Everything that’s wrong with sports stadium coverage, in one sentence

I’ve made no secret of how unimpressed I’ve been with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s coverage of the Bucks arena debate, but this, from today’s column by Michael Hunt, really takes the cake:

So now it becomes a matter of trust that the extraordinary financial commitments by Kohl and the new owners toward the building won’t languish on the table in another unseemly political fight.

So, to recap: The owners of a professional sports team offering to pay for less than half of the cost of their new arena is “extraordinary.” Public officials not wanting to pay for the other half, meanwhile, is “unseemly.” Got that?

(For those who would like an alternate perspective, I have a longer piece on the Bucks situation up at Sports on Earth, hot off the presses.)


10 comments on “Everything that’s wrong with sports stadium coverage, in one sentence

  1. Even worse, he’s saying that having a debate about it is “unseemly”. In other words, be quiet and cut the checks…

  2. I guess the city didn’t think the Bucks would notice the billion brewer park or the millions each year in subsidies. Hey at least Green Bay is already suckered in.

  3. I really don’t think the Packers got anywhere near as much money as the Brewers, and even so, since the Packers are effectively owned by the people of Green Bay and Wisconsin it’s not as an egregious to spend on the stadium.

  4. I get the feeling they will be the New Jersey Bucks someday after moving the newark.

  5. Greg,

    I agree. Hunt is as bad as those columnists who shame those who want to “reopen” the debates on “settled” issues like the Affordable Care Act, global warming and gay marriage. Luckily respectable op-ed pages don’t allow that kind of suppression of thought.

  6. @runner

    If they were to move anywhere, it would be Seattle. Those guys aren’t going to move them to Newark despite their NYC ties. They’ll flip the team for a heckuva lot more than $550 million and get Hansen to buy them and take ‘em to Seattle.

  7. Trueblood, wasn’t Hansen only buying a majority fraction on the Kings at the time ? As in, a bit over 400 million out of pocket. How many Bucks owners are there (other than Kohl’s shares ?)

  8. Trueblood, wasn’t Hansen only buying a majority fraction on the Kings at the time ? As in, a bit over 400 million out of pocket. How many Bucks owners are there (other than Herb’s shares ?)