Taxpayers Refuse To Pay New Stadium Expenses for Billionaire Sports Owners

Jackson County, Missouri, voted not to extend a sales tax that would have benefited the Chiefs and the Royals.

Taxpayers in Jackson County, Missouri, voted on Tuesday to discard a sales tax to finance stadium renovations for the Kansas City Chiefs and the construction of a new stadium for the Kansas City Royals.

Even in the face of threats by owners to leave the city if the initiative failed, voters rejected the dodgy campaign to keep the 3/8-cent sales tax, which currently goes toward maintaining the Truman Sports Complex and was slated to raise around $2 billion worth of public funds over 40 years.

The teams' efforts essentially sought to exploit fan culture in service of saving private funds. Whether any tax was needed is doubtful when considering the owner of the Chiefs, the Hunt family, is worth billions, as well as the fact that the Royals' current stadium was recently deemed to be in satisfactory condition. KC Tenants, a major tenant union that rallied against the sales tax, said that the tax would have been "among the largest transfers of public money to private corporations in our region's history."

In the past, pleas for tax support in Jackson County have worked, perhaps because they were also backed by similar threats about the sports giants leaving town. So this result is a welcome surprise. That's especially true in the context of the national debate around this issue, where taxpayers have subsidized the Tennessee Titans, the Minnesota Vikings, the Atlanta Braves, the Tampa Bay Rays, and the Buffalo Bills, and these are just in the last two years. The list goes on. 

There is a litany of reasons why voters may have rejected the proposal. The Royals' new stadium was slated to be built in the Crossroads district—a controversial pick that would have required demolishing several small businesses.

It's still a possibility that the Chiefs and Royals stay. "Hopefully everyone can take a deep breath, put all of the negative stuff behind us," said Jackson County Executive Frank White Jr., "and then come back to the table and work out a deal that's really affable for all parties involved."

But even if the county taxpayers end up voting in favor of an updated proposal, it doesn't change the questionable ethics of using fan support as a tool to pay for private expenses while the profits remain nonpublic. The Kansas City teams would do well to consider the Green Bay Packers' approach, which asks fans to voluntarily chip in—rather than trying the same taxpayer-funded strategy in a different locale.

Comments

[IceTrey]

The function of government is to defend liberty not subsidize any business.

[Brandybuck]

A professional sports team is not your ordinary business. Invariably they are member of a league. A union or guild specifically designed to limit business competition. You can't just start up a team, you have to buy one that happens to be for sale. It's like taxi medallions, but far far fewer available and far far more expensive. Which is why only billionaires seem to own them.

And they get all the government subsidies and shit. This is NOT the first team raking in tax dollars! And it's not just the big leagues, but all the smaller farm leagues. All part of the same umbrella cartel.

Fuck them, make them work for a living like the taxpayers do.

[gaoxiaen]

They could sell shares so that the people that pay benefit. Or not. Instead, billionaires go begging and get to keep everything.

[Moderation4ever]

I am glad to see the Green Bay Packers get some credit here. The Packers are publicly owned and have one of the most loyal fans bases. They play in a stadium that is named after one of the great football players and not after a corporation. To be fair the Packers sell rights to many things, gates for one. But they have over the years remained true to idea that a team has a relationship to its fans.

[JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy]

I grew up in a GB suburb. Yes, the Packers are publicly owned and have THE most loyal fan base 🙂 However, they have in the past utilized tax increases to pay for the stadium (e.g., a .5% sales tax back in the mid-to-late 90s). Back when they completely renovated the stadium (which the .5% sales tax went for) ideas were floated to get corporate sponsors for the field (i.e., take Curly's name off it) and the town went ballistic. I think adding the gates to allow for corporate sponsorship was a good middle ground. The big thing from my experience is that the team tries as much as possible to not bilk everyone for money. That helps when there isn't a billionaire owner standing behind the team. Also helps when you have such a rabid fan base that you can generate millions of dollars for renovations by having a "stock" sale.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Check out the Lilly Foundation…that’s what GB and Wisconsin could have if the Packers were sold to a billionaire. That’s $200 million a year dispensed to help Wisconsin. Marquette would be better than Notre Dame within 20 years.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Packers being publicly owned is one of the dumbest things on the planet. Wisconsin could have an endowment bigger than the Duke Endowment that could make the state a much better place and instead they are just sitting on a $6 billion fortune that generates no dividends. Guess what, the Wisconsin Badgers football team is publicly owned—big whoop!

[charliehall]

Sorry you are arithmetically challenged. The state budget is just a bit under $100 billion annually. $6 billion will spin off about $300 million annually if it is properly invested. 0.3% of the annual budget. Let the fans have their team.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You clearly have no clue what the Duke and Lilly endowments are…but if you knew what they were you would know everyone gives those foundations a lot of credit for how nice Indiana and North Carolina are.

[gaoxiaen]

Let the fans pay for their team.

[Moderation4ever]

The people of Green Bay and Wisconsin are loyal to their team. If Wisconsin did as you suggest there would be no Green Bay Packers. The team would have long ago been taken away to a larger city, likely out of Wisconsin. Look to the Raider a traveling team that moves about at the whim of the owner. I grew up with the Oakland Raider, but how many cities have the team been through.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

False. You could simply stipulate in the contract that the Packers can’t be moved. Duuuuuuuh.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The teams' efforts essentially sought to exploit fan culture in service of saving private funds.

Otherwise known as the "Trump Legal Defense Financing Strategy"

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Whew. That is a stretch. Hope you didn't pull your elbow or shoulder out with reaching to pull Trump into the discussion.

[Dillinger]

next ask him who drafted Doug Flutie first

[HorseConch]

I heard he was a blackjack dealer at Taj Mahal in the early 90's.

[I…….. Fudd]

You’re totally not a leftist………

[Jerry B.]

Washington, D.C. just agreed to pay Monumental Sports over $500 million to keep the Wizards and Capitals in D.C. instead of them moving to Virginia. The city will pay for updating their arena, exempt them from taxes supporting any other sports team, and require the city to pressure wash the sidewalks outside the arena once a month. It’s not clear whether or not all blue M&Ms must be removed from those served in the arena’s luxury suites

[A Cynical Asshole]

require the city to pressure wash the sidewalks outside the arena once a month

To wash the feces off?

It’s not clear whether or not all blue M&Ms must be removed from those served in the arena’s luxury suites

All brown M&Ms, served in a brandy glass.

[Fetterman's Hump]

San Fran might try the pressure washing idea.

[Uncle Jay]

Kudos to the Jackson County taxpayers.
Let all the rich assholes build their own stadiums.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Says the halfwit that voted for Bush in 2000 because he built an obsolete ballpark with taxpayer funds and eminent domain. Elian Gonzalez should remain with his kidnappers!! It’s my right to blow cigarette smoke in your face!! We’re gonna get rich exporting Marlboros to China!! Bush/Cheney 2000!!!

[Dillinger]

>>rather than trying the same taxpayer-funded strategy in a different locale.

"a different locale" in this instance is an entire different state

[gaoxiaen]

That would free up a lot of real estate that would actually benefit the local economy.

[LIBertrans]

There you have it. The depths of human gullibility have FINALLY been plumbed. This is truly a historic moment.

[Don't look at me!]

Not certain about that, sarc hasn’t commented yet.

[charliehall]

" questionable ethics of using fan support as a tool to pay for private expenses while the profits remain nonpublic"

It isn't questionable at all. It is absolutely immoral. But it is at the heart of Republican policies and not just for stadia. And sadly, many Democrats have adopted them. The Buffalo Bills deal was entirely by Democrats. (The MAGA idiot who ran unsuccessfully against the Democratic Governor ranted insanely about most things but only lightly criticized the Bills deal.)

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

George W Bush. Why Republicans so dumb??

[gaoxiaen]

They aren't dumb, they're corrupt. Bush got part ownership of the team. They all get a cut of the funds.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Good. I am glad that it failed. Let the owners build their own stadia.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Says someone that hasn’t followed this issue since the 1990s. My favorite is the Republican Drayton McClane who forced Houston taxpayers to build a ballpark and then used the savings to build a football stadium at his nutty religious university, Baylor.

[Aspiring Statesman]

The sports clubs are exploiting a race-to-the-bottom dynamic -- If you don't soak your tax base, then someone else will. The solution is for a larger jurisdiction (e.g. Fed-gov) to rule that *nobody* may soak local taxpayers to fund sports (or other business) venues.

BTW, a very similar race-to-the-bottom exists with ports. Up and down both coasts, all ports lose money and continue to parasitize rather local tax bases to subsidize international trade mostly benefiting well-organized (and politicized) corporations many hundreds of miles inland.

[MWAocdoc]

Cities should not be in the events stadium business in the first place. This is part and parcel of the mission creep of government at all levels. It is based on narratives that do not stand up under scrutiny or the test of time. Who could ever forget the "World Class City" meme? Why should cities compete for business facilities of any kind? If a business wants to operate in a particular city, let them as long as they pay for their own infrastructure and impact on the community - traffic, utilities, parking and environmental. If people who want to live there can't find enough jobs, let them move somewhere else where they CAN find jobs. Don't subsidize anyone's living in a particular location with welfare, low cost housing or in any other way. Tell the Feds to shove off if they don't like how you treat the poor and the unemployed.

[tlapp]

Voters against corporate welfare. Hooray!!!!

[Miss Ann Thrope (She/It)]

The teams and the government will find a way around it. Ask Washingtonians about Safeco Field.

[diver64]

This is pretty simple. The tax would cost the taxpayers roughly $100,000,000/yr. Does the team contribute more than that to the surrounding area each year in economic activity? If it does, it's a deal. If not then it is a taxpayer giveaway.