Stadiums don’t have to cost taxpayers

The Rays deal with St. Petersburg is dead.  The team announced they will not move forward with a new stadium nor the redevelopment of the  balance of the Gas Plant property.  

What happens next? 

St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch has said he has no interest in working with the current Rays’ ownership and the Rays are saying the team is not for sale.   As a result, it seems quite likely baseball is moving from St. Pete  – and that would be best for the city and baseball.  

There’s a lot to unscramble but for today, let’s focus on just one aspect – the dead deal’s enormous giveaway of public funds.   Had the deal gone through the city and county were contributing $2.4 billion – just to keep baseball.  (Here are the details.)   

I would hope that this is the end of it.  That St. Petersburg will develop the 86 acre Gas Plant property without baseball.

Why did, and why would St. Petersburg or any city give away public money to a private business?  

Why doesn’t a private business just pay for its own building?

They certainly can.

Here is an example 

The AP reports that the London, England Manchester United soccer team has announced a new 100,000 seat stadium for the team.

$2.6 billion cost and no taxpayer money!

That’s right.  According to the team CEO, the club will will not seek taxpayer money for the stadium.  Instead the team will pay for the stadium through ticket sales, concession sales and other stadium-related activity.

How is that possible?

Billionaire owners.   The team is owned by the billionaire Glazer family, that also owns the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and British billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe.

So why are we paying for stadiums? 

Why do professional sports teams in the U.S. routinely ask taxpayers to subsidize stadiums?  Despite also being owned by billionaires and generating massive revenues,  most American teams still push for and usually get public funding, often at the expense of schools, infrastructure, and community programs.  

Again – take what was the proposed Tampa Bay Rays deals, a team owned by a billionaire.   $2.4 billion in public resources with the team keeping all the revenue – at a time when two hurricanes have focused St. Petersburg on its more than $5 billion in needed sewer, water, and stormwater repairs, and Pinellas County on tremendous need to renourish the beaches.  While this deal is now dead, why was it every  negotiated – a deal that would have not generated any economic growth for St. Petersburg nor had any material impact on tourism.

Where do we go from here?

Should the U.S. follow the Manchester United model and keep public funds out of stadium construction?   Or should we continue to provide handouts to billionaires?  I hope St. Petersburg has learned its lesson.