There is a common theme here. When complications arise (which may or may not have anything to do with Black folks), abridging the rights and freedoms of BLACK folks has often become the only “viable solution” in America.

The country actually began on this very premise. The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, but the Constitution was not ratified for another 13 years in large part because Northern whites and Southern whites could not resolve questions of proportional representation for states. The solution was the notorious Three Fifths Compromise. Whites deemed that slaves be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of calculating population and determining political power.

The same thing happened 100 years later with the Hayes-Tilden Compromise. Samuel Tilden (D-NY) wins the popular election over Rutherford B. Hayes (R-Oh), but cedes the presidency to Hayes. The quid pro quo is that Southern Democrats WIN the removal of union troops from the South. The result was the end of Reconstruction, the end of Black political power in the South, the rise of the Klan under the leadership of Nathan Bedford Forrest (namesake of Forrest Gump), and the rest was history.

These are just examples of states rights cases which impacted the formation of the nation.

The question of mobile capital and the rights of capital/property rights vs. the individual freedoms of Black folk has also been on display for centuries. The Dred Scott Case was one such example.

I have always maintained that Americans, by and large, are not nearly as pro-capitalist as they purport to be. Sports franchise relocation is a perfect example of what happens when the rights of capital are unfettered. Firms can negotiate with municipalities on terms that favor capital – at the expense of the municipality. If you’re a true blue, dyed in the wool, freedom-loving All-American, how can you have beef with your favorite team bouncing to another town? You sound like a real pussy. If you were ’bout it-’bout it, you’d get your CASH together like Jay-Z and bring the team to Brooklyn. The Nets new location couldn’t be any closer to the Marcy Projects if God himself planted them down.

The notion of proscribing Black rights is so easy for some people because they’re Founding Fathers did it to create and preserve the nation. My founding fathers were people like Richard Allen, Martin Delany, Harriet Tubman, and Anna Julia Cooper. We’ve been fighting tooth and nail for forty decades. I have to do what I have to do – and they have to do what they have to do…but they don’t get to also proclaim themselves “capitalists” while advocating for pathetic half-measures which miss the root of the problem. Git ya money up, byatch!

First off – I should say we have considerable points of confluence. There is considerable agreement between your most recent post and my own positions. In fact, I believe you expended considerable energy unnecessarily defending positions which I only indirectly assailed. I fundamentally disagree with your notion that players should contribute to the development of stadiums…my reasons are outlined below – and I read your posted article re: Minny.

Here is the issue in a nutshell (selected from the article):

“Missing from the discussion so far is an add-on to a Hennepin County sales tax, which the Legislature passed last year enabling construction of a new baseball stadium, leaving in its wake an opposition miffed because voters were denied a referendum on the tax.”

The citizens of a county or state are REMOVED from the process of determining municipal expenditures and concessions. This is no different than what happened when Modell left Cleveland or when George S. decided he needed a new park. That is the primary and irreducible point in all of this.

Players are labor and their contracts are owned by private individuals or corporations owning franchises. My strident opposition to your comments above was entirely about the notion of players contributing their salaries to the construction of stadiums. In what would simply amount to an appropriation of funds from labor, your preposterous idea has to be soundly deconstructed for you to see your folly.

If your beef is with greedy owners, man up and don’t be a byatch about taking money from players whose PERFORMANCE has generated the added revenues across the league through the television contracts. Not a single new television deal has been struck because an owner negotiated a new stadium or decided to change uniforms or invested in a fancy new water cooler or training table. Not one. The added revenues which accrue to professional sports has resulted from the increasing attractiveness of the game to American and international AUDIENCES with an insatiable appetite for GAMES and MERCHANDISE. With all your financial and business knowledge, none of this is part of your critique of where the league now sits. It’s curious, but not surprising. This is germane and critical to my objection raised above.

Labor productivity has generated increased profits – and your solution is to TAX LABOR. Who are you? Are you OUT of your mind? Seriously…what’s up?? Should your delusional paradigm be extended to all labor – like hot dog vendors and parking lot attendants? Should they give back a few pennies to make sure there are enough slots in Parking Section 234388A? Players are NOT owners. Players DO NOT negotiate deals with municipalities…they do not negotiate television deals with networks or team merchandising deals. Owners require stadiums in the same way that new tech firms require office space…are you seriously suggesting that Silicon Valley go into give back mode so folks can pay rent?

The issue is the PROCESS by which owners negotiate PUBLIC SPACE with ELECTED OFFICIALS entrusted with protecting the PUBLIC GOOD. This is not a money problem. This is a process problem. If the owners cannot afford to negotiate solid, good faith deals with municipalities they should either move or sell the damn franchise. If the elected officials betray the public trust and negotiate a deal which robs the city/county/state of its ability to build bridges or schools, they should go to jail.

From where I sit, your economic analysis misses the point because it assumes that the amounts of capital held by owners is not relevant. The conversation BEGINS and ENDS with how much capital the OWNER has – it’s where the NFL begins its conversation with potential owners….”How much $$$ do you have??”

Municipalities which hinge their futures on professional sports franchises are playing a dangerous game. It is not a fundamentally sound practice and each time they engage in this practice, they forego opportunities to develop organic viable enterprises that could lead to a more comprehensive resurrection of blighted communities. (I believe you agree with this point.) NFL teams certainly provide jobs – but the best of those jobs seldom if ever go the neediest residents of any given community…

And you, you, you want to take money from the players – a group who, as a class, come from the poooooorest elements of this society. Not a chance!

———————

I assume you live in the Midwest. I certainly recognize that this phenomenon of team relocation has hit the midwest hardest. Chicago does not have to worry about this – but Cleveland did – and Cincinnati could and Minnesota might. Everyone wants to be in Miami or Las Vegas. The solution, however, to a strong league is not to siphon INFRASTRUCTURE dollars from labor. Can you imagine that balance sheet at the end of the year. You’d get laughed off the street. The solution today is what it was when American politicians allowed the export of the national manufacturing base – put those bastards in jail. This is a suckers bet and the only winners will be the league that wants to do the same thing to you that manufacturers did to your grandparents and parents…

That’s why you had to go to school to study finance in the first place – so your ass could get a job in something other than manufacturing…and that’s why you’re Indyfan because you love your roots and you’re pissed about what has happened, but it’s too late. The good news is that it’s not your fault. The bad news is that it’s not the players’ fault either – and you can’t have their money.

http://www.startribune.com/113/story/1368806.html

You wrote:
“You simply don’t understand the economics of how this works.”

Could you possibly be any more presumptuous, arrogant, and condescending? Judging by your previous posts to others, I think it is a specialty of yours. Please don’t play that nonsense with me and please don’t explain to me what I do understand and don’t understand. I have plenty of formal economics and finance education, so I think I understand the economic part of this issue quite well.

In addition, I don’t know where you come off stating that I don’t like facts. Temple, exactly what alleged facts of yours are you very arrogantly and presumptiously claiming that I do not like? Are you claiming that it is not a fact that taxpayers fund the hundred million dollar stadiums of a billion dollar industry called the “NFL?” Is it not an economic FACT that if a company has less profits, then it will have less money to pay its employees? Is it not a fact that in the real world, the public does not pay for a private company’s $300 Million building?

Sure there are examples of tax abatements and other incentives that cities, counties, and states offer large companies in order for those companies to locate their manufacturing plants in their state… but that is often in return for hundreds if not thousands of good-paying jobs.

T3, with your vast economic knowledge, pray tell how many good-paying jobs a $300 Million NFL stadium brings to a community. I’m sure the number of high-paying jobs are commensurate with the amount of money the community spends, right? I mean, that $300 Million couldn’t be used for other important public endeavors or as an incentive or abatement to lure other large US or foreign companies to locate there and create jobs.

Hey T3, did you ever think that $300 Million might be better used to fund many cities’ crumbling infrastructure… instead of building stadiums for a for-profit league that can already easily afford them? Hey T3, since you enjoy facts so much, how about the recent Minnesota bridge collapse? Do you think that the city and state might have more money for infrastructure if it didn’t squander so much of it on professional sports stadiums for the ultra-rich? Did you know that the Minnesota Vikings were demanding a new stadium from the local city… but are delaying deferring their demands due to that “little infrastructure incident” where 12 people lost their lives and the nearby community lost a major brige that provided access to local residents’ jobs. I’m sure you were to busy being offended by me having the “audacity” to question an athletes right to an $80 Million contract to read this article about the quandary in Minnesota:

The thorny ethical issue confronting you and many thousands of your fellow fans is how the state can finance even part of a new stadium when, as this newspaper’s editorial page pointed out after the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge, “There can be no doubt that today, the adequacy and safety of the rest of the state’s roads and bridges is Minnesota’s No. 1 public policy concern.”

The article went on to say:

Less than a week before the disaster, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf told Star Tribune reporter Kevin Seifert, in response to a question of whether he saw any roadblocks to the proposed $929 million stadium project: “All I can tell you is that it’s very, very important as we see the cost of materials going up that we make sure we get this done as quickly as possible.”

T3, in a state with so many deficient bridges, and defacto public safety issues, don’t you find something wrong with the fact that the NFL with all of its money would be asking the Minnesota taxpayers to build one of its franchises a stadium priced at almost $1 Billion???? And we all know about cost overruns… who knows what the final taxpayer tab would be. Oh T3, did you also realize that the Minnesota Vikings were “nice” enough to leave out the retractrable roof, which was estimated to add another $225 million to the almost $1 Billion price tag? Nice of them, don’t you think?

Oh, and since you don’t believe that I base my comments in facts, maybe you should read this, too:

There also is concern that the public is beginning to arch its eyebrows about support for professional sports facilities. The last test was in November, when Seattle voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 91, prohibiting the city from using tax dollars to subsidize a professional team unless the subsidy generates a certain amount of profit for the city. The Seattle Supersonics basketball team has threatened to move to Oklahoma City unless a new arena is built.

“Overwhelmingly passed Initiative 91,” T3. The public is “overwhelmingly” telling these franchises that they and their respective communities have more pressing needs than building half-a-billion to a billion dollar facility for private sports franchises that can afford to pay their “employees” $10 million a year, and operate in in league that made over $6 Billion in revenue in 2005.

The NFL is a defacto monopoly, and as such is not subject to the normal push and pull of normal market supply and demand. By the NFL not satisfying the demand for professional football teams, it has created an environment where an industry with over $6 Billion in revenues can threaten to leave a community that won’t cave to its demand to build a $1 Billion stadium. The sad reality is that some other city will be salivating at the chance to spend a billion or more to secure its own NFL franchise.

Finally, T3, let me address your claim that players help pay for stadiums — in your opinion — is “really laughable shit.”

Now when did I ever offer specifics about non-guaranteed contracts? Just because I suggested an excise/luxury tax on professional athletes that would be initiated by the athletes’ respective league (NFL taxes its players, the NBA taxes its players, the NHL taxes its players) doesn’t mean that I suggested that players be taxed on every single aspect of their contract. Non-guaranteed signing bonuses could be pro-rated for taxation, and if the player is forced to give something back (like in the Vick case), then the tax can be refunded by the league. That said, the league could choose to only tax the salary portion of the contract and not the bonus. So what if the damn contract isn’t guaranteed? What does that really have to do with the idea that the players need these stadiums or THEY DON’T HAVE A JOB? T3, you can consider it something akin to a union due. I think a good formula would be the ownership contributes 80% of cost and players kick in 20% from this “excise tax.” Or, T3, are you more comfortable with the guy making $5.75 at Wendy’s paying an extra 1% in sales tax plus a number of other “hidden taxes” for this stadium? Is it so offensive to think that someone so rich might be expected to shoulder some of the burden of a $1 Billion dollar stadium (I was using $300 Million as an example, but it appears prices have gone up on stadiums)? The truth is, T3, who really cares if the owners pay 100% for the stadiums and the players don’t contribute anything… the point is that if the sports franchises had to pay for their own stadiums then there would be less money to pay the athletes. In addition to that T3, I think if the owners and players had to pay for their own stadiums, the alleged life expectancy of a new stadium would probably increase by a couple decades.

BTW, T3, do you even want to get into the issue of what sports teams consider “paying” for their share? You are aware that some cities actually consider increased tax revenue as payment for the team’s share of the stadium… even though it’s only a “guesstimate” as to how much a new stadium is responsible for increased revenue. You probably don’t want to discuss that.

Seriously, players should pay for some shit they don’t own, just because that’s where they go to work and make money?

That is just dumb. No other employee in America pays the rent on the building where they work, nobody.

And players drive up the cost of doing business? Uh no. As another poster noted, the overall salary cap is a percentage of league revenue. So if league revenue falls, player salaries fall. The simple fact is that newer stadiums offer more money-making opportunities for NFL owners so they can have larger profits. And since the contribute to politicians, those politicians build them more stadiums.

To blame players for the construction of stadiums is an amazing distortion of reality. Wow, it’s the player’s fault that the politicians and owners decided to build something to make them money? That’s just amazing.

You simply don’t understand the economics of how this works. I can’t break it down for you, but you’re so far off with your assessment and your prescriptions that its a wonder you can find your way to work in the morning. Pardon the hyperbole, but you’ve simply got to do the research on this one.

I know that you and Boney and Elliott don’t like facts and shit like that, so I’ll spare you.

The very idea of suggesting that players pay for stadiums they don’t own – using payments from non-guaranteed contracts…that’s some really laughable shit. Git it together.

I’m not arguing with the point that the owners are greedy… I said exactly that in my posting. To suggest that I am leaving owners off the hook would be completely misleading about my point. My point was that the NFL, the owners, AND the Players Association are guilty of bilking the public out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Please follow me here… I’m not per se complaining about players’ salaries being too large as compared to the average per capita income of an American citizen. I am coplaining that the players and fans should realize that the players have some culpability to, as there is NO DOUBT that the largest expense in the NFL is players’ salaries. Listen, my argument is that the owners SHOULD PAY for the stadium that each of their respective teams play in, but the amortization of a $300 Million stadium will seriously cut into NFL team profits.

Again, the argument is that if the owners WOULD pay for their own stadiums, then there would be less money for $80 Million player contracts (like Nate Clements’). If the NFL salary cap is determined by overall league profits (and not just revenues) then players salaries would have to reflect the additional team expense of financing their own stadium.

As I pointed out previously, only a small percentage of fans have the financial resources to afford NFL or NBA season tickets… and or those few, even fewer have season tickets that are even available (some popular teams may have decade long waiting lists for season tickets). So why should I (just as a taxpayer in general) have to pay and finance Nate Clements stadium (his workplace)? He’s making $10 Million a year, so why doesn’t the NFL do something like charging an excise tax on players’ salaries in order to build a “stadium fund.” The average NFL player certainly has more than adequate financial resources to contribute to such a fund… and we all no that without the stadiums that the players wouldn’t have a way to make those fat contracts. No stadiums = no owners = no teams = no $80 Million player contracts. I’m a football fan, but as far as I’m concerned, those rich owners and players can fund their own damn stadiums or just shove the entire sport up their collective asses. If it was up to me, there would be NO public financing of professional sports teams… then we’d see the true “market adjusted” wage for a professional athlete.

How bout Tiger this dude never says anything in the media then has the nerve to talk about MV being contrite. If I hear that word one more time I’m going to scream. There is nothing honest about this country and I’m tired of people acting like they have never told a lie.

I would add, too, that you have it backwards – it is not players’ salaries that drive owners desire for a new stadium. It’s owners’ desire to make evermore profit. You’re right that the NFL is a near-legal monopoly – I said that in the piece. But, the idea that the owners are reacting to players’ salaries is simply wrong and the NFL salary cap makes that obvious. Players’ salaries, in the aggregate, are directly tied to the league’s revenues. I almost never hear anyone actually “defend” the money players make. My point is that SO much more time is spent complaining about players’ salaries than owners’ profits, despite the enormity of the latter. This idea that players are greedy while owners are just trying to cover costs is exactly what’s wrong with sports journalism – it fails to grasp the true situation. And, as Sweet Jones says, in the comment above, the owners would sell if owning a team weren’t such a lucrative proposition.

You do realize these owners always have the option of simply selling these money-hemorrhaging franchises, no?

Come on man, let’s get real here. Why do the owners constantly need bigger stadiums and more money? Yes, they’re greedy, but that’s not the only reason. In order for a small market team to compete with a large market team (I understand that salary caps exist, but there are additional factors), the small market team demands a stadium commensurate with the large market team.

As players’ salaries go up, owners expenses go up, and owners demand more revenues to pay these players. If your local teachers’ union goes on strike and demands higher pay, then chances are your school taxes may be going up next year. The same logic exists in professional sports. The problem with sports is that the salaries of professional athletes (like the salaries of CEOs) is far outstripping the rate of inflation. How do you argue against this logic… cost of labor goes through the roof and somebody’s got to pay. How much more will ticketholders pay???? Will ticketholders pay the true cost of professional athlete wage inflation?… I doubt it.

If ticketholders had to bear the full brunt of increased labor costs, then the price of a seat at an NFL game might be $500. Think about it Allen… if the public refused to pay for these damn $300 Million + stadiums, then who would pay for them???? Would ticketholders be willing to pay $500 for a regular season NFL game? Would you?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not simply blaming the players for getting every last cent they can get their greedy hands on. I’m saying that the system is rigged. The NFL (for example) is a monopoly. If your city doesn’t give its respective franchise everything it wants… then the respective franchise leaves town. In a free market system, professional sports franchises would likely be much less brazen.

Allen, listen, my argument is fairly simple: if the NFL was not a monopoly, and taxpayers did not publicly finance $300 million stadiums, then there would be greater expenses and less income to pay players’ salaries. If the NFL privately financed its own stadiums (and we all know it has more than enough money to do so), then I couldn’t care less about how much Peyton Manning, Nate Clements, or Calvin Johnson make (it would be closer to true supply and demand economics). Hell, pay JaMarcus Russell $100 million a year for all I care… but don’t ask me to pay a higher sales taxe rate to fund JaMarcus Russell’s workplace. If the Oakland Raiders can afford to pay JaMarcus Russell $100 million a year AND afford to privately fund the team’s own stadium, then I won’t care much about players’ salaries. But when I — the lowly taxpayer who rarely ever attends live sports events — is asked to fund new stadiums due to increased costs (i.e., exponential labor costs), then I have every right to be upset about the outrageous amount of money professional athletes make.

We’ve got another pooch now — a pain-in-the-butt, pig-in-a-dog-suit Cocker named Oskie. And even though he’s been known to sneak on top of the Thanksgiving dinner table for a slice of just-carved turkey, I can’t imagine a day without him.”

That Wojo’s a crazy bastard.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2977604

I’ve never heard anyone connect player salaries to stadiums since most people understand that the stadiums are owned and managed by the owners of the teams, who EMPLOY the players to perform in said venues. If you have a problem with stadiums you should take it up with owners and politicos, not with players.

There salaries have nothing to do with new stadiums. In fact new stadiums are built so owners can make even more money despite having to pay players their market value.

My answer is “yes.” Let me explain. I heard the market system used as a defense for their inflated contracts; while I agree with the market system, I don’t agree that the NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL are true market systems.

First of all, all of us living in a city that is “lucky” enough to house one of these elite sports franchises has been saddled with the cost of paying for their playground. The city that I live in was recently extorted into for two brand new stadiums and the city has agreed to yet another one. This is tax payer money paying for these playgrounds for the “rich and spoiled.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the owners get a free ride on this issue by any means. I’m just saying that before anyone starts belly-aching and telling ME how much Nate Clements deserve $80 Million over 8 years — you better tell me why I have to pay for his damn stadium (I say “pay” rhetorically, because I don’t live in SF). If it was me making the decisions, it would be the owners and players that pay 100% for their own damn stadiums and not the average taxpayer. A stadium may hold 60,000 – 70,000 fans, but millions have to pay extra in increased sales taxes and other hidden taxes in order to fund these monstrosities.

Some may say — well it’s the cities fault for funding the stadiums and not the NFL (for example) or the players. Yes, I’d agree to a point — BUT — you all know that the NFL, NHL, and NBA limit the amount of product (sports teams) in a monopolistic fashion so there are ALWAYS more cities that want these professional teams than there are teams to go around. Henceforth the rich owner ethos of — give me that $300 Million stadium or your city can find a new franchise (and good luck renting out that large “60K seat building with no roof,” because we won’t be needing it anymore.

I think the public should not be in the practice of funding private sports stadiums. Are you telling me the F’n NFL can’t afford to build its own damn stadiums? Of course you’re not… because the NFL has boatloads of money. But why pay for your own home when someone else will build it for you? Such is the mindset of the professional sports franchises. Local governments will tell you that they must cut this program and that program because the govt. “can’t afford it,” but when it comes to writing a check for major sports teams… that cramp in the govt.’s right hand all of the sudden disappears.

So I say to you that call the NFL and the NFL Player’s Assoc. a “free market,” give me a break. I don’t think Nate Clements would be making $80 Million if the 49ers and the NFL had to pay for Candlestick/Monster Park, I don’t think Clements would be getting $10 Million a year. So if the true owners of Candlestick Park/ Monster Park (the SF taxpayers) ever hear Nate Clements utter the words “not in my house”… they ought to send him an eviction notice, because it’s truly NOT HIS HOUSE. Clements is merely a wealthy squatter… the people of SF and all the other cities with franchises across this country paid for that “house.”

All I have heard from white people like you on Blogs like ESPN AJC and other mainstream media is nice little gems of white racist poetry like…..

1) Take that nigger’s money and send him back to the projects
2) Lynch Vick
3) He should give all his NFL money to PETA and the ALF
4) He’s a thug with his braids and baggy pants

Well maybe if he was more like Tim Duncan and Tiger ‘calabasian’ Woods white folks might like him, But althletes are entertainers and when Vick along with his Falcons teamates helped sell out the Georgia Dome I consider that a debt repaid.Now will any of you defenders of Vick’s emaculation condemn the white majority for their racist attitudes over the past month and a half? If anything African- Americans were more fair – minded and witheld judgment unlike whites in america who should their blatant hatred for African- Americans through the lens of Vick and dogfighting.

There is no limit to the money that Tom Cruise can make simply by agreeing to play a role in a movie. There is, however, a limit that has been set by the Union and the League saying that teams can only pay so much to their “athletes” in order to keep competitive balance.

Maybe you should write a letter to the Player’s Association and voice your concerns over guaranteed contracts. I mean, the last time I checked, the head of the player’s union right now is Black. There isn’t a “good ol’ boy” running that show over there is there? Sure, the owners may not initially see eye to eye on it, but the NFLPA has to sign off on it as part of a CBA don’t they?

Vick should be able to keep the money already given to him, but until we see some language that was written on a document he signed, we’ll have to assume the worst… which it looks like you’ve already got a good start on it.

That’s why I am for Jamarus Russell or any NFL player getting as much from these billionare NFL jerkoffs as possible Vick earned his money on NFL fields and should keep his money because he earned it on the field so the Falcons ain’t entiled to nothing but a ‘Coke and a Smile’.

Thank goodness we don’t have horrible ones here in DC that have their own radio shows..

I get my good ole boy radio stations mixed up.

My fault Sh%$ is Sh^% no matter where you live.

The MFers complained about Pippen during both runs. The Mfers B%$&@ed about how neal anderson lost a step and was scared of contact. They B&^$#ed about how ditka was an idiot and had no respect from the media. Later the media ran him out of chicago.

Idiots like mariotti during the bulls first run talked about how we should trade jordan for alonzo mourning and kendell Gill. Since Jordan was getting to 30 years old.

The sports media in chicago have always been a bunch of bitter white men as you call them.

I witness this for over 20 years. The only difference is that there are more sports talk shows not just the ticket. Now marriotti B%$@& @ss is on TV and now they have tons of websites to spew the ignorance. Nothing has changed in chicago…….its just easier to gain access to this ignorance.