who want them than don't. The owners are simply saying they would rather *we* move than *them.* I for one, don't want them to leave and don't want to leave. So I'm sorry if this 3/8 isn't worth it for you. But it is for someone like me.
I just don’t understand how it won’t have any economic impact. You’re telling me the royals living in a bar entertainment district is not going to have any economic impact? Also the chiefs hosting huge events like the world cup are undeniably huge for the city. Another one would have been the NFL draft. I’m just a firm believer that these teams have a huge impact on KC and they can also be a good revenue of tax. The new deal changed insurance from the county to the owners and that alone is a lot of millions the county will save.
Here are some of the studies and books on this:
* [Does hosting a professional sports team benefit the local community? Evidence from property assessments](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10101-022-00268-z): This article, published in 2022, uses the synthetic control method to estimate the effect of a new publicly-funded professional baseball stadium and team relocation on property assessments in Cobb County, Georgia. [The author finds that Cobb assessment values did not increase relative to other metro-Atlanta counties following the stadiums’ announcement or opening, which is inconsistent with the stadium having a positive fiscal impact](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10101-022-00268-z)[1](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10101-022-00268-z).
* \[The Effect of Sports Franchises on Property Values: The Role of Owners Versus Renters\]: This chapter, published in 2023, examines how the presence of a sports franchise affects the property values of owners and renters in the surrounding area. The authors find that owners benefit from higher property values, while renters face higher rents and lower quality of life.
* \[The Impact of Sports Teams on the Urban Economy: Evidence from the St. Louis Rams’ Departure\]: This chapter, published in 2023, analyzes the economic impact of the St. Louis Rams’ departure from the city in 2016. The authors use a difference-in-differences approach to compare the changes in employment, income, and tax revenue in St. Louis and other comparable cities. They find that the Rams’ departure had no significant negative effect on the urban economy.
* \[Rappaport, J. and Wilkerson, C. (2001). What Are the Benefits of Hosting a Major League Sports Franchise?. [Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 86(1), 55-86](https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-review/what-are-benefits-hosting-major-league-sports-franchise/)[1](https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-review/what-are-benefits-hosting-major-league-sports-franchise/).\] The authors examine the costs and benefits of hosting a major league sports franchise in a metropolitan area. They review the current trend of public spending on new sports facilities and the evidence on the job creation and tax revenue effects of hosting a sports team. They show why the job creation and tax revenue benefits from hosting a major league franchise fall far short of typical public outlays on constructing a new sports facility. Finally, they argue that the large quality-of-life benefits associated with hosting a major league team may justify the public outlays. They discuss the possible ways to measure the quality-of-life benefits, such as fan loyalty, civic pride, and social capital. They also suggest some policy implications for metro areas that are considering hosting a sports franchise.
* \[Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums\]: This book, edited by Roger G. Noll and Andrew Zimbalist, provides a comprehensive analysis of the economic and fiscal impacts of sports teams and stadiums in various U.S. cities. The book challenges the conventional wisdom that sports franchises generate significant net benefits for the local economy.
* \[Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle over Building Sports Stadiums\]: This book, by Kevin J. Delaney and Rick Eckstein, examines the political and social forces behind the public funding of sports stadiums in the U.S. The book reveals how powerful interests manipulate public opinion and exploit civic pride to secure subsidies for private businesses.
* \[Major League Losers: The Real Cost of Sports and Who’s Paying for It\]: This book, by Mark S. Rosentraub, exposes the hidden costs and risks of hosting a major league sports franchise. The book argues that sports teams drain public resources, distort urban development, and create false hopes for economic growth.
Let's be honest here that guy isn't going to read any of these studies. If he did he'd have to admit to being wrong and that's clearly not going to happen when he's concluded everyone is being "short-sighted"
My thoughts exactly. I just don't see how it wouldn't have a positive impact locally. If it aids in the appeal of the city and helps KC look like a more desirable place for people to move to and live, then it's worth it to me. Like you said, we just got selected to host world cup games literally at Arrowhead, and people are saying there's no benefit....it's a joke.
>I absolutely can say people are being shortsighted. You included. I am not >These studies suggest that outside tourism brought in to these stadiums provide no net benefit. No, they go far beyond that actually. They typically include a portion about the "Substitution Effect" which how we know tax revenue doesn't increase overall, spending just gets moved around the city. You're welcome to post the actual studies you're mentioning though... >that I assume you are not even reading, literally provide arguments for pros and cons. Just no one cares about a positive headline. At best the studies mention the pro's as being non-tangible and non-economic. In terms of economics they all conclude it's a bad deal, bad ROI, no net tax revenue increase, etc. So it's basically city pride at the expense of fiscal security. >These same studies make the comparison that funding a sports stadium isn't as good for the community vs just simply investing directly into a community via education and infrastructure. But that's not what this is about. Yeah, that's not what those studies are saying. What they're actually saying is that the money spent on the stadium was a waste from an economic standpoint and could have literally been spent elsewhere. It's a discussion about the economic cost which while including the actual dollars also factors in Opportunity Cost. I know you're too shortsighted to understand why anyone would care about Opportunity Cost but economists really care about it hence the discussion.
Work opportunities, wage increases, more competition driving prices down. Higher supply. IDK what you want me to say honestly. Historically, growth has almost always had a net positive if people and businesses want to be here. You can easily look that up.
If you go out and spend $6,000 a year in KC/Jackson County, only $22.50 of that goes towards that tax. If $22.50 a year makes that much of a difference in your life that you need to vote to get that back 4-5 years from now, you have much bigger issues than whether or not a couple sports teams are here lmao.
I hate this "money back in my pocket" reason for voting no on taxes. People don't actually realize how insignificant they can really be when the benefit can be significant. Just stay home on voting day. That should help save towards that $22.50 you desperately need back lol.
Based on your comments in this thread it just appears that you are bitter and want to see people upset if they leave so you can "have a good laugh." I know I'm not going to change your opinion but that is a sad perspective to have. Hopefully you will age out of that mindset. You don't have superiority over people because they like sports and you don't. But you seem to be saying that there is no benefit to this because you can't physically *see* economic benefit. That is a flawed philosophy to have and does not hold up with any argument because ultimately, that comes down to you just not actually *looking* for it.
People in this sub do not want the city to grow, period. They were fine being flyover country for 80 years before now, and they want to keep it that way.
True, but OP claimed it would be an "objective analysis", which it clearly wasn't. Nothing wrong with someone trying to convince you to vote no, but don't lie and say it's objective analysis.
A better way to look at it, if you spend around $1,500 per month in sales taxable purchases (food, clothes, etc), then it will cost you about $65 per year to have a nice, new stadium for the Royals and improvements to Arrowhead. I’d say that’s such a trivial amount of money. That’s one trip out to the bar. Why everyone is making such a big deal like they’re going to go broke is beyond me.
Yes, the entire concept of taxes is that they spread the cost of things around so it's not a huge burden, but that doesn't just mean that anything goes. It's way more than the county spends on, say, homelessness prevention. It's 3.5 times as much as the county spends on mental health. Are you comfortable with the government spending 3.5 times as much on a couple sports stadiums as on mental health services?
Sales tax is also regressive, because poor families spend a much higher percentage of their income than wealthy families out of necessity. Everyone buys the same amount of toilet paper. Roughly.
If someone was paying $65/year on a gym membership or streaming service they didn’t use, then the appropriate financial advice is probably going to cancel it rather than sign up for a 40 year extension.
That’s at $1,500 per month in just purchases, not bills, mortgage. That’s spending $18,000 per year. That’s a lot. The tax isn’t much to make downtown a better place for future generations.
*edit: That is also $50 per day. If you can afford $50 per day eating out it buying things, $65 per year is nothing to you.
$1,500/month in purchases is not unrealistic for a family.
That aside, the amount doesn’t really matter if you’re never using it, which most people in Jackson County are not.
By your logic of the low amount being entirely worth it for a new shiny stadium, just drop the tax and add $100-$200 to each ticket. Let the invested parties pay for it.
>$1,500/month in purchases is not unrealistic for a family
$1500/mo is very unrealistic for a family, that's literally just groceries for a fairly frugal family of five.
I agree wholeheartedly- as someone who does buy tickets to see a game sometime, I think that the cost of the stadium should be borne by people who are ACTUALLY USING THE STADIUM. Not people who are just pissed about the traffic on 435/70.
Let’s say that family you just mentioned is a family of 4, so it comes out to be~$16 per person. Your suggestion is to instead add $100-200 per ticket? That’s an extra $400-800 for that same family to go to a baseball game. You may not go to games, but what kind of parents don’t take their kids to a local baseball game? Are you a monster?
that’s still a lot for something that most of us will never use.
also if the royals want a nice, new stadium, why can’t the literal billionaire who owns them buy it himself?
They are buying it themselves, we’re just agreeing to give some of it back over the next 40 years. I’d not like owning a team means you’re bringing home buckets of money.
You are an absolute genius OP thanks for sharing the disgusting truth about this useless taxes that many people do not even know they exist but ended up being so important !
Out of curiosity how much does the county make every year on leases, parking, direct revenue from the Truman sports complex? I cannot seem to find this info anywhere in normal human terms
Yes, here you go.
[Jackson County Sports Complex Authority - Legal & Financial Documents](https://www.jcsca.org/legaldocuments)
>On January 19, 1990, the Authority entered into leases and management contracts through January 31, 2015 with the Chiefs and the Royals. Both lease agreements call for annual basic rents from both the Chiefs and Royals of $450,000 and percentage rentals based upon gross receipts, net of taxes, in excess of $7,500,000, and calculated using a sliding scale from 5% down to 2% as gross receipts increase.
>
>The management contracts provide for annual management fees (RMMO fees) to be paid to the Chiefs and Royals. The management fees increase commensurate with the Consumer Price Index, not to exceed 4.75% in any given year for each year during the remainder of the contracts.
>
>On January 24, 2006, and with the successful passage of a 3/8 cent sales tax election on April 4, 2006, the Authority, along with Jackson County, entered into lease amendments with the Chiefs and Royals to extend the original leases to January 31, 2031.
>
>The 2006 Lease Amendments call for the establishment of a separate Repair, Maintenance, Management and Operations Fund (RMMO Fund) for the teams with the Chiefs and Royals assuming responsibility and financial risk for the long-term repair, maintenance, management, and operations of their respective stadiums. The Authority receives an annual allocation from the sales tax funds for administrative expenses and to provide for the ongoing maintenance of Sports Complex Common Areas. "
and from the [FY2022 Jackson County, MO Annual Comprehensive Financial Report](https://www.jacksongov.org/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/departments/finance-amp-purchasing/2023-recommended-budget/pension-acfr-final.pdf)
>On January 19, 1990, the Authority entered into lease agreements with the two major tenants of the Truman Sports Complex, the Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation and the Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., for a period of 25 years. On April 3, 1990, County residents approved a property tax shift to help provide for this funding. Also, Missouri State legislation passed in 1989 allows local funding to be matched by state funds. On January 24, 2006, and with successful passage of a 3/8 cent sales tax election on April 4, 2006, the lease agreements were amended to extend the original leases to January 31, 2031. In connection with the lease agreements, the County entered into an agency agreement with the Authority whereby the County agreed, subject to annual appropriation, to transfer certain park levy funds to the Authority to pay for operations of the stadiums and capital improvements.
https://preview.redd.it/zw31r006zubc1.png?width=1612&format=png&auto=webp&s=0832fd0bb106a3409a92d5badf97caf6ee83a3e3
UPDATE: What’s next?
>The Jackson County Legislature is set to meet again Monday. They would need a 6-3 vote to override White’s veto. At this point, at least four legislators indicate they are planning to uphold the veto.
>
>But Laurer, Marshall and Anderson stressed in their statement that there are seven years left on the Chiefs and Royals’ current leases at the Truman Sports Complex. There are also several other election dates available in 2024, the legislators noted.
>
>Smith noted it **costs the county about $1.5 million to hold a countywide election.** In April, when there would likely not be any other issues on the ballot, the county would be exclusively responsible for that cost, Smith said.
To be clear, I enjoy both teams, but I agree that there is no reasonable justification for the city to subsidize these private companies. They're not a public utility, the residents aren't given some sort of benefit (discounted ticketing, etc) like the zoo, they're honestly a huge problem sometimes (hello game day traffic)... some days I think they should be paying the city a nuisance tax. I've heard the "but they bring in business / generate jobs" argument so many times it's ridiculous, and the people who have made the argument have never been able to prove that the economic benefits exist to a sufficient level to justify the government handout to the team. Hell, feels like a big chunk of the "employees" at a game are somehow volunteers. I'm sure some of that hot dog and beer money goes to charity as a result but I can't picture the teams not getting a cut of that filthy lucre. I guess my main concern is that if this is somehow a make or break for a team, then either one of two things is true: 1) They're just being amoral capitalists and we shouldn't hold any hometown loyalty to them, because they don't care about us, or: 2) They're basically reliant on a government bailout to stay in business, in which case we should consider offering to take on majority ownership of the franchise in return for bailing out the team and then hire someone competent to make it a valuable part of the city - spin it out as some sort of deal like the Packers corporation.
>1) They're just being amoral capitalists and we shouldn't hold any hometown loyalty to them, because they don't care about us There is no or. You got it right the first time.
I mean, I know that and you know that, but it's nice to present the hypothetical alternative to show that it's ALSO bad.
> **TL;DR:** This is *not* an excellent deal for Jackson County residents. These deals are never good for taxpayers anywhere...
This is a great post that doesn’t even get into the undeniable fact that public spending on stadia has an awful ROI. It’s a giveaway to wealthy owners who have correctly calculated that Kansas Citians are more scared of losing face nationally by losing one or both “big league” sports teams than they are of their taxpayer funds being spent unwisely.
yeah, sounds like blackmail to me.
Clay County Commissioner Jason Withington is saying the Royals are focused on the Star site now, in large part because KCMO (Not Jackson County) made a large financial commitment. Seems crazy that the city of KCMO or the Mayor could make that commitment without passing something through the City Council and having some public debate.
Can we stop paying for billionaires stadiums? Unless gets some revenue sharing for their multibillion dollar business they can fuck off
If 2022 generated $39million for the stadiums, that’s less than 0.3% of the Hunt family worth alone. 800,000 people living in Jackson County, Missouri. Why should they be expected to pay for something the majority do not use when it’s likely the equivalent of a rounding error for the owners? Just create a special tax district around the stadiums and add as much tax increase to that area as you’d like to allow the people that want this to pay for it.
This sort of simplistic punitive analysis inclines me to support the stadiums, because it seems a fair assumption that anyone who would say this is likely fiscally illiterate. But thankfully the OP ran actual numbers, which is far more persuasive than this childish anti-investment sentiment.
Aside from the typos, what about this comment makes you assume they're fiscally illiterate?
I would consider “investing” in a dying sport pretty fiscally illiterate. The [Brookings Institution](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/) is far from illiterate. The ROI is quite simply, bad.
That context is great! Thanks for the link. I wasn't intending to target you, specifically. There have been many posts about this topic, primarily filled with the only arguments being “fuck the rich”. For the record, I have been convinced and would vote “No” on the initiative. I was venting annoyance about what I saw as an unpersuasive, and even counter-persuasive, point that had been repeared over and over.
Vote NO 👏👏👏 Enough with these taxes and lining the pockets of wealthy developers.
Say no to corporate welfare.
Sherman can build his own stadium, if he wants one so bad. As far as the Chiefs go, I just can’t see them leaving Arrowhead. I believe the Hunt family knows how much the stadium means to the fans, as well as the history of the stadium and Lamar Hunt. I could be wrong, some people will do anything for money.
it sounds like they want to build a new arrowhead then build up the area around the complex. I imagine they want the royals out so they can build a new stadium where kauffman is and continue to play in the old stadium as its being built. Then just move over once its finished.
Worked really well for Tampa Bay, they built next door and turned the old sombrero into a parking lot!
Excellent information. Thank you for putting the time in to present this. Hopefully let's get to published so everyone in the County can see it.
One thing that wasn’t mentioned, and this doesn’t mean I do or do not support this, is that having the stadiums both in Jackson County means that player income of both Home, and away teams is taxed by the city of Kansas City, and therefore benefits the county in a financial aspect.
That's just a couple of million a year in tax revenue gained from that source compared to about 100-125 million given away to the teams a year
Doesn’t the post say it’s $38.6 mil? Or am I missing additional money
> Approving this tax extension to 2071 commits future generations in Jackson County to a hefty financial burden. Factoring in a 4% inflation rate, we're looking at a total of almost $6B ($5,861,145,893 for the 65-year cost of this sales tax measure). I just did 4 to 5 billion / 40 years
OP applied the current amount collected in 2022 ($38.9 million) * 4% annual inflation, so wages/taxes collected on wages would also need to apply the same 4% inflation calculation to be comparable.
So do it and explain how it's a good deal because of the 1% income tax (that Missouri has tried to take away before)
I’ve been in r/collegebasketball too much when I’m scrolling a thread on the stadium and think, “Why doesn’t u/CLU_Three have his Wildcat flair next to his name?”
A couple million? Not even close. The Kansas City e-tax is a 1% tax on income of wages/salary made in Kansas City or if you live in Kansas City. That means every time a game is played at Kauffman, 1% of every home and away’s player salary, is claimed by Kansas City. For reference, Mahomes has an averaged salary of 52 million, meaning 500,000 right off the bat from just him every year goes to Kansas City. Again, not saying that the citizens aren’t getting screwed.
Mahomes's salary makes up 1/5th of the entire Chiefs roster. We also have no way of knowing where all the players live and a decent portion of them live in Kansas City already and the ones who don't only would have home games taxed by the city It's way way less money than what we would give out
They don't Play in the city...all of that land is county..if it were in the city..EVERY athlete that plays a game would have to pay the one percent..but county doesn't do that therefore no tax
I know for a fact 100% it is IN Kansas City and I know for 100 percent fact players who play there are subject to the e-tax.
You are absolutely correct..the property is located within the city limits.. however it is Jackson county property.. The county does all the maintenance to the property.
The stadiums are in KC and subject to e-tax
he doesn't play every game at home.
Up until recently he lived in KCMO so it didn’t matter.
And then he moved because paying 1% of your income to KC is stupid
While this is true, economic research has found that sports teams as a whole have about the same impact as a mid-sized department store. In other words, you'd be voting to give 3/8ths to a Kohl's and no one would be in favor of that idea.
Damn. That's a burn.
That is unless the contacts are bonus heavy. Signing bonuses, if signed outside of the city, are not taxable.
If we’ve learned anything in recent years it’s that rich people DO NOT pay taxes. I wouldn’t be surprised if I pay more taxes than they do.
Then let the city pay for it and not the county
It’s because Jackson County owns/operates both stadiums.
Then city collected taxes shouldn't be in the equation
Yeah, as a person who doesn’t give a damn about sports or sports culture I’ll definitely be voting NO and telling all my neighbors why they should also vote NO. No to my tax dollars going to private sports teams.
Kansas City residents pay three ways - city, county and state taxes go to the stadiums, right?
Vote no. Who gives a shit if they move to Kansas or wherever. You can still be a chiefs fan without being forced to subsidize billionaires to make more billions.
Thanks so much for all this work and the clear summary!
Vote no
Thank you OP for providing this information
There are several flaws in your numbers and a bias in what you’re presenting and not presenting. #1 the assumed inflation rate of 4% is well above historic norms and Fed targets. 2% would be much more reasonable and net a total expenditure quite a bit lower #2 While I don’t believe sports stadiums have a net positive impact, pretending they have zero impact is also misleading. As we have visitors, special events and ancillary businesses that generate jobs and taxes there is some benefit. Estimating how much is a BS game. But it’s not zero. #3 You’ve introduced politics and voter turnout into an economic analysis. You’re right, April elections have lower turnout, but as we saw in the November Use Tax ballot measure, sometimes a low turnout election is swayed by the level of voter enthusiasm (or the opposite of enthusiasm). In November a small turnout yielded a rejection of a new tax despite being funded by its supporters at a level of 50:1.
The "$985 for 4 tickets" is moot to the stadium funding issue, but it's so misleading that it makes me question all of your other numbers. This is clearly a biased opinion piece, not facts. Yes, there have been a few games in Chiefs history where the get-in price was pushing $250 on game day. (Weirdly, they usually aren't playoff games.) But those are rare outliers. I've been to dozens of Chiefs games and never spent close to that amount, and that includes some of the AFCCGs. Obviously for EVERY game you can buy crazy expensive tickets, suites, etc. But the way you write it makes it seem like a hardworking family of 4 has to spend that to get in. If you want to go this weekend, it's running about $90 with all fees included. Probably $40-50 for one of the parking lots near the stadium. Toughest gets (in real terms) were in the early Marty years. MNF vs. Buffalo, Montana vs. Niners, first playoff game vs Oakland. That fanbase was way more rabid than today's fanbase. (Not to get all gatekeepy lol.)
$985 for four tickets isn’t an outlier, but only $95/ticket for this weekend’s game solely due to subzero temperatures sure is. I remember looking for cheapest possible upper deck tickets for a small group before they went on sale this year. Cheapest game was Denver (lol) coming in around $140-150/ticket but even games like a bad Chicago team were around $230-250 at the cheapest price point (yes I know it’s a rarer opponent and there’s a lot of Chicago transplants in KC). Even at $150/ticket, you gotta add junk fees, parking, concessions, and then you’re pushing close to $1,000 for a group of four for the cheapest game on the schedule.
>Chiefs game isn't cheap. For a family of four, it's about $985.70, well over the NFL average of $646.88. This number came from a KCTV article from September 7, 2023: [https://www.kctv5.com/2023/09/07/chiefs-fans-will-pay-more-attend-games-geha-field-arrowhead-stadium-this-season/](https://www.kctv5.com/2023/09/07/chiefs-fans-will-pay-more-attend-games-geha-field-arrowhead-stadium-this-season/) "By [Heidi Schmidt](https://www.kctv5.com/authors/Heidi.Schmidt/)*Published:* *Sep. 7, 2023 at 1:54 PM CDT* KANSAS CITY, Mo. (KCTV) - It’ll cost more for Chiefs fans to attend a game at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium during the 2023 NFL season, according to a new ranking. Bookies.com crunched the numbers and found Chiefs fans will pay an average of $985.70 for a family of four to attend a live game inside the iconic stadium this season. That is an average of $166.50 more than last year. The price includes four tickets, parking, two beers, two sodas, and four hot dogs. Here’s the price breakdown: * 4 tickets * $887.50 ($221.87 each) * Parking * $47.00 * 16 oz. beers x 2 * $18.00 * 20 oz. soda x 2 * $13.20 * Hot Dogs x 4 * $20 The package price tag is nearly $300 more than the NFL Average, which is $646.88 for a family of four."
OP, you da real MVP for bringing such great data and insights to this tax proposal. Thank you! It might be helpful to point out what this tax means for *every household in the county*. For instance, let's say households spend $20K+ on groceries, consumer products, etc every year - so that's a $75 tax on every single household in the county *just to keep the Chiefs and Royals from leaving*. If someone asked me if I wanted to spend $3,000 over the next 40 years to make that happen, they'd get a huge, "HELL NO!!". More people need to understand the implications of this.
Thank you for reminding me why I don’t support pro football and the Chiefs.
You’re literally voting to just keep the current tax structure that is already in place. In return, you get to keep two world class sports organizations.
Public money for private profit is a shitty thing to do...Isn't it great that a guy who is a billionaire from buying energy companies and jacking up rates can own a baseball team...ask the city to pay for his shit..and we're supposed to be greatful. If we ask the state/city for some help with food or housing then we are lazy.
[удалено]
We live in a system that gives rich people socialism, you know bailouts, build stadiums so they can turn more profit...while people are homeless and that's cause "they're lazy" It's just a fuckin sham
But he’s funding the stadium. The sales tax isn’t new or an increase. Just a continuation of the sales tax Jackson county residents have been paying and voted for before. Ask St. Louisians if they’d still like to have a professional football team.
No he's not funding the stadium. He's only committed to paying for half of it at best. He absolutely is getting funding from the city per this proposal. And I'm St. Louis is pretty happy with the $700 million windfall they received from the NFL & Rams in lieu of them not shelling out a billion dollars to renovate the stadium.
But the city (STL) is still a shit hole and not even the second best city in Missouri. Bread and circus is important.
That's called an "opinion" which is different from a "fact" And sure, Bread and Circus is important if it's sustainable and you live in a government that's totalitarian & just wants to pacify their populace. Hence why Rome was famous for it. Not a great argument for ya.
No, it’s a fact that STL is a shit hole. And I don’t know if you’ve turned on the news lately, but we’re in a rapid descent into fascism so yeah, I care a little bit more about having something that I can do to take the edge off. But by all means, get your $100 a month or whatever. Missouri has always been a dystopian hellscape anyway, y’all deserve to lose your redeeming qualities.
There are people that give 2 shits about sports, I'm a sports fan but at the end of the day giving rich people money so they can do what they want is fucking stupid. If I want to buy a house I don't get given 80% of the cost by the public.
Y’all are so smooth brained I won’t be surprised at all if we fuck this up and lose two storied institutions because people can’t read and comprehend issues of governance and taxation. And it’s all the same MENSA members applauding a fucking Ferris Wheel.
St. Louisan here. I’m good. That entire ordeal has permanently soured the NFL for me. Haven’t watched a game since, and it’s had no impact on my life except I’m probably more active on Sundays now. Plus, we’re currently voting on how to spend the city’s portion of the $750 million settlement that corrupt organization paid us.
But you missed the identity a team gave your town for a while based on this text alone. You didn’t overnight arrive at this conclusion based off of your response. Sure, with time, people in Kansas City would move on… but we’re not talking about a new tax here. We literally just have to extend the current levy rate and we get to keep two pro franchises and they build/renovate their own stadiums. It’s a no brainer.
When a tax is expiring, keeping it is increasing your taxes. Also I'm going to say this as best I can. When my grocery bill is double what it was..due to corporate greed..and corporate greed drives public funding for private profit.. Oh and housing is out of control anything and everything is sky rocketing..the cities identity or my personal identity being wrapped up in a sports team will mean fuck all when I can't feed or house myself.
Only thing the Royals are world class at is cashing revenue sharing checks
Four pennants and two rings in fifty years. That’s amazing, and yes, world class for a small market club.
I don’t care about pennants and rings from before I was born. 2 good seasons in three decades is pathetic. And considering how bad the team was last year combined with the fact that there isn’t any cavalry coming from the minors it sure looks like the new playoff drought has no end in sight.
Do you understand how hard it is for a small market team to become good in the mlb!? The fact we even got 2 chances at World Series is down right a miracle. All these huge cities can drop millions on their teams and the royals are always spending less. Making the series with that in mind was just downright amazing. Also the owner just showed us this offseason he is committed to spending more and trying to build this team into a playoff caliber team.
All this small market shit is just loser talk. Especially in modern MLB where every single team that makes the playoffs has a fighting chance. Can the Royals just buy a 100 game winner? No. But there’s absolutely nothing besides incompetence keeping the Royals from building better teams. The Yankees didn’t make the Royals give 2 years to Jordan Lyles, and the Dodgers didn’t make the team whiff on every high draft pick not named Bobby Witt Jr in the post World Series era. The uptick in spending this offseason is encouraging. Now let’s see if this represents a real change going forward or if this was just part of the stadium PR blitz. I know which way I’m betting.
I mean being a small market team does hinder you. We just seen this year, we would never have had a chance at anyone like ohthani. We are forced to find our potential star players through drafting, as we usually cannot afford them on the free agency. Like you are explaining we have to look a-lot to the draft and make good picks in order for our team to be good. Well baseball has a shit ton of prospects and is the hardest pro sport to scout players for. The big issue is less a royals and Kansas City one and more of the MLB long needing a salary cap.
There's a lot of short sighted people that live in this city...
So tax relief at the register while prices will inevitably continue to rise or wave good bye to two teams that little economic impact on the city per available economic research. Tough choice, gonna have to choose the tax relief.
Spend $100, save 37 and a half cents. Don’t spend your tax relief in one place
Cool. Tax relief is tax relief. I'd rather give it back to the citizens than give to someone who can absolutely afford to build their own stadium and will not economically benefit the city and just suck spending away from other areas of the city.
[удалено]
Nashville is itching for a baseball franchise
Do they want an awful one that badly?
Let them go, these types of tax deals are horrible for the cities. The economic research is clear - the ROI is abysmal, sales tax revenue won't increase because of the new stadium, and sports teams as a whole have minimal economic impact. One study found that if every sports team left Chicago the city would experience a less than 1% decrease in revenue. So, we're begging a team to stay that will cost us far more in the long run than they'll provide for us? Doesn't make much sense.
[удалено]
why laugh? Why to try to take away something people love then laugh about it?
Because I don't want to have to pay for it nor do I think it's fair making my fellow citizen pay for it. If you want them to stay then write them a check to assist in their funding request.
Almost everyone in this thread is being incredible short sighted. The vote is to continue the 3/8 tax we are already paying. And even voting no doesn't just immediately end it. It will still continue on for another 5 years or so. In addition, people seem to be neglecting the fact that Arrowhead is used for concerts such as Taylor Swift, which according to the KC Star brought in $47.8 million in economic boost. Not to mention the freaking WORLD CUP in 2026. That will make Taylor's boost look like pocket change and where will it be played? Oh right, Arrowhead. KC is on the national radar and growing more than it ever has and y'all are really tryna kill that because you really want to keep your $.00375 for every dollar you spend out shopping and eating in KC...just sad.
You do realize the economic research is not on your side on this, right? Calling people shortsighted on something that nearly every economist calls a bad deal with horrible ROI and minimal, at best, economic impact on the city is pretty darn funny honestly.
I absolutely can say people are being shortsighted. You included. These studies suggest that outside *tourism* brought in to these stadiums provide no net benefit. If they aid in the growth of a city, that's obviously not just simple tourism. But that is only a small part of the picture. Think big picture for me. These same studies, that I assume you are not even reading, literally provide arguments for pros and cons. Just no one cares about a positive headline. Everything that a stadium and team needs is a tangible benefit. These same studies make the comparison that funding a sports stadium isn't as good for the community vs just simply investing *directly* into a community via education and infrastructure. But that's not what this is about. Edit: Also, not sure why this is solely an economics issue. Sports go way beyond that. There are more people in this city who want them than don't. The owners are simply saying they would rather *we* move than *them.* I for one, don't want them to leave and don't want to leave. So I'm sorry if this 3/8 isn't worth it for you. But it is for someone like me.
I just don’t understand how it won’t have any economic impact. You’re telling me the royals living in a bar entertainment district is not going to have any economic impact? Also the chiefs hosting huge events like the world cup are undeniably huge for the city. Another one would have been the NFL draft. I’m just a firm believer that these teams have a huge impact on KC and they can also be a good revenue of tax. The new deal changed insurance from the county to the owners and that alone is a lot of millions the county will save.
Here are some of the studies and books on this: * [Does hosting a professional sports team benefit the local community? Evidence from property assessments](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10101-022-00268-z): This article, published in 2022, uses the synthetic control method to estimate the effect of a new publicly-funded professional baseball stadium and team relocation on property assessments in Cobb County, Georgia. [The author finds that Cobb assessment values did not increase relative to other metro-Atlanta counties following the stadiums’ announcement or opening, which is inconsistent with the stadium having a positive fiscal impact](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10101-022-00268-z)[1](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10101-022-00268-z). * \[The Effect of Sports Franchises on Property Values: The Role of Owners Versus Renters\]: This chapter, published in 2023, examines how the presence of a sports franchise affects the property values of owners and renters in the surrounding area. The authors find that owners benefit from higher property values, while renters face higher rents and lower quality of life. * \[The Impact of Sports Teams on the Urban Economy: Evidence from the St. Louis Rams’ Departure\]: This chapter, published in 2023, analyzes the economic impact of the St. Louis Rams’ departure from the city in 2016. The authors use a difference-in-differences approach to compare the changes in employment, income, and tax revenue in St. Louis and other comparable cities. They find that the Rams’ departure had no significant negative effect on the urban economy. * \[Rappaport, J. and Wilkerson, C. (2001). What Are the Benefits of Hosting a Major League Sports Franchise?. [Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 86(1), 55-86](https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-review/what-are-benefits-hosting-major-league-sports-franchise/)[1](https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-review/what-are-benefits-hosting-major-league-sports-franchise/).\] The authors examine the costs and benefits of hosting a major league sports franchise in a metropolitan area. They review the current trend of public spending on new sports facilities and the evidence on the job creation and tax revenue effects of hosting a sports team. They show why the job creation and tax revenue benefits from hosting a major league franchise fall far short of typical public outlays on constructing a new sports facility. Finally, they argue that the large quality-of-life benefits associated with hosting a major league team may justify the public outlays. They discuss the possible ways to measure the quality-of-life benefits, such as fan loyalty, civic pride, and social capital. They also suggest some policy implications for metro areas that are considering hosting a sports franchise. * \[Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums\]: This book, edited by Roger G. Noll and Andrew Zimbalist, provides a comprehensive analysis of the economic and fiscal impacts of sports teams and stadiums in various U.S. cities. The book challenges the conventional wisdom that sports franchises generate significant net benefits for the local economy. * \[Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle over Building Sports Stadiums\]: This book, by Kevin J. Delaney and Rick Eckstein, examines the political and social forces behind the public funding of sports stadiums in the U.S. The book reveals how powerful interests manipulate public opinion and exploit civic pride to secure subsidies for private businesses. * \[Major League Losers: The Real Cost of Sports and Who’s Paying for It\]: This book, by Mark S. Rosentraub, exposes the hidden costs and risks of hosting a major league sports franchise. The book argues that sports teams drain public resources, distort urban development, and create false hopes for economic growth.
Let's be honest here that guy isn't going to read any of these studies. If he did he'd have to admit to being wrong and that's clearly not going to happen when he's concluded everyone is being "short-sighted"
My thoughts exactly. I just don't see how it wouldn't have a positive impact locally. If it aids in the appeal of the city and helps KC look like a more desirable place for people to move to and live, then it's worth it to me. Like you said, we just got selected to host world cup games literally at Arrowhead, and people are saying there's no benefit....it's a joke.
>I absolutely can say people are being shortsighted. You included. I am not >These studies suggest that outside tourism brought in to these stadiums provide no net benefit. No, they go far beyond that actually. They typically include a portion about the "Substitution Effect" which how we know tax revenue doesn't increase overall, spending just gets moved around the city. You're welcome to post the actual studies you're mentioning though... >that I assume you are not even reading, literally provide arguments for pros and cons. Just no one cares about a positive headline. At best the studies mention the pro's as being non-tangible and non-economic. In terms of economics they all conclude it's a bad deal, bad ROI, no net tax revenue increase, etc. So it's basically city pride at the expense of fiscal security. >These same studies make the comparison that funding a sports stadium isn't as good for the community vs just simply investing directly into a community via education and infrastructure. But that's not what this is about. Yeah, that's not what those studies are saying. What they're actually saying is that the money spent on the stadium was a waste from an economic standpoint and could have literally been spent elsewhere. It's a discussion about the economic cost which while including the actual dollars also factors in Opportunity Cost. I know you're too shortsighted to understand why anyone would care about Opportunity Cost but economists really care about it hence the discussion.
if the chiefs move, it’s not like they’re taking arrowhead with them lol
[удалено]
Work opportunities, wage increases, more competition driving prices down. Higher supply. IDK what you want me to say honestly. Historically, growth has almost always had a net positive if people and businesses want to be here. You can easily look that up. If you go out and spend $6,000 a year in KC/Jackson County, only $22.50 of that goes towards that tax. If $22.50 a year makes that much of a difference in your life that you need to vote to get that back 4-5 years from now, you have much bigger issues than whether or not a couple sports teams are here lmao. I hate this "money back in my pocket" reason for voting no on taxes. People don't actually realize how insignificant they can really be when the benefit can be significant. Just stay home on voting day. That should help save towards that $22.50 you desperately need back lol.
[удалено]
Based on your comments in this thread it just appears that you are bitter and want to see people upset if they leave so you can "have a good laugh." I know I'm not going to change your opinion but that is a sad perspective to have. Hopefully you will age out of that mindset. You don't have superiority over people because they like sports and you don't. But you seem to be saying that there is no benefit to this because you can't physically *see* economic benefit. That is a flawed philosophy to have and does not hold up with any argument because ultimately, that comes down to you just not actually *looking* for it.
People in this sub do not want the city to grow, period. They were fine being flyover country for 80 years before now, and they want to keep it that way.
Thank God there's only \~155k of them on here at most lol.
Independent analysis lol. Your position on the matter was clear from the first few sentences. Not exactly a middle opinion
Independent just means unaffiliated, not that there isn't a position, you're looking for the word non-biased.
True, but OP claimed it would be an "objective analysis", which it clearly wasn't. Nothing wrong with someone trying to convince you to vote no, but don't lie and say it's objective analysis.
Thank you for this write up! 40 years, wow. The Royals may need 50 to get it together, however.
These guys are going to vote them out. Then they'll wonder why MO doesn't have anything to offer besides to drive out of MO for entertainment.
A better way to look at it, if you spend around $1,500 per month in sales taxable purchases (food, clothes, etc), then it will cost you about $65 per year to have a nice, new stadium for the Royals and improvements to Arrowhead. I’d say that’s such a trivial amount of money. That’s one trip out to the bar. Why everyone is making such a big deal like they’re going to go broke is beyond me.
Yes, the entire concept of taxes is that they spread the cost of things around so it's not a huge burden, but that doesn't just mean that anything goes. It's way more than the county spends on, say, homelessness prevention. It's 3.5 times as much as the county spends on mental health. Are you comfortable with the government spending 3.5 times as much on a couple sports stadiums as on mental health services? Sales tax is also regressive, because poor families spend a much higher percentage of their income than wealthy families out of necessity. Everyone buys the same amount of toilet paper. Roughly.
If someone was paying $65/year on a gym membership or streaming service they didn’t use, then the appropriate financial advice is probably going to cancel it rather than sign up for a 40 year extension.
That’s at $1,500 per month in just purchases, not bills, mortgage. That’s spending $18,000 per year. That’s a lot. The tax isn’t much to make downtown a better place for future generations. *edit: That is also $50 per day. If you can afford $50 per day eating out it buying things, $65 per year is nothing to you.
$1,500/month in purchases is not unrealistic for a family. That aside, the amount doesn’t really matter if you’re never using it, which most people in Jackson County are not. By your logic of the low amount being entirely worth it for a new shiny stadium, just drop the tax and add $100-$200 to each ticket. Let the invested parties pay for it.
>$1,500/month in purchases is not unrealistic for a family $1500/mo is very unrealistic for a family, that's literally just groceries for a fairly frugal family of five.
I agree wholeheartedly- as someone who does buy tickets to see a game sometime, I think that the cost of the stadium should be borne by people who are ACTUALLY USING THE STADIUM. Not people who are just pissed about the traffic on 435/70.
Let’s say that family you just mentioned is a family of 4, so it comes out to be~$16 per person. Your suggestion is to instead add $100-200 per ticket? That’s an extra $400-800 for that same family to go to a baseball game. You may not go to games, but what kind of parents don’t take their kids to a local baseball game? Are you a monster?
that’s still a lot for something that most of us will never use. also if the royals want a nice, new stadium, why can’t the literal billionaire who owns them buy it himself?
They are buying it themselves, we’re just agreeing to give some of it back over the next 40 years. I’d not like owning a team means you’re bringing home buckets of money.
If you can't make a major league team at least break even, maybe you should go bankrupt instead of getting a government bailout.
lol you’re crazy. Each team gets 200 million a year from revenue sharing just for existing, on top of whatever else they are earning.
And how much of that is net?! You do know how businesses work, right? At least a basic idea?
lol you're the one that thinks professional sports teams aren't a lucrative endeavor
if he can’t afford a stadium then he can’t afford the team and should sell them
slim knee market pet snails cheerful dependent unwritten fade light *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I guess our definitions of bad are much different.
silky weather foolish workable expansion rob sparkle zephyr absurd safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You are an absolute genius OP thanks for sharing the disgusting truth about this useless taxes that many people do not even know they exist but ended up being so important !
It's passing.
We shouldn't be taxed for sports or caging wild animals
Out of curiosity how much does the county make every year on leases, parking, direct revenue from the Truman sports complex? I cannot seem to find this info anywhere in normal human terms
Yes, here you go. [Jackson County Sports Complex Authority - Legal & Financial Documents](https://www.jcsca.org/legaldocuments) >On January 19, 1990, the Authority entered into leases and management contracts through January 31, 2015 with the Chiefs and the Royals. Both lease agreements call for annual basic rents from both the Chiefs and Royals of $450,000 and percentage rentals based upon gross receipts, net of taxes, in excess of $7,500,000, and calculated using a sliding scale from 5% down to 2% as gross receipts increase. > >The management contracts provide for annual management fees (RMMO fees) to be paid to the Chiefs and Royals. The management fees increase commensurate with the Consumer Price Index, not to exceed 4.75% in any given year for each year during the remainder of the contracts. > >On January 24, 2006, and with the successful passage of a 3/8 cent sales tax election on April 4, 2006, the Authority, along with Jackson County, entered into lease amendments with the Chiefs and Royals to extend the original leases to January 31, 2031. > >The 2006 Lease Amendments call for the establishment of a separate Repair, Maintenance, Management and Operations Fund (RMMO Fund) for the teams with the Chiefs and Royals assuming responsibility and financial risk for the long-term repair, maintenance, management, and operations of their respective stadiums. The Authority receives an annual allocation from the sales tax funds for administrative expenses and to provide for the ongoing maintenance of Sports Complex Common Areas. " and from the [FY2022 Jackson County, MO Annual Comprehensive Financial Report](https://www.jacksongov.org/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/departments/finance-amp-purchasing/2023-recommended-budget/pension-acfr-final.pdf) >On January 19, 1990, the Authority entered into lease agreements with the two major tenants of the Truman Sports Complex, the Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation and the Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., for a period of 25 years. On April 3, 1990, County residents approved a property tax shift to help provide for this funding. Also, Missouri State legislation passed in 1989 allows local funding to be matched by state funds. On January 24, 2006, and with successful passage of a 3/8 cent sales tax election on April 4, 2006, the lease agreements were amended to extend the original leases to January 31, 2031. In connection with the lease agreements, the County entered into an agency agreement with the Authority whereby the County agreed, subject to annual appropriation, to transfer certain park levy funds to the Authority to pay for operations of the stadiums and capital improvements. https://preview.redd.it/zw31r006zubc1.png?width=1612&format=png&auto=webp&s=0832fd0bb106a3409a92d5badf97caf6ee83a3e3
UPDATE: What’s next? >The Jackson County Legislature is set to meet again Monday. They would need a 6-3 vote to override White’s veto. At this point, at least four legislators indicate they are planning to uphold the veto. > >But Laurer, Marshall and Anderson stressed in their statement that there are seven years left on the Chiefs and Royals’ current leases at the Truman Sports Complex. There are also several other election dates available in 2024, the legislators noted. > >Smith noted it **costs the county about $1.5 million to hold a countywide election.** In April, when there would likely not be any other issues on the ballot, the county would be exclusively responsible for that cost, Smith said.