One of the drawbacks to sports team owners of having to go through a public vote on stadium subsidies is that public opinion depends on, you know, the public’s opinion. When the San Diego Padres did this for their stadium initiative in 1998, it was perfect timing, because the team was headed for the World Series for only the second time in history. For the San Diego Chargers, it’s not working out quite so well, as the team blew a 21-point lead on Sunday and lost in overtime, leading to responses like this:
Typical #Chargers blowing a big lead. If they want a new stadium, then get players that will give 100%
— Vistaracefan (@Vistaracefan) September 11, 2016
This makes no sense, of course — by the time a new stadium was built, there would be entirely different players on the Chargers anyway, given the trajectories of modern NFL careers — but this is undeniably how at least some voters think, and Chargers owner Dean Spanos needs every vote he can get.
As a preemptive countermove, the Chargers unveiled a new postgame press conference backdrop:
https://twitter.com/DerekNBCSD/status/775073751343955968
Democracy, man.
Ah, neat. I always wondered about the angle here & thought maybe it went “these players are failing because of substandard facilities!!!1!!” Good to see it is not and also, Let’s Go Whoever-Is-Playing-The-Chargers!!
That angle has definitely been attempted in the past. It usually doesn’t work too well, though, since no one cares enough about sucky teams to be motivated by it.
Because if the team wins, the economics of a new stadium are COMPLETELY different!
The Chargers are currently running two campaign ads on TV. One features a former mayor touting the perceived benefits of the development (including that ridiculous graphic of a boat show inside a stadium). The second features fans in Chargers gear pleading the case that without a new stadium “we’ll lose the Chargers.” Most curiously, though, is the ad placement: during Padre games, Charger postgame shows, etc… Basically, preaching to the choir without understanding that you have to make a case to people who are not already likely to support the measure.
If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the stadium extortion game over the years, it’s that 125 devoted supporters who will pack into council chambers and make lots of noise about how awful it will be if the local team leaves town can outweigh any rational thought or debate about what the team actually means to the community economically and how much should be spent (if anything) to “save” them.
Fanatical devotion to the cause (of enriching billionaire owners) appears to count for more than it should. The wishes of large numbers of run of the mill taxpayers are routinely ignored in the face of rabid support from a loud minority. Ask your local GOP representatives if this holds true in other fields….
That’s certainly true when it comes to a council meeting. How often do you attend your local city council meeting? Yeah, me too.
It might be true in a special ballot or even an off-year election where turnout is low.
The Chargers ballot measure is on the same ballot as the US Presidential election.
This tactic absolutely works at the local level, because politicians and interested parties can use astrotrufed meeting turnout, speakers, etc. to give the impression that public opinion on an issue is much different than it actually is. Guides press coverage, public statements, etc.
The Tampa (and Hillsborough County) Council (as one prominent example) over the years has often been “visited” by large numbers of Bucs fans who “convince the council” to support the Bucs.
Doesn’t mean you or anyone else needs to be a regular city council or school board meeting attender.
I believe we are violently agreeing.
However, in this case the people who will be deciding aren’t a city council. It will be all voters of the City of San Diego who choose to vote in the 2016 Presidential Election. That is a lot of people and is hard to overwhelm with a small but vocal minority.
Given the fact they need a 2/3 majority, these one is DOA.
“Most curiously, though, is the ad placement: during Padre games, Charger postgame shows, etc… Basically, preaching to the choir without understanding that you have to make a case to people who are not already likely to support the measure.”
You still gotta make sure your supporters actually vote. But I suppose it could also be a case of preparing to place the blame elsewhere if/when they lose. Make sure your supporters know how hard you’re trying, then: “Well, we really wanted to stay in San Diego, but your fellow San Diegans…”
As I mentioned before I think it implausible that there are people who say “I have no real opinion on Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump but very strong opinions on public spending on a sports arena.”
I suppose one could argue that we are each more impacted by the minutia of local issues than anything that happens in Washington but that has never translated into voter turnout. Witness your most recent school board election.
“but this is undeniably how at least some voters think”
Or piling it on, tongue in cheek. If I’m against building a stadium that costs taxpayers millions (which I am) I will use every crumb I can muster – absurd or not – to badmouth those bums.
If the Raiders won the last 10 Super Bowls, would they have a new Oakland stadium by now? Hard to say. I guess it would help the vote from those bandwagon fans.
I’ll just say it again cuz it’s more true than ever now. We sure screwed Dean over in that meeting. Based on how he’s acting I think he’s still in a daze about it all.
The “yes on C” backdrop for the postgame press conference was replaced following today’s home loss to New Orleans with a backdrop that mixed Charger lightning bolts with the Toyota logo. So, I guess, at 1-3 ownership sees more value in a sponsorship deal than they to in promoting their own ballot initiative. Kinda looks like they’re not really going 100%, now, does it?