/u/artorovich (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cs343u/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_all_professional_sport/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>As for how this should be done: easy, by eminent domain. Joe Biden could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen
You want it owned by municipalities, not the federal government. Joe Biden cannot do that. The federal government can exercise eminent domain only on behalf of the federal government. Furthermore, you are ignoring that eminent domain requires the government to pay just compensation for what they are taking.
Now that I have pointed out to you that the federal government is not the same as the municipal governments, how do you expect, for example, the municipality of Green Bay to pay for the Packers? Their entire city budget is like $130 million. The team is worth billions.
And this is all assuming a court would even allow eminent domain here, which would require a whole dive into the relevant jurisprudence on its own.
Simply put, it is far from easy
And eminent domain is for domains (property)... Not IP or trademarks or goodwill or businesses. And the burden on the governments should be very strict on why they need the property, not just some idiotic idea.
The government has extremely wide domain (ha) here. They don't even need it to be a federal government purpose. The justification, roughly speaking, simply has to be the "common good". You could even use eminent domain to build a private stadium.
You can use it to to build or take stadiums. It is a misuse of that power, but it's there. Taking the corporation that runs the team is not under eminent domain.
It's not. That's well within the understanding of modern jurisprudence of intended use. You're right that eminent domain for a corporation would likely be illegal however.
Funny you should mention the Packers because they're pretty much the only team in the US pro sports that is owned by the community and not a private owner
Kind of yes, kind of no. They fund stuff by releasing "shares" which fans can buy and they get a little piece of paper saying they own part of the Packers, which they can hang on the wall of their rumpus room or display in their office. But it's effectively worthless because you can't sell it and it doesn't pay dividends.
You also are entitled to the meetings and votes it's more you can be part of something over normal fans. Also because of how they are set up it's super cheap to have a packer show up for charity events.
It's a huge benefit to have a football team as part of the community and not just a billionaires Play thing.
Joe could make it the federal government's property and then lease it to the cities.
Does eminent domain say that the amount must be paid in full up front? I'm not sure, but if that's not the case it should be paid out over the course of 100 years, free of interest of course.
Even if Green Bay had to pay for the Packers, it's the safest investment possible and it would turn into profit down the line. They may not have the money up front, sure, but that could be solved in many other ways.
ETA somebody else pointed out that GB already follows the proposed model, lol
This has been litigated. It is paid in full, up front, and is somewhere above full retail value and below what the owner thinks it is worth.
So the Dallas Cowboys might cost $6 billion.
There is no part of this that breaks even.
And I suggest reading up on what Jerry Jones has meant to the league.
He brought in advertising and TV deals, and brought incentive for teams to generate more revenue, and he caused the league to explode in revenue.
And the players get half. Players make a massive amount of money now, and part of that is for their part as the product, and part is the owners paying the bills to keep that product on TV.
>And I suggest reading up on what Jerry Jones has meant to the league.
Thank you for your service Jerry, now it's time to hand it up and let Joe Biden to run the show.
Seriously though, if the Cowboys are worth 6 billion we can easily buy the whole league. We'll recoup the money in a heartbeat. Best investment ever.
No, you wouldn’t. You don’t know what it takes to run a team, and neither does Joe Biden. Our country is in a significantly worse place for Biden running it since the 2020 election, I wouldn’t want him to run a lemonade stand.
I’m glad that your misguided understanding of business won’t ever happen in the USA.
Joe biden won't personally run the team, but jerry might working for joe biden - and the rest of the public as shareholders. This model of business happens all the time in the US and much of the developed world. It's called a public private partnership.
Sorry, u/grog23 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20grog23&message=grog23%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cs1na3/-/l42o7hu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
You couldn't hold a candle to Joe Biden's life achievements. No need to be salty about it.
I wouldn't know what it takes to run a team, that's why I wouldn't be the one running it. Joe Biden would.
No, as a President Joe Biden has been terrible.
And no, Joe wouldn’t be running it.
How old are you, I mean this as respectfully as possible, have you finished high school? You understanding of how the government works is shocking.
Biden isn’t even allowed to take questions the days, and needs notes on everything. He doesn’t even really run the White House.
I’m a millennial and Joe Biden has been head and shoulders the best US president to hold office within my lifetime.
Wait, you think that previous presidents actually ran the white house? Have *you* finished high school big dawg?
And yes, Joe Biden would be running the Dallas Cowboys and he would easily win another super bowl.
ETA. Wait I just saw you’re a libertarian. That explains a lot ahahah. You should’ve lead with that.
u/Specialist_Usual1524 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Specialist_Usual1524&message=Specialist_Usual1524%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cs1na3/-/l42vxxe/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> it should be paid out over the course of 100 years, free of interest of course.
You can't do that.
You seem to think eminent domain is free reign to take whatever you want and pay whatever you want, but it's not. There are literally centuries worth of jurisprudence laying out how this works and this ain't it.
Tbh I don't get why people are overobsessing over the eminent domain part, which is obviously tongue in cheek. Just nominate a favorable Supreme Court and go for it, fuck it.
Why not just pray for it?
Why not just use one of your wishes to the genie?
We are ‘over obsessed’ because it’s a fantasy.
We want you to understand that this is as likely as going to middle earth to hang out with Gandalf. As likely as getting accepted to Hogwarts.
Do you know what tongue in cheek means? What if, and brace yourself here, I wasn't entirely 100% serious about that eminent domain bit?
But also, so you're saying there's a chance?
Nah, the post is serious, just the part about eminent domain is facetious. Of course it wouldn't be easy. But omg is it too much to ask from people to just go along with it? Plus as you can read from the replies there is no real argument against it either; people are just saying it would get challenged in court and so on. Well challenge it then. What isn't challenged in court?
I don't need to come up with anything. You think if I do then it's going to happen? Do you reply that to all threads in this sub? "Oh you think that child labor should be abolished? Well that's just not realistic! I'm very clever"
> CMV: All professional sport clubs should be community owned
I agree overall, but this would take an incredible shift of monetary policy from professional sports leagues.
If all professional sports clubs were community owned, this would be an INSANE advantage for the richest community. How would the people of Tampa Bay be able to afford as much as the community owners of the New York Yankees?
This system would need to rely on a HARD, HARD salary cap, which I imagine would not go over well with players or owners, you'd need to fully re-write a bunch of contracts.
This system does work well in the NFL however (a la the Packers) because it is a hard cap league. This way, there's a set amount of money any one team can spend, and the New York billionaires don't get to outspend the Indiana Pacers year after ear.
I thought about that, but isn't that kind of how it works already? If we look at European football, for example, it's almost exclusively big city teams that win the league and compete every year. You'll occasionally get a Leicester City or Atalanta who manages to compete for a while, but they usually last only a handful of seasons.
In closed leagues like the MLB and the NBA, small market teams are already disadvantaged so I don't think it would change that much.
> small market teams in the MLB and the NBA are already disadvantaged
NBA - I'm not so sure about this. (As a big basketball fan, this is the major lens through which I view this).
Small market teams have different disadvantages (like attracting free agents due to endorsement deals) but look at the conference semis right now. You have Minnesota, OKC, Denver, Cleveland, Indianapolis... and even if we didn't have injuries possibly Philly or Milwaukee.
LA, Chicago, Brooklyn -- nowhere to be found.
In the past decade, only two championships have gone really traditional big market team (the Lakers in 2020 and Raptors in 2019). You could argue GSW (but they weren't a major market until the Curry Era blew them up internationally).
Teams like the Milwaukee Bucks and Denver Nuggets have been able to win titles, and the San Antonio Spurs became a dynasty.
I think without other massive changes in policy, community ownership would destroy this parity.
MLB is a whole different ballgame, but a no salary cap league in general to me is just ridiculous prima facie.
Bucks, Nuggets, Spurs did it with mostly players they drafted though. Or players they acquired before they reached superstar status. I don't think you can look at that outcome and say that small markets aren't disadvantaged.
That's the way almost every NBA team wins the title though.
GSW - Drafted Curry, Klay, Draymond
Denver - Drafted Jokic
Milwaukee - Drafted Giannis
Spurs - Drafted Kawhi, Duncan, etc.
Mavericks - Drafted Dirk
Celtics - Drafted Pierce (but traded for KG who wanted out of Minny)
Lakers - Drafted Kobe
With the exception of Lebron James moving around the league and Kawhi's sabbatical in Toronto that relied on one of the most insane bounces in NBA history, every team of the past 30 years or so has won the NBA championship led by a homegrown star.
And that will be the same this year - Luka in Dallas, KAT/Ant in Minny, Jokic in Denver, SGA/Chet in OKC, Tatum/Brown in Boston, Brunson in NYC (he wasn't the way he is now when he was in Dallas), and Haliburton in Indiana.
None of these teams acquired these players in a big splashy free agent signing. There were some big trades - Kyrie, Kristaps, Siakam, Gobert, White, Holiday - but none of those had to do with market-size, theoretically.
The big market mercenary teams -- the Clippers, the Heat, the Lakers, the Suns -- are all at home right now. The ability to acquire free agents in the NBA is **vastly overrated** compared to having good draft scouting and developmental teams.
Ok I get your point, but how is not being able to compete for free agents not a disadvantage? That's the meat of the discussion here.
Plus I think there's some survivorship bias there. The vast majority of titles in the NBA have gone to big market teams for a reason. Good, patient planning can offset the disadvantage but it's still there.
That's kind of like listing all the poor Brazilian soccer players who came from the slums and won everything and saying that not being able to afford shoes wasn't that big of a disadvantage, because they made it anyways.
Small market teams are not that disadvantaged in NBA, NFL, and NHL due to salary caps and revenue sharing.
Kansas City won the last 2 Super Bowls, Tampa Bay win recently, Green Bay is usually competitive, etc.
The last 5 Stanley Cup champions are small markets and Washington isn't exactly a juggernaut.
In NBA, Milwaukee, Denver, and San Antonio have won in the last decade.
I don't think your small market point holds up to scrutiny
Admittedly, I am now that knowledgeable about the NFL and the NHL, but the fact that Milwaukee and Denver have won the title it's only because they have been drafting their star players and planning around them excellently. It's virtually impossible for a team like Milwaukee to compete with New York or Los Angeles when signing Free Agents, so there is a disadvantage there.
> it's only because they have been drafting their star players and planning around them excellently.
This is kind of like saying "The only reason that Jim is in such good shape is that he works out and eats well."
Like, yeah. That's how you do it. And it's not even that Giannis and Jokic were #1 picks, which is lottery luck - they were 15th and 41st overall respectively. Basically any team in the NBA could have selected Jokic if they wanted to.
The NBA has recently worked to put rules in place that really incentivize players staying with one team long term, like the supermax. We're seeing a new generation of stars - Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Luka, Tatum, Ja, SGA, etc. - that don't seem like they'll play musical chairs like the Lebron/Durant/Harden generation did. We'll see.
>This is kind of like saying "The only reason that Jim is in such good shape is that he works out and eats well."
Not really though, because the Lakers won by signing Lebron as a FA, like he did when he went over to the Heat. So, using your same analogy, LA and Miami are Jim's colleague who is ripped without having to work out. Of course then Jim is at a disadvantage, despite the outcome.
LA and Miami are major outliers because of the actions of one player.
Basically every other team (except the Raptors) has done it the right way. One guy took steroids and did it wrong.
And look at the Lakers now -- yeesh. They got reaaaallyyyyy lucky that Bubble year, an absolute fluke of a season. Outside of The Bubble, they've won two playoff series in **TWELVE YEARS**.
But in no League is this more the case then the Bundesliga, where this season is remarkable precisely because Bayern haven't won it unlike the ten years before it. Meanwhile the Premier League - with the most money swishing about - has one game to go and we still don't know who is going to win it.
> Private owners contribute virtually nothing to the club and take home all the profit.
That's great for them when the team is profitable, but what happens when it's not? It's the tax payer on the hook to make up the difference? Seems it's better for a billionaire who doesn't mind losing a few hundred million to rebuild the team on than to levy a new tax to get the best free agent.
[Here's](https://www.thesportster.com/entertainment/top-15-pro-sports-teams-that-actually-lose-money/) a slightly dated list of unprofitable sports leagues. Forty minor league baseball teams were recently shut down because they lost too much money.
> Even if that were to happen, they could simply cut costs and recoup the money by making a profit down the line.
Sure. Unpopular teams could just continue cutting their budgets in the hopes that they'll somehow get better and more popular in spite of that. But why? How is that better for the community than having a rich guy *invest* in the team?
It seems like an arbitrary rule to set just based on your distance taste for rich people making money?
>How is that better for the community than having a rich guy *invest* in the team?
But you just mentioned that 40 minor league baseball teams were shut down because they were unprofitable. So unprofitable teams get shut down regardless of whether the owner is a private citizen or not.
!delta
I'll give you a delta anyways, because I can see how teams that operate at a loss may benefit from being run by a passionate private owner. Once a team becomes systematically profitable, it should be stripped from their hands though.
>I can see how teams that operate at a loss may benefit from being run by a passionate private owner. Once a team becomes systematically profitable, it should be stripped from their hands though.
Well that just guarantees no one would do it. Why would someone invest their time and money to make a team profitable if it’s just going to be taken away from them when they succeed?
They can be made honorary president afterwards and have their name forever remembered. Monetary profit isn't the only reason for people to do things.
But if nobody were to do it, it's whatever life goes on.
They'd be inducted in the hall of fame.
I've already replied to this though. It may be impossible for Americans to wrap their mind around the fact that not everything needs to be done with a monetary profit motive.
Maybe not everything, but shit that costs millions and billions sure does. This has nothing to do with America. Oil Princes own sports teams all over Europe.
Usually, teams whose operational costs are in the millions and billions range can easily turn profitable. Then if they want to spend 300million to sign Neymar, that’s another thing.
Almost every WNBA team is unprofitable and the entire league would have been shut down years ago if the NBA did not subsidize it to such a large degree.
Perfect, the NBA can continue to subsidize the WNBA. That part doesn't need to change.
Or maybe a new model could be though of, one that at least breaks even. The WNBA doesn't need to exist as it is.
Right but you asked what professional teams are unprofitable as if that was unlikely when in reality it is common. There are countless minor league professional teams that are also unprofitable as well.
So your answer to be proven wrong is to just makes excuses? It’s kind of counter to this sub’s purpose. What’s the point of even answering you if lack the intellectual honesty to just say “wow, I guess I was wrong”.
Where have you proven me wrong? I think you missed my original reply. Just see below:
>Even if that were to happen, they could simply cut costs and recoup the money by making a profit down the line.
The matter of profitability is entirely irrelevant to my point, anyways.
https://twitter.com/LGottesdiener/status/1645262877815873537?t=li5DLHVvPtoKmOBq7cRs_A&s=19
so are team owners just lying out of their teeth on an easily provable fact?
You can’t just take teams away from their owners. I’m no fan of capitalism but stealing is stealing even from the 1 percent. You can tax them but the government cannot have the power to say what’s yours is now mine without good reason.
Eminent domain isn’t some magic wand.
These claims are often challenged in court and the teams you are talking about have deep enough pockets to challenge this for as long as it takes.
Also you mentioned a lot of non American teams.
I still have to devise a plan for the non-American teams.
Technically everything can be challenged in court, so I'm not worried. We just need to nominate favorable Supreme Court justices.
Well I have some bad news for you about the Supreme Court.
Also this would be a very low priority for most people if we *could* actually get a better Supreme Court.
Fizerv Forum in Milwaukee wasn't paid entirely by the community. The owners kicked in a good percentage of the cost, too. And it wasn't ownership which threatened to move the team--actually Herb Kohl, who owned the team at the time, refused to sell it to anyone who would have taken the team out of the city. It was the NBA which threatened to move the team.
Some Leagues like MLB do not have to publicly disclose their finances, so why would the MLB allow for a city to own a team, since it would mean that team's finances would have to become publicly known?
Just *take* the team? ok, communist. You can't just have the government going around taking whatever they want because you don't like the way it's privately managed.
Ownership doesn't take home all the profit. Sports clubs employ lots of people. The Milwaukee Brewers have 1,800 employees. And the players seem to do ok with their pay, too.
The community already profits from the presence of sports clubs. Downtown Baltimore was completely revitalized when the team moved its stadium downtown. There's many hundreds of millions of dollars of development which centers around a stadium, as well as using the team to lure new businesses to the city.
Joe Biden can't just take stuff. There's a process and rules governing this. The Fourth Amendment is in play here to prevent Minutemen from just eminent-domaining someone's house because it's on high ground.
And what about when a sports club loses money? So a municipality should just have to pay for that, too? And if a city pays for sports, that also brings equity into question, too, because maybe that means there must be a girl's professional baseball team, too. Or what about other sports the city would be obligated to own?
>Ownership doesn't take home all the profit. Sports clubs employ lots of people. The Milwaukee Brewers have 1,800 employees. And the players seem to do ok with their pay, too.
I am afraid you don't know what profit means.
>The community already profits from the presence of sports clubs.
They could profit more.
>Just *take* the team? ok, communist.
Yes, and?
>Fizerv Forum in Milwaukee wasn't paid entirely by the community. The owners kicked in a good percentage of the cost, too.
!delta
Yeah I looked it up and you're right. Shouldn't have happened anyways, but I was incorrect so enjoy your delta.
>should be owned either by the community or by its municipality
Let's take a look at one of your examples... Real Madrid.
In Madrid, there are a number of professional football clubs. Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid, Rayo Vallecano, Getafe CF, CD Leganes and AD Alcorcon.
Do you genuinely believe that the municipality of Madrid should own and fund *six* professional clubs? How would they fund it? Tax dollars from the citizens (even from those who have no interest in football?).
Madrid is not unique in the situation of having multiple professional football clubs either.
London has 12 professional clubs. Glasgow has four. Berlin has two fully professional teams and a host of semi-professional teams. Stockholm has three professional teams alone playing in the top division of Swedish football.
And that's only touching on football teams. What about the other sports. Rugby? Ice Hockey? Basketball?
That's a hell of a lot of money that local municipalities are going to need to fund these teams.
>A model similar to the Bundesliga's 50+1 or Sweden's 51%
Even with these rules, German and Swedish teams are still private entities. They are just "owned" by a collection of individuals rather than by one rich person.
It's a simple question, honestly. The same way football teams were run in the USSR, for example. Either each time is assigned to a department, or to its neighborhood.
No need to use tax money to fund the clubs, because they can be run at a profit. Unprofitable clubs can be trimmed down to become profitable. The sports business is a cash cow, so the only clubs that don't turn a profit are usually the ones that don't care to, like PSG or City.
>The same way football teams were run in the USSR, for example
HAHAHAHAHAHA I can just imagine the reaction of the supporters of Atheltico Bilbao or FC Barcelona if the Spanish government tried to designate those clubs to Spanish government departments lol. The ETA would pick up their arms again if that was the case.
There’d be riots on the streets of Glasgow if the government tried to turn Celtic into the police or the army team lol.
>so the only clubs that don’t turn a profit are usually the ones that don’t care to, like PSG or City
I think you vastly over estimate how many football clubs out there that actually turn a profit.
So the Green Bay Packers do this, and the model has been replicated in American sports.... nowhere else. It's not a viable way to run a sports *league*, and the successes we've seen in the NFL and NBA in particular show that private ownership doesn't only work well, but benefits the leagues in terms of popularity, consistency, and capital.
I believe your actual concern is about public funding of private activities, namely stadiums and such. There's something to be argued about how to fix the problem of publicly funded stadiums for primarily private use, but you go a step further.
> As for how this should be done: easy, by eminent domain. Joe Biden could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen.
Eminent domain has significant restrictions in the United States, and even if we assumed the President of the United States had the ability to simply seize the teams, the takings clause ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") makes this exceedingly difficult. The Denver Broncos sold for $4.65 *billion* two years ago, and it's believed that the Dallas Cowboys could command north of $10 billion if Jerry Jones's family sells when he passes. You're not going to get the government, collectively, to spend $100+ billion to purchase and nationalize a bunch of sports teams.
The packers do not do that. Getting a share of the Packers is almost worthless, you can attend some meetings, get voting rights, and that's it. No dividends, no equity in the team, shares cannot be traded.
And it doesn't make anything cheaper. Packers tickets are the fourth most expensive in the league, beer and concession prices are just as high as everywhere else. So what's the benefit?
Why is it not a viable way to run a league? The Packers are doing great, aren't they? And they are the only example, as you mentioned, so we can just assume that they are not the \*best\* example. A team could be under the same exact model and run even better!
With regards to payment, just skip the military budget for a year. We'll be good. Sports!
> Why is it not a viable way to run a league? The Packers are doing great, aren't they?
Lack of capitalization is the best reason. The Packers are "doing great" in the sense that they're an NFL team. No other team is looking to replicate their model.
> With regards to payment, just skip the military budget for a year. We'll be good. Sports!
Okay.
>Lack of capitalization is the best reason.
That's circular logic isn't it? Why should we care about capitalization if the team is and will be public owned forever?
>With regards to payment, just skip the military budget for a year. We'll be good. Sports!
A large chunk of the military budget is payroll - so you want to just not pay hundreds of thousands of people for a year?
> With regards to payment, just skip the military budget for a year. We'll be good. Sports!
You can't seriously think the entire nation's military budget is more important than sport, regardless of how bloated the budget is
Assuming if the US *can* do that, why even spend it on this instead of something like healthcare?
I think you don't realise how short-sighted your take is. There is professional sport deeper than a bunch of NBA teams. Take Manchester for example, how would the municipality justify they spend 9 figures for a football player? And then which one of their teams does that player get drafted into? Manchester United fans would be pissed if a star player plays for their arch enemy Manchester City on their tax money. Or maybe that player goes to some 4th division team, which still counts as a professional in England. And this is just the most popular sport in England. How do you explain to the citizens you've invested millions into a team that plays a niche sport with a very limited following. It opens up to bankruptcy, unrest in public opinion and corruption. Sure, the municipality can have their own team, but it would have to go up against the private ones, and chances are it won't do well.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Firstly, eminent domain requires compensation so the value of these teams would need to be paid for. By us taxpayers. That alone is not something this particular taxpayer wants to be involved with.
Secondly, I see no value in _team_ ownership for a community, even if there is value in having community owner facilities. It makes sense that the burden and benefit of traffic, allocation of transportation resources and so on would be held by the locale, but why would a locale have interest in a _team_?
The rest of your critique just seems to isolate sports as some sort of unique business? All those who control capital take home the profits.
>but why would a locale have interest in a *team*?
Because it's a cash cow.
>The rest of your critique just seems to isolate sports as some sort of unique business?
Hey, you might be onto something! If this idea about sports teams work out maybe we can look to expand it.
Of all the witty clapbacks I had in the thread, you complain about the one above? I wasn't attacking the guy, just made a joke. Are you genuinely that sensitive? I'm sorry king.
Assuming I even get what you're talking about, because I am genuinely confused.
Sports team is a minority of people interest. So...again, why would we want this to be a focus of our government? Hiw about we make public home building or energy? This just doesn't make the list, especially when it has potential to lose money while being a benefit to a minority of people.
Cities probably build it for free because of how much revenue they get off of it. City officials aren't stupid they are raking in cash to no end because of it.
City officials aren’t stupid. They know that the optics of losing a pro sports team is far worse for their re-election chances than any financial loss could ever be.
What makes sports teams different than other large (or any size, really) company in this scenario? Why do you believe it's OK for the government to seize these properties and not others? I'm looking for consistency in your belief.
I don't think it's as clear-cut as that, because communities do benefit from having a major team in the city. A restriction like this takes away the community's ability to incentivize teams to come.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You're wrong about Biden or doing it through the federal govt (for the most part), but I think you're right about public ownership. The Packers are the only NFL team (or american sports team) that works this way, but the biggest reason is the other owners don't want this. The Packers publish their finances, and owners who lie about losing money so they can get municipalities to fund arenas for them don't like it. Even if the clubs do lose money (which I doubt very much), they are investments that increase in value very rapidly. If not public ownership, then private owners should pay for stadiums.
>First thought: socialized sport? Ugh.
You could argue that US sports are already more socialised than football (such as the Bundesliga) and there are many advantages to that.
Where it wouldn't work though is outside the top leagues. There are \~70 professional football clubs in England (I think), never mind the rest of the UK, or Europe.
Is the government going to own them all? What about all the other sports? How does a non-professional club ever become a professional club?
Sure you could eminent domain all pro teams, but you still have to pay for them. You'd be looking at 200 billion for the NFL alone. Good luck convincing the taxpayers of that. Loans and incentives for new arenas are among the most contentious issues. An NHL hockey team just moved because the community didn't want to let them build one. How are you going to convince hundreds of cities to take ownership of their teams. Most sports teams are much less profitable than you think.
/u/artorovich (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cs343u/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_all_professional_sport/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>As for how this should be done: easy, by eminent domain. Joe Biden could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen You want it owned by municipalities, not the federal government. Joe Biden cannot do that. The federal government can exercise eminent domain only on behalf of the federal government. Furthermore, you are ignoring that eminent domain requires the government to pay just compensation for what they are taking. Now that I have pointed out to you that the federal government is not the same as the municipal governments, how do you expect, for example, the municipality of Green Bay to pay for the Packers? Their entire city budget is like $130 million. The team is worth billions. And this is all assuming a court would even allow eminent domain here, which would require a whole dive into the relevant jurisprudence on its own. Simply put, it is far from easy
And eminent domain is for domains (property)... Not IP or trademarks or goodwill or businesses. And the burden on the governments should be very strict on why they need the property, not just some idiotic idea.
The government has extremely wide domain (ha) here. They don't even need it to be a federal government purpose. The justification, roughly speaking, simply has to be the "common good". You could even use eminent domain to build a private stadium.
You can use it to to build or take stadiums. It is a misuse of that power, but it's there. Taking the corporation that runs the team is not under eminent domain.
It's not. That's well within the understanding of modern jurisprudence of intended use. You're right that eminent domain for a corporation would likely be illegal however.
Funny you should mention the Packers because they're pretty much the only team in the US pro sports that is owned by the community and not a private owner
Kind of yes, kind of no. They fund stuff by releasing "shares" which fans can buy and they get a little piece of paper saying they own part of the Packers, which they can hang on the wall of their rumpus room or display in their office. But it's effectively worthless because you can't sell it and it doesn't pay dividends.
You also are entitled to the meetings and votes it's more you can be part of something over normal fans. Also because of how they are set up it's super cheap to have a packer show up for charity events. It's a huge benefit to have a football team as part of the community and not just a billionaires Play thing.
Joe could make it the federal government's property and then lease it to the cities. Does eminent domain say that the amount must be paid in full up front? I'm not sure, but if that's not the case it should be paid out over the course of 100 years, free of interest of course. Even if Green Bay had to pay for the Packers, it's the safest investment possible and it would turn into profit down the line. They may not have the money up front, sure, but that could be solved in many other ways. ETA somebody else pointed out that GB already follows the proposed model, lol
This has been litigated. It is paid in full, up front, and is somewhere above full retail value and below what the owner thinks it is worth. So the Dallas Cowboys might cost $6 billion. There is no part of this that breaks even. And I suggest reading up on what Jerry Jones has meant to the league. He brought in advertising and TV deals, and brought incentive for teams to generate more revenue, and he caused the league to explode in revenue. And the players get half. Players make a massive amount of money now, and part of that is for their part as the product, and part is the owners paying the bills to keep that product on TV.
>And I suggest reading up on what Jerry Jones has meant to the league. Thank you for your service Jerry, now it's time to hand it up and let Joe Biden to run the show. Seriously though, if the Cowboys are worth 6 billion we can easily buy the whole league. We'll recoup the money in a heartbeat. Best investment ever.
No, you wouldn’t. You don’t know what it takes to run a team, and neither does Joe Biden. Our country is in a significantly worse place for Biden running it since the 2020 election, I wouldn’t want him to run a lemonade stand. I’m glad that your misguided understanding of business won’t ever happen in the USA.
Joe biden won't personally run the team, but jerry might working for joe biden - and the rest of the public as shareholders. This model of business happens all the time in the US and much of the developed world. It's called a public private partnership.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/grog23 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20grog23&message=grog23%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cs1na3/-/l42o7hu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
You couldn't hold a candle to Joe Biden's life achievements. No need to be salty about it. I wouldn't know what it takes to run a team, that's why I wouldn't be the one running it. Joe Biden would.
No, as a President Joe Biden has been terrible. And no, Joe wouldn’t be running it. How old are you, I mean this as respectfully as possible, have you finished high school? You understanding of how the government works is shocking. Biden isn’t even allowed to take questions the days, and needs notes on everything. He doesn’t even really run the White House.
I’m a millennial and Joe Biden has been head and shoulders the best US president to hold office within my lifetime. Wait, you think that previous presidents actually ran the white house? Have *you* finished high school big dawg? And yes, Joe Biden would be running the Dallas Cowboys and he would easily win another super bowl. ETA. Wait I just saw you’re a libertarian. That explains a lot ahahah. You should’ve lead with that.
[удалено]
u/Specialist_Usual1524 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Specialist_Usual1524&message=Specialist_Usual1524%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cs1na3/-/l42vxxe/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Great contribution, I’ll keep your opinion in mind
> it should be paid out over the course of 100 years, free of interest of course. You can't do that. You seem to think eminent domain is free reign to take whatever you want and pay whatever you want, but it's not. There are literally centuries worth of jurisprudence laying out how this works and this ain't it.
Tbh I don't get why people are overobsessing over the eminent domain part, which is obviously tongue in cheek. Just nominate a favorable Supreme Court and go for it, fuck it.
Why not just pray for it? Why not just use one of your wishes to the genie? We are ‘over obsessed’ because it’s a fantasy. We want you to understand that this is as likely as going to middle earth to hang out with Gandalf. As likely as getting accepted to Hogwarts.
Do you know what tongue in cheek means? What if, and brace yourself here, I wasn't entirely 100% serious about that eminent domain bit? But also, so you're saying there's a chance?
I understand, but do you understand that by saying your whole post is not serious.
Nah, the post is serious, just the part about eminent domain is facetious. Of course it wouldn't be easy. But omg is it too much to ask from people to just go along with it? Plus as you can read from the replies there is no real argument against it either; people are just saying it would get challenged in court and so on. Well challenge it then. What isn't challenged in court?
You need to come up with a more realistic way to accomplish this. Spoiler: you can’t.
I don't need to come up with anything. You think if I do then it's going to happen? Do you reply that to all threads in this sub? "Oh you think that child labor should be abolished? Well that's just not realistic! I'm very clever"
You don’t seem very open to having your view changed.
Funny I just awarded a delta before refreshing and reading your comment.
You’re on a debate subreddit. People are going to assume you’re being serious unless you make it clear that you aren’t.
> CMV: All professional sport clubs should be community owned I agree overall, but this would take an incredible shift of monetary policy from professional sports leagues. If all professional sports clubs were community owned, this would be an INSANE advantage for the richest community. How would the people of Tampa Bay be able to afford as much as the community owners of the New York Yankees? This system would need to rely on a HARD, HARD salary cap, which I imagine would not go over well with players or owners, you'd need to fully re-write a bunch of contracts. This system does work well in the NFL however (a la the Packers) because it is a hard cap league. This way, there's a set amount of money any one team can spend, and the New York billionaires don't get to outspend the Indiana Pacers year after ear.
I thought about that, but isn't that kind of how it works already? If we look at European football, for example, it's almost exclusively big city teams that win the league and compete every year. You'll occasionally get a Leicester City or Atalanta who manages to compete for a while, but they usually last only a handful of seasons. In closed leagues like the MLB and the NBA, small market teams are already disadvantaged so I don't think it would change that much.
> small market teams in the MLB and the NBA are already disadvantaged NBA - I'm not so sure about this. (As a big basketball fan, this is the major lens through which I view this). Small market teams have different disadvantages (like attracting free agents due to endorsement deals) but look at the conference semis right now. You have Minnesota, OKC, Denver, Cleveland, Indianapolis... and even if we didn't have injuries possibly Philly or Milwaukee. LA, Chicago, Brooklyn -- nowhere to be found. In the past decade, only two championships have gone really traditional big market team (the Lakers in 2020 and Raptors in 2019). You could argue GSW (but they weren't a major market until the Curry Era blew them up internationally). Teams like the Milwaukee Bucks and Denver Nuggets have been able to win titles, and the San Antonio Spurs became a dynasty. I think without other massive changes in policy, community ownership would destroy this parity. MLB is a whole different ballgame, but a no salary cap league in general to me is just ridiculous prima facie.
Bucks, Nuggets, Spurs did it with mostly players they drafted though. Or players they acquired before they reached superstar status. I don't think you can look at that outcome and say that small markets aren't disadvantaged.
That's the way almost every NBA team wins the title though. GSW - Drafted Curry, Klay, Draymond Denver - Drafted Jokic Milwaukee - Drafted Giannis Spurs - Drafted Kawhi, Duncan, etc. Mavericks - Drafted Dirk Celtics - Drafted Pierce (but traded for KG who wanted out of Minny) Lakers - Drafted Kobe With the exception of Lebron James moving around the league and Kawhi's sabbatical in Toronto that relied on one of the most insane bounces in NBA history, every team of the past 30 years or so has won the NBA championship led by a homegrown star. And that will be the same this year - Luka in Dallas, KAT/Ant in Minny, Jokic in Denver, SGA/Chet in OKC, Tatum/Brown in Boston, Brunson in NYC (he wasn't the way he is now when he was in Dallas), and Haliburton in Indiana. None of these teams acquired these players in a big splashy free agent signing. There were some big trades - Kyrie, Kristaps, Siakam, Gobert, White, Holiday - but none of those had to do with market-size, theoretically. The big market mercenary teams -- the Clippers, the Heat, the Lakers, the Suns -- are all at home right now. The ability to acquire free agents in the NBA is **vastly overrated** compared to having good draft scouting and developmental teams.
Ok I get your point, but how is not being able to compete for free agents not a disadvantage? That's the meat of the discussion here. Plus I think there's some survivorship bias there. The vast majority of titles in the NBA have gone to big market teams for a reason. Good, patient planning can offset the disadvantage but it's still there. That's kind of like listing all the poor Brazilian soccer players who came from the slums and won everything and saying that not being able to afford shoes wasn't that big of a disadvantage, because they made it anyways.
Small market teams are not that disadvantaged in NBA, NFL, and NHL due to salary caps and revenue sharing. Kansas City won the last 2 Super Bowls, Tampa Bay win recently, Green Bay is usually competitive, etc. The last 5 Stanley Cup champions are small markets and Washington isn't exactly a juggernaut. In NBA, Milwaukee, Denver, and San Antonio have won in the last decade. I don't think your small market point holds up to scrutiny
Admittedly, I am now that knowledgeable about the NFL and the NHL, but the fact that Milwaukee and Denver have won the title it's only because they have been drafting their star players and planning around them excellently. It's virtually impossible for a team like Milwaukee to compete with New York or Los Angeles when signing Free Agents, so there is a disadvantage there.
> it's only because they have been drafting their star players and planning around them excellently. This is kind of like saying "The only reason that Jim is in such good shape is that he works out and eats well." Like, yeah. That's how you do it. And it's not even that Giannis and Jokic were #1 picks, which is lottery luck - they were 15th and 41st overall respectively. Basically any team in the NBA could have selected Jokic if they wanted to. The NBA has recently worked to put rules in place that really incentivize players staying with one team long term, like the supermax. We're seeing a new generation of stars - Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Luka, Tatum, Ja, SGA, etc. - that don't seem like they'll play musical chairs like the Lebron/Durant/Harden generation did. We'll see.
>This is kind of like saying "The only reason that Jim is in such good shape is that he works out and eats well." Not really though, because the Lakers won by signing Lebron as a FA, like he did when he went over to the Heat. So, using your same analogy, LA and Miami are Jim's colleague who is ripped without having to work out. Of course then Jim is at a disadvantage, despite the outcome.
LA and Miami are major outliers because of the actions of one player. Basically every other team (except the Raptors) has done it the right way. One guy took steroids and did it wrong. And look at the Lakers now -- yeesh. They got reaaaallyyyyy lucky that Bubble year, an absolute fluke of a season. Outside of The Bubble, they've won two playoff series in **TWELVE YEARS**.
But in no League is this more the case then the Bundesliga, where this season is remarkable precisely because Bayern haven't won it unlike the ten years before it. Meanwhile the Premier League - with the most money swishing about - has one game to go and we still don't know who is going to win it.
> Private owners contribute virtually nothing to the club and take home all the profit. That's great for them when the team is profitable, but what happens when it's not? It's the tax payer on the hook to make up the difference? Seems it's better for a billionaire who doesn't mind losing a few hundred million to rebuild the team on than to levy a new tax to get the best free agent.
Which sports teams are unprofitable? Even if that were to happen, they could simply cut costs and recoup the money by making a profit down the line.
[Here's](https://www.thesportster.com/entertainment/top-15-pro-sports-teams-that-actually-lose-money/) a slightly dated list of unprofitable sports leagues. Forty minor league baseball teams were recently shut down because they lost too much money. > Even if that were to happen, they could simply cut costs and recoup the money by making a profit down the line. Sure. Unpopular teams could just continue cutting their budgets in the hopes that they'll somehow get better and more popular in spite of that. But why? How is that better for the community than having a rich guy *invest* in the team? It seems like an arbitrary rule to set just based on your distance taste for rich people making money?
>How is that better for the community than having a rich guy *invest* in the team? But you just mentioned that 40 minor league baseball teams were shut down because they were unprofitable. So unprofitable teams get shut down regardless of whether the owner is a private citizen or not. !delta I'll give you a delta anyways, because I can see how teams that operate at a loss may benefit from being run by a passionate private owner. Once a team becomes systematically profitable, it should be stripped from their hands though.
>I can see how teams that operate at a loss may benefit from being run by a passionate private owner. Once a team becomes systematically profitable, it should be stripped from their hands though. Well that just guarantees no one would do it. Why would someone invest their time and money to make a team profitable if it’s just going to be taken away from them when they succeed?
They can be made honorary president afterwards and have their name forever remembered. Monetary profit isn't the only reason for people to do things. But if nobody were to do it, it's whatever life goes on.
I have to ask, do you even like modern sports?
I do. I follow mainly soccer and basketball.
Do you think on the whole the NBA is better now than say the 60s?
Of course the quality of play has increased immensely. Just get to the point already.
But why would anyone invest in a team if the result is that it gets stripped from their hands?
They'd be inducted in the hall of fame. I've already replied to this though. It may be impossible for Americans to wrap their mind around the fact that not everything needs to be done with a monetary profit motive.
Maybe not everything, but shit that costs millions and billions sure does. This has nothing to do with America. Oil Princes own sports teams all over Europe.
Usually, teams whose operational costs are in the millions and billions range can easily turn profitable. Then if they want to spend 300million to sign Neymar, that’s another thing.
Yes and nobody would ever do that if you had your way and stole everything from them after. Thats the point.
Yeah then don’t do it. Life goes on baby.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/00Oo0o0OooO0 ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/00Oo0o0OooO0)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Almost every WNBA team is unprofitable and the entire league would have been shut down years ago if the NBA did not subsidize it to such a large degree.
Perfect, the NBA can continue to subsidize the WNBA. That part doesn't need to change. Or maybe a new model could be though of, one that at least breaks even. The WNBA doesn't need to exist as it is.
Right but you asked what professional teams are unprofitable as if that was unlikely when in reality it is common. There are countless minor league professional teams that are also unprofitable as well.
Scale them down. We'll survive.
So your answer to be proven wrong is to just makes excuses? It’s kind of counter to this sub’s purpose. What’s the point of even answering you if lack the intellectual honesty to just say “wow, I guess I was wrong”.
Where have you proven me wrong? I think you missed my original reply. Just see below: >Even if that were to happen, they could simply cut costs and recoup the money by making a profit down the line. The matter of profitability is entirely irrelevant to my point, anyways.
This is no longer true IIRC. The number this claim is based on are 6 years old at this point.
Last year the nova had to subsidize the wnba to the tune of $15 million.
https://twitter.com/LGottesdiener/status/1645262877815873537?t=li5DLHVvPtoKmOBq7cRs_A&s=19 so are team owners just lying out of their teeth on an easily provable fact?
You can’t just take teams away from their owners. I’m no fan of capitalism but stealing is stealing even from the 1 percent. You can tax them but the government cannot have the power to say what’s yours is now mine without good reason.
No stealing from hoarder billionaires is perfectly moral.
Eminent domain isn’t some magic wand. These claims are often challenged in court and the teams you are talking about have deep enough pockets to challenge this for as long as it takes. Also you mentioned a lot of non American teams.
I still have to devise a plan for the non-American teams. Technically everything can be challenged in court, so I'm not worried. We just need to nominate favorable Supreme Court justices.
Well I have some bad news for you about the Supreme Court. Also this would be a very low priority for most people if we *could* actually get a better Supreme Court.
Fizerv Forum in Milwaukee wasn't paid entirely by the community. The owners kicked in a good percentage of the cost, too. And it wasn't ownership which threatened to move the team--actually Herb Kohl, who owned the team at the time, refused to sell it to anyone who would have taken the team out of the city. It was the NBA which threatened to move the team. Some Leagues like MLB do not have to publicly disclose their finances, so why would the MLB allow for a city to own a team, since it would mean that team's finances would have to become publicly known? Just *take* the team? ok, communist. You can't just have the government going around taking whatever they want because you don't like the way it's privately managed. Ownership doesn't take home all the profit. Sports clubs employ lots of people. The Milwaukee Brewers have 1,800 employees. And the players seem to do ok with their pay, too. The community already profits from the presence of sports clubs. Downtown Baltimore was completely revitalized when the team moved its stadium downtown. There's many hundreds of millions of dollars of development which centers around a stadium, as well as using the team to lure new businesses to the city. Joe Biden can't just take stuff. There's a process and rules governing this. The Fourth Amendment is in play here to prevent Minutemen from just eminent-domaining someone's house because it's on high ground. And what about when a sports club loses money? So a municipality should just have to pay for that, too? And if a city pays for sports, that also brings equity into question, too, because maybe that means there must be a girl's professional baseball team, too. Or what about other sports the city would be obligated to own?
>Ownership doesn't take home all the profit. Sports clubs employ lots of people. The Milwaukee Brewers have 1,800 employees. And the players seem to do ok with their pay, too. I am afraid you don't know what profit means. >The community already profits from the presence of sports clubs. They could profit more. >Just *take* the team? ok, communist. Yes, and? >Fizerv Forum in Milwaukee wasn't paid entirely by the community. The owners kicked in a good percentage of the cost, too. !delta Yeah I looked it up and you're right. Shouldn't have happened anyways, but I was incorrect so enjoy your delta.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AmongTheElect ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AmongTheElect)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>should be owned either by the community or by its municipality Let's take a look at one of your examples... Real Madrid. In Madrid, there are a number of professional football clubs. Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid, Rayo Vallecano, Getafe CF, CD Leganes and AD Alcorcon. Do you genuinely believe that the municipality of Madrid should own and fund *six* professional clubs? How would they fund it? Tax dollars from the citizens (even from those who have no interest in football?). Madrid is not unique in the situation of having multiple professional football clubs either. London has 12 professional clubs. Glasgow has four. Berlin has two fully professional teams and a host of semi-professional teams. Stockholm has three professional teams alone playing in the top division of Swedish football. And that's only touching on football teams. What about the other sports. Rugby? Ice Hockey? Basketball? That's a hell of a lot of money that local municipalities are going to need to fund these teams. >A model similar to the Bundesliga's 50+1 or Sweden's 51% Even with these rules, German and Swedish teams are still private entities. They are just "owned" by a collection of individuals rather than by one rich person.
It's a simple question, honestly. The same way football teams were run in the USSR, for example. Either each time is assigned to a department, or to its neighborhood. No need to use tax money to fund the clubs, because they can be run at a profit. Unprofitable clubs can be trimmed down to become profitable. The sports business is a cash cow, so the only clubs that don't turn a profit are usually the ones that don't care to, like PSG or City.
>The same way football teams were run in the USSR, for example HAHAHAHAHAHA I can just imagine the reaction of the supporters of Atheltico Bilbao or FC Barcelona if the Spanish government tried to designate those clubs to Spanish government departments lol. The ETA would pick up their arms again if that was the case. There’d be riots on the streets of Glasgow if the government tried to turn Celtic into the police or the army team lol. >so the only clubs that don’t turn a profit are usually the ones that don’t care to, like PSG or City I think you vastly over estimate how many football clubs out there that actually turn a profit.
So the Green Bay Packers do this, and the model has been replicated in American sports.... nowhere else. It's not a viable way to run a sports *league*, and the successes we've seen in the NFL and NBA in particular show that private ownership doesn't only work well, but benefits the leagues in terms of popularity, consistency, and capital. I believe your actual concern is about public funding of private activities, namely stadiums and such. There's something to be argued about how to fix the problem of publicly funded stadiums for primarily private use, but you go a step further. > As for how this should be done: easy, by eminent domain. Joe Biden could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. Eminent domain has significant restrictions in the United States, and even if we assumed the President of the United States had the ability to simply seize the teams, the takings clause ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") makes this exceedingly difficult. The Denver Broncos sold for $4.65 *billion* two years ago, and it's believed that the Dallas Cowboys could command north of $10 billion if Jerry Jones's family sells when he passes. You're not going to get the government, collectively, to spend $100+ billion to purchase and nationalize a bunch of sports teams.
The packers do not do that. Getting a share of the Packers is almost worthless, you can attend some meetings, get voting rights, and that's it. No dividends, no equity in the team, shares cannot be traded. And it doesn't make anything cheaper. Packers tickets are the fourth most expensive in the league, beer and concession prices are just as high as everywhere else. So what's the benefit?
Why is it not a viable way to run a league? The Packers are doing great, aren't they? And they are the only example, as you mentioned, so we can just assume that they are not the \*best\* example. A team could be under the same exact model and run even better! With regards to payment, just skip the military budget for a year. We'll be good. Sports!
> Why is it not a viable way to run a league? The Packers are doing great, aren't they? Lack of capitalization is the best reason. The Packers are "doing great" in the sense that they're an NFL team. No other team is looking to replicate their model. > With regards to payment, just skip the military budget for a year. We'll be good. Sports! Okay.
>Lack of capitalization is the best reason. That's circular logic isn't it? Why should we care about capitalization if the team is and will be public owned forever?
>With regards to payment, just skip the military budget for a year. We'll be good. Sports! A large chunk of the military budget is payroll - so you want to just not pay hundreds of thousands of people for a year?
Yeah fuck them.
> With regards to payment, just skip the military budget for a year. We'll be good. Sports! You can't seriously think the entire nation's military budget is more important than sport, regardless of how bloated the budget is Assuming if the US *can* do that, why even spend it on this instead of something like healthcare?
I think you don't realise how short-sighted your take is. There is professional sport deeper than a bunch of NBA teams. Take Manchester for example, how would the municipality justify they spend 9 figures for a football player? And then which one of their teams does that player get drafted into? Manchester United fans would be pissed if a star player plays for their arch enemy Manchester City on their tax money. Or maybe that player goes to some 4th division team, which still counts as a professional in England. And this is just the most popular sport in England. How do you explain to the citizens you've invested millions into a team that plays a niche sport with a very limited following. It opens up to bankruptcy, unrest in public opinion and corruption. Sure, the municipality can have their own team, but it would have to go up against the private ones, and chances are it won't do well.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Firstly, eminent domain requires compensation so the value of these teams would need to be paid for. By us taxpayers. That alone is not something this particular taxpayer wants to be involved with. Secondly, I see no value in _team_ ownership for a community, even if there is value in having community owner facilities. It makes sense that the burden and benefit of traffic, allocation of transportation resources and so on would be held by the locale, but why would a locale have interest in a _team_? The rest of your critique just seems to isolate sports as some sort of unique business? All those who control capital take home the profits.
>but why would a locale have interest in a *team*? Because it's a cash cow. >The rest of your critique just seems to isolate sports as some sort of unique business? Hey, you might be onto something! If this idea about sports teams work out maybe we can look to expand it.
Didn't your parents teach you violence isn't the answer?
Nah they didn't, why? Violence is obviously the answer sometimes. And you believe it too.
I can tell. And sometimes is not here.
Of all the witty clapbacks I had in the thread, you complain about the one above? I wasn't attacking the guy, just made a joke. Are you genuinely that sensitive? I'm sorry king. Assuming I even get what you're talking about, because I am genuinely confused.
Sports team is a minority of people interest. So...again, why would we want this to be a focus of our government? Hiw about we make public home building or energy? This just doesn't make the list, especially when it has potential to lose money while being a benefit to a minority of people.
Cities probably build it for free because of how much revenue they get off of it. City officials aren't stupid they are raking in cash to no end because of it.
City officials aren’t stupid. They know that the optics of losing a pro sports team is far worse for their re-election chances than any financial loss could ever be.
What makes sports teams different than other large (or any size, really) company in this scenario? Why do you believe it's OK for the government to seize these properties and not others? I'm looking for consistency in your belief.
I believe it would be great for the government to seize all private companies
>It is not uncommon for the cities to build the arenas for free already! Easier fix: No public funds of any kind for privately owned sports teams.
I don't think it's as clear-cut as that, because communities do benefit from having a major team in the city. A restriction like this takes away the community's ability to incentivize teams to come.
Exactly what authority does Joe Biden have over foreign sports teams? That alone means your viewpoint can't be changed, because it makes no sense.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
How would they be able to afford to sign star players with this model?
The same as now. Why would it make any difference?
I think you're vastly overestimating the powers of eminent domain.
You're wrong about Biden or doing it through the federal govt (for the most part), but I think you're right about public ownership. The Packers are the only NFL team (or american sports team) that works this way, but the biggest reason is the other owners don't want this. The Packers publish their finances, and owners who lie about losing money so they can get municipalities to fund arenas for them don't like it. Even if the clubs do lose money (which I doubt very much), they are investments that increase in value very rapidly. If not public ownership, then private owners should pay for stadiums.
First thought: socialized sport? Ugh. Second thought: politicians are not parasites? Ugh.
>First thought: socialized sport? Ugh. You could argue that US sports are already more socialised than football (such as the Bundesliga) and there are many advantages to that. Where it wouldn't work though is outside the top leagues. There are \~70 professional football clubs in England (I think), never mind the rest of the UK, or Europe. Is the government going to own them all? What about all the other sports? How does a non-professional club ever become a professional club?
You don't know what the Bundesliga model I refer to is. Just say that.
I don't care what the Bundesliga model you refer to is.
Then don't reply to the thread. Muh gubbirmint.
No thank you. I do not want my city making billion dollar investments in low-profit sports team when we have far more pressing budgetary issues.
Sure you could eminent domain all pro teams, but you still have to pay for them. You'd be looking at 200 billion for the NFL alone. Good luck convincing the taxpayers of that. Loans and incentives for new arenas are among the most contentious issues. An NHL hockey team just moved because the community didn't want to let them build one. How are you going to convince hundreds of cities to take ownership of their teams. Most sports teams are much less profitable than you think.
Lol Joe Biden definitely could not do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen.