Some weeks, when all the work of this website feels like an endless repetition of the same stories over and over and over again, I try to remind myself that while the general shape of the stadium swindle has remained the same over the last 30 years — boy meets stadium dream, boy uses standard playbook to demand that someone else to pay for stadium dream, elected officials cough up the dough to boy — there have been some discoveries and innovations along the way: The Casino Night Fallacy. The grift that keeps on giving. The kitchen sink gambit. Reusable entourage. Sure, it would be nice for whatever showrunner is in charge of this accursed timeline to quit reusing the same plotlines — helicopter registration fraud was a surprise season-ending twist, but that was three years ago already — but if nothing else we’re getting a deeper understanding of the intricacies of how sports billionaires funnel taxpayer money into their own pockets, and who can put a price on that? Other than the literal price of “billions of dollars of tax money a year,” obviously, but enlightenment doesn’t come cheap.
Also, no one has taken away our god-given right to point and laugh (yet), so may as well enjoy it. And on that note, here’s some fresh meat for your inner Nelson Muntz:
- San Antonio’s KSAT-TV asked Spurs owner Peter Holt why he can’t just pay for his own arena his damn self, and Holt said “it’s a great question” and San Antonio’s small market size has “pushed us to be scrappy” and “the underdog” and “we want to continue [our] partnership with the county and the city” and the arena project will use “visitor taxes that have no impact on our local citizens” and “there’s no extra fees.” That’s neither really an answer nor exactly true, but Holt is already off and not-answering whether the team would potentially move without a new arena: “You know, we’re not focused on this election not passing. I mean, I think our belief has always been, whether it’s on the court or off the court, we have excellence and we have winning in our DNA. And so we’re confident and optimistic that this will pass, and that’s our plan.” It’s easy to be confident when you’re spending $2 million on ad campaigns to convince voters to go your way, but just in case, may as well employ the “You don’t want to find out what’ll happen if you make Dad mad” strategy as well.
- The Clark County Commission officially approved the Athletics‘ ballpark development agreement for Las Vegas(ish), which is mostly notable because it allows A’s owner John Fisher to finally tap into $380 million in public funds that was approved way back in June 2023. Or at least Fisher can get the money once he sets a guaranteed maximum price for the stadium and spend $100 million out of his own pocket first, maybe that’s what all the concrete pillars are about? Would Fisher really shell out $100 million of his own money in order to get $380 million in public money in hopes all that will somehow unlock another $1 billion or so of somebody else’s money? He’s done dumber things before, don’t put it past him!
- Interim Jackson County Executive Kay Barnes says she doesn’t see herself as “taking on any kind of strong initiative” on major issues during her short time back in office, but that’s not stopping her from saying she wants to see stadium projects for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals move forward, she’s not made of stone, people.
- The St. Petersburg city council is looking at ending the city’s Community Redevelopment Area (i.e., a TIF that kicks back property taxes to developers) for the Historic Gas Plant District now that the Tampa Bay Rays aren’t using it for a stadium development, probably. “I was very hesitant to do this,” said council chair Copley Gerdes. “More and more, I’m becoming open to it.” What’s next, hugging?
- A couple of big-market MLB teams might be showing openness to increased revenue sharing to make MLB TV deals more like the NFL’s, which would reduce budget disparities between rich and even-richer teams but also make it easier for teams to threaten to move from big markets to smaller ones like in the NFL. Color me skeptical — big-market team owners have never willingly given up revenue before, and this could all just be openness to new kinds of TV deals while still trying to preserve the biggest slice for themselves, but we’ll see where things go once negotiations for the next collective bargaining agreement begin in earnest after next season.
- Yes, the latest owner of the Ottawa Senators is still hoping to build a new arena at LeBreton Flats and still hoping for a taxpayer “investment” to help him along, let’s all check back in another decade or so and see if anything has changed.
- Camden Yards’ public owners won’t get any money from the Los Angeles Rams renting out the stadium for practice before their game in London, just like they didn’t get any money when Paul McCartney played there, who needs money when you have a pro baseball team whose owner wants money more than you do?
Yes those scrappy little San Antonio Spurs. Spare me.
I would argue that our man Pete is 6/7ths of the way to (s)crappy already.
As with Failson Fisher, maybe waiting your whole life to inherit a plaything to “run” does something to one’s psyche. I’ll never know, I guess….
“…this could all just be openness to new kinds of TV deals while still trying to preserve the biggest slice for themselves…”
Yup, that.
There are so many ways the future of MLB and “TV” (or something that resembles it’s position right now) could go and it is impossible to predict which one it will be.
That said, the top 8 or 10 MLB clubs could easily stomach sharing a few dollars with the rest of the group if, in exchange, they get to keep 5, 10 or 20 times as much for themselves. They can even call it charity (and some have!) and graciously allow as how it is their ‘obligation’ to ‘support the game’ no matter the personal cost.
The game hasn’t changed regardless of which sport the business is in. The rich teams can’t only play among themselves (and if they did, some would end up with crappy records…) so they pay smaller markets to be patsies.
It doesn’t really matter if the St. Louis Browns can’t pay back a bank loan and have to sell off their two best players to the Yankees to cover it or whether “everyone” is making money but the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs and Dodgers (et al) are making the most so they just vacuum up all the best players in free agency.
Sure, every couple of decades a scrappy group of young players might make it to the World Series and put the system at risk… but don’t worry, within a couple of seasons those players will be free agents or arbitration eligible and the rich teams can just price them out of 23 or 24 team’s range and the natural god given order of things will be restored. Even if the star players don’t bring a championship to the richer club or just sit on the bench and collect their wages, the important thing is that the smaller market team no longer has them. Everyone wins!!!
Re: MLB revenue sharing
Yay, reduce the revenue disparity by shoveling more into coffers of Marlins/Orioles/Pirates so they have even less incentive to try.
On somewhat related note, odd that NFL, NBA, NHL have salary caps, fewer work stoppages, and greater parity. I suppose issue of what counts as revenue may be harder to ascertain in baseball, and its union has always been more powerful than NFL, which has weakest union (partly due to massive rosters).
Partly due to massive rosters, also heavily affected by the extremely short average career length and non-guaranteed contracts.
It’s a different animal than the other three leagues just for those reasons.
I agree on the “Less incentive to try” comment. That said, however, the disparity in revenues has reached the point where even if the smaller market teams spent every dime of RS money and then some on free agents, they still wouldn’t be able to get to a payroll consistent with the $250-300m big spenders.
I’m not giving the thumbs up to farming the subsidy (far from it), but if you are $150m away from being competitive on payroll and get $60-80m in revenue sharing/competitive balance payments, really where are you?
$60-80m in MLB payroll can pay two elite players and maybe (if you are careful) one mid range free agent. It’s tempting to think of the “other” leagues as having a better system… but baseball still has the highest average paid athletes (as always, because of roster size the NBA has a few highly paid outliers…). No salary cap may not be working for the fans, but it seems to be working for the players from where I sit.
Peter Holt is subtly but not-so-subtly telling the people of San Antonio, “you and your city are nothing without my team, and you might learn that the hard way if the vote doesn’t go my way.”
That the Spurs departure from San Antonio (such as it were) wouldn’t actually lead to the city collapsing on itself, either spiritually or financially, is way beside the point.
A’s ownership, that includes Billy Beane folks , had their intentions laid bear in that link. Intentional tanking creates disinterest, weeds out the crowds, & paving a way to exit. Not quite a gotterdammerung, more like a host of a party snuffing out candles, and switching DJs to play really bad music. The message is ‘it’s my party and i say it’s over’.
Well Sir, we won’t be coming back for the next soiree, no matter how many bobbleheads offered to us.
“Would Fisher really shell out $100 million of his own money in order to get $380 million in public money in hopes all that will somehow unlock another $1 billion or so of somebody else’s money?” — No, but he might borrow $100 million (from MLB, maybe?) to do that.
Regardless, the bottom line is that Fisher will put up as little of his own money as possible. If MLB and Nevada want the A’s to be there, then between them they will find the money for a new ballpark, and if they don’t want the A’s there badly enough, then the A’s will either stay in Sacramento (maybe with Ranadive as principal owner) or eventually move elsewhere.
I thought this was an interesting take on villa fans being priced out of the new stadium.
https://youtu.be/aAC_y6lOQKE?si=D739MTS5_QZPG5jb
*bills
Good thing Holt Jr. inherited the team or he’d be the scrappiest guy at the Amazon warehouse with his buddies Beavis and Butthead.