Richard Sherman: Make billionaires pay for their own stadiums

Getty Images

A major part of the NFL’s business model is getting taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new stadiums. One of the NFL’s best players thinks it’s time for that practice to stop.

Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman said on 710 ESPN in Seattle that if he had his way, the billionaires who own NFL teams would foot the bill for the stadiums.

“I’d stop spending billions of taxpayer dollars on stadiums . . . maybe make the billionaires who actually benefit from the stadiums pay for them. That kind of seems like a system that would work for me,” Sherman said, via

It’s an argument that citizens and public officials in many NFL cities agree with, and yet the NFL has managed to find many municipalities willing to finance its stadiums. And more cities, most recently Las Vegas, are saying they’re open to giving taxpayer funds to the NFL. As long as those cities keep offering their money, the NFL will keep accepting.

118 responses to “Richard Sherman: Make billionaires pay for their own stadiums

  1. People don’t get what they deserve; they get what they can negotiate. That’s life.

  2. This seems so stinkin’ obvious to me. I’ve said that for years, but hey – I’m just a tax paying fan.
    Who is not controversial.
    Who is not a cornerback.
    But I’m glad he said it.

  3. Maybe Im wrong but Im under the impression that a city funded stadium/arena can be used for any city venue and some of those fees go toward the city cap and gets earmarked for public planning type of events/construction and/or road repair/snow removal?

    If that is the case then I think Sherman may be selling out a key detail that would make it an agreeable tax on the city residents.

  4. I think there’s sense in that. It’s just that when such stadiums put Joe Robbie into debt before he passed on, the seat quantity and thus the stadium size could have been smaller to make the NFL game the hottest ticket in town.

    Now, no one wants to spend on tickets. Frankly, if the NFL and Roger Goodell stopped this bullying influence on seat capacity for Super Bowls, which don’t even take place every four years now, and let or guide teams to make stadiums more intimate, there would be no taxpayer push involved.

    Stadiums need to go with the movie theater movement, less is more. Stadiums are fine with 50,000 seats. Keep them like that and we can see less money wasted to make everyone feel better.

  5. He is right…but it is much easier for him to say that when your boss is one of the richest men on the planet.

  6. A billion percent correct, and hopefully taxpayers have caught onto this scheme. Stadiums don’t benefit any community in proportion to what it benefits the NFL and its owners. It’s a crime how the NFL fleeces local taxpayers on property taxes alone.

  7. I agree with Sherman, but this is like any welfare. Generally, if a person knows he can get something from somewhere for free, he isn’t going to pay for it.
    These owners know that some city will give them tax money.

  8. “this guy obviously doesn’t understand economics.”

    You obviously don’t understand context. He was asked if he had his way–i.e., in his ideal world. Clearly, we do not live in an ideal world. His statement has nothing to do with his understanding of economics.

  9. The bubble will burst eventually. But it won’t until the owners threatening to move their teams are met by the next city whose taxpayers refuse to agree to fund the building of a new stadium in their town. And so on, until the owners have to put up at least 50% of their own money, if not all of it; which rarely ever happens.

  10. In addition to paying for the stadiums they make so much money from, the billionaire NFL owners should pay Social Security tax on all their income, too, because that would fund SS for the rest of us 99% for decades. Hell, then we might even be able to afford a hot dog and beer at a game once in a while.

  11. Been saying that for years! All that money should go towards our schools and roads!

  12. It’s never going to happen, cities with nfl teams are not willing to let them walk and build elsewhere. The nfl has all the leverage right now.

  13. Its disgusting. No city should give the league 1 penny for a stadium. Let the scumbag billionaires pay for their own buildings.

  14. This is true for all big businesses, Toyota is building a huge new Corp location in Plano, why? Because they got over $150 million in tax breaks to do so. Without that they would have built elsewhere. That’s how big business including sports frachises works.

  15. The stadium Sherman plays in was partially paid for by Paul Allen: $130M+cost overruns. And this was right after he paid for the team.

    Of the remaining $300M, 34% came from lottery sales (owners loosened up a bit about gambling).

    The league office didn’t hand them any money for a new stadium, though. They didn’t have much respect for South Alaska after that whole Ken Behring debacle. Still don’t, really.

  16. I agree that the owners still have the leverage. Reason why is that even though a city like Oakland may have the willingness to say “No” to a handout, there are plenty of other cities (Las Vegas, San Antonio) who are willing to hand out their taxpayers’ cash like it’s their own.

    This happens all the time when cities and towns in smaller red states try to attract big box stores, and it has never stopped. I don’t see the NFL discouraging this practice.

  17. The late Mr Cooke bought his own in the 90’s. It makes sense but the flip side is that the city is making money off of leasing the stadium. Also, as another poster pointed out they can get more revenue by renting it out for other events such as concerts. It’s short sighted to say just build your own. The city risks losing all those millionaires taxable income and stadium generated revenue.

  18. There’s a reason these cities/states pay the millions they do when it comes to helping a team build a new stadium, and it’s the same reason Nike pays Lebron James millions just to wear their clothes – It’s because they know they’re going to get that money back AND THEN SOME.

    So it’s not fair to make the team owner pay for the entire thing when he’s by far not the only one who will be benefitting from it.

  19. I understand his argument but football only brings people to the stadium 8 times a year plus pre and maybe post-season. Stadiums are used for other events. All together it helps tourism which helps taxes. On top of that, don’t the players/staff/owners pay state taxes on their income?

  20. Keep in mind that cities do this for all kinds of businesses and they do it because it ultimately brings more money into the local economy through payroll taxes. Additionally it creates even more jobs. I lived in Cincinnati when they had a measure on the ballot to fund the two new stadiums. It added a 1/2% sales tax. Most people were OK with that until they realized the cost was way over what they were pushing. Additionally, Mike Brown held the city hostage and he has a sweetheart deal that fleeces the taxpayers. I don’t have a real problem with taxpayers passing a measure to fund a new stadium. I do have a problem with the owners holding a city hostage.

  21. this guy obviously doesn’t understand economics.

    All one has to do is look to the European soccer leagues to see how owners having to pay their own way has crippled these countries. /s

    I always find it highly amusing that the richest league in the world’s richest country can only support 32 professional football teams, even with tax payer benefits, while England can support hundreds of teams at varying professional levels.

    Hell, in Europe you could start your own club, run it properly, rise through the ranks and possibly make it to the top leagues. Here, the good old boys club has sport set up in a way in which they get welfare and don’t ever have to worry about competition. Don’t you think the Browns would try to be competitive if they knew that they would be relegated, losing TV revenue, I’d they did not perform.

  22. Says the guy who capitalizes in terms of millions of dollars from said billionaires. The desire of locals to have a professional sports franchise outstrips their desire for infrastructure repair, schools and environmental concerns. Prestige and private economics drive the capitulation. If people honestly had a real issue with it, they wouldn’t do it. In the end, they forget about their small tax increase and buy a jersey which in turn pays a guy like Richard Sherman a portion of his generous salary.

  23. And while they are at it no additional $4/ticket tax and $2/parking spot tax. Also since the owner owns the stadium, they get all revenue from other events.

  24. I think that the city should own a portion of the team if tax dollars are used to fund stadiums. If the team moves, the city will still see revenue it.

  25. Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette Stadium. That seems to worked out pretty well for him and the team.

    Basically, it’s about whether the owner wants to invest in the area and in other events as well. Kraft built the stadium, so he gets all the benefits from other events there, such as concerts, etc. He also owns a soccer team that can use the stadium. He built up the area around the stadium to make it a destination more than 8 Sundays a year. That includes the ability to expand Patriots facilities connected to the stadium, etc.

    Contrast that with 100% publicly financed stadiums, where the owners basically get a place to play, and the owners are dependent on the city/county/whatever paying for upgrades (see St Louis, San Diego, and Oakland).

  26. Richard Sherman the millionaire populist/Stanford Communications Major saying something he knows everybody will agree with. Next. He may be a blow-hard, but clearly a highly intelligent blow-hard.

  27. Easy for Sherman to slam the owners and say they should foot the bill for the stadiums because they make millions off of them. But how about players like Sherman helping to foot the bill? They make millions, too.
    So put your money where your big mouth is Sherman and stand up and say you’ll donate about $500,000 or so to a new stadium.

  28. Well let’s see. Parties involved: politicians, NFL front office and NFL owners. Who do you trust the most? My guess is none of the above. Therefore taxpayers, hold onto your wallets.

  29. I agree. And millionaire football players should pay for their own equipment.

  30. I agree with you Richard, oh and the players should all agree to take a 20% cut in pay to help pay for the stadiums. They should agree to take another 10% cut in pay to make the games affordable for regular people to watch them and another 10% cut so fans can park their cars, get some food and maybe buy junior a cheap copy of your jersey.
    Bet you didn’t think that through though did you Stanford boy?

  31. Yes, let’s make the rich buy their own stadiums and charge their millionaire players a fee to play in the stadium.

  32. vicnocal says:
    Jun 9, 2016 6:49 PM
    So it’s not fair to make the team owner pay for the entire thing when he’s by far not the only one who will be benefitting from it.

    If the owner pays for the stadium then he gets the revenue from those other events thus accruing the benefit. The real issue lies in some leases that give NFL teams a share of the revenue from non football events.
    It is not unreasonable for a city/county/state to pay for infrastructure to support a new stadium the same as they would for any major development that will yield tax dollars down the road but that is as far as it should ever reasonably go unless the owner foregoes any income derived from all non football events. Some of the leases would make a con man blush. For instance why does a Vegas stadium need voters to approve a tax? Why aren’t they voting on a bond issuance instead? There is no way in God’s good creation a stadium in Vegas with a retractable roof wouldn’t not only pay for itself but print money IF the revenues generated from it went back into it.

  33. Sherman is a Stanford grad and one of the most intelligent players in the league. I’m a Pats fan who respects this guy more than any other opponent.

  34. Check out how much money cities lose when a league goes on strike! I read somewhere that when Baseball was on strike, Cleveland was losing millions of dollars in revenue for EACH game not played. That is why they pony up the money for a long term stadium. And as others have said, they can charge leasing fees and control who else comes to the stadium to perform and generate more revenue. I agree the owners need to share the expense, but I don’t agree with them spending 100% of the cost if the city benefits financially as well.

  35. Here’s the problem. Teams like the Baltimore Ravens and Indianapolis Colts exist because there will always be cities willing to take owners financial burdens off their hands just to land a team. Tax payers will always have this burden because desperate cities will keep owners from being held accountable for not using their money responsibly so while it’s a novel idea it’s not happening.

  36. Cities should form a cartel exactly the way that NFL owners have, and refuse to pay for stadiums that exceed a city’s needs. Really, what city needs a 7ok-seat venue with skyboxes? Unfortunately, it would take only one city to break ranks to put the NFL in the driver’s seat again. And the owners know it.

  37. I wonder if he realizes that if they had to pay for their own stadiums that the players wouldntake as much.

  38. Study after study has shown that taxpayer funded stadiums are huge losers for cities and the taxpayers footing the bill.

    Sherman is 100% correct.

  39. nyneal says:
    Jun 9, 2016 7:14 PM
    Easy for Sherman to slam the owners and say they should foot the bill for the stadiums because they make millions off of them. But how about players like Sherman helping to foot the bill? They make millions, too.
    So put your money where your big mouth is Sherman and stand up and say you’ll donate about $500,000 or so to a new stadium.


    Would you be willing to have Burger King take a portion of your salary to subsidize a new building for you to work in? Didn’t think so.

  40. I agree. The cost should come off the bottom line and figure into a lower income to be shared 50/50 with the players. BTW, Sherman is obnoxious. His attacks of the organization that has made him extremely rich is old. If he wants to change the NFL, let him start his own league.

  41. jasonkge says:
    Jun 9, 2016 6:43 PM

    This is true for all big businesses, Toyota is building a huge new Corp location in Plano, why? Because they got over $150 million in tax breaks to do so. Without that they would have built elsewhere. That’s how big business including sports frachises works.

    Yes – but you’re excluding the most important parts of how and why these types of deals work and who benefits.

    My home town, with a population of less than 100,000 similarly attracted an car plant with tax abatement. The deal was put together by a local developer who bought up the area where the plant was to be built. On top of the tax abatement, the city would not only incorporate the area, but provide the waterlines, sewage lines, power lines, widen the the roads bordering the area, etc.

    The deal was put together by a local developer who bought up the land tracts that formed the area where the plant was to be built. The idea was sold to the public as being fiscally beneficial to the city through the idea that the loss of property taxes on the land would be less than the property taxes paid by the future employees – a net tax gain by for the city.

    The city had a slightly higher than 3% unemployment rate at the time. So, most of the new employees were people who came from elsewhere looking for the work, resettling in that town. Most chose to live outside the city limits, in rural or unincorporated areas where rent and property values were lower. The same developer bought up property in unincorporated areas, and he and a local contractor built little neighborhoods of cheap single family houses on those old fields. The city got no property taxes from these new housing developments in unincorporated areas.

    The city tried to recoup some loss by incorporating certain areas of recent housing development Because of the low property values, the property tax yield was less than 30% of what it was for the average neighborhood in the city. But incorporation also meant that the city was responsible for infrastructure – water lines, sewage lines, power lines, road maintenance, etc. And then there was the problem of schools.

    The schools were flooded with children from the newly incorporated areas, and had previously seen a dramatic increase from auto workers who settled within the city limits. Now, the city needed to build a new school. And of course, the same developer and contractor put together a deal for the city.

    The cost of the school was estimated to be $110 million, but of course, went over budget. that was about 20 years ago. the adjusted amount in 2016 would be about $165 million – for an elementary school in a rural, previously unincorprated area of a small midwestern city with extremely low property values (relative to large cities and the coasts).

    Subaru saved some tax money. the developer made money, the contractor made money, the local vendors made money – basically all the guys from the Chamber of Commerce who live in the same neighborhood and golf together at the Country club, made money. the City lost money and loses money every year from that deal. Crime increased, unemployment increased dramatically the first time that plant had a lay-off. The population increased. The traffic increased. All civic costs increased across the board with the population increase and the incorporation of areas of relatively low property value.

    Deals like these might be good for economically depressed areas, but not so for small and medium sized cities with already healthy economies. A lot of small and medium sized cities learned that the hard way in the 90s, but as long as an Old Boys Network/Small Town Country Club cabal controls local government, cities will seek these deals for the enrichment of that set, to the detriment of the fiscal well-being of the city. In the 90s, there were two trends for small and medium sized cites – one was using tax abatement to attract manufacturing, the other was cutting public school budgets. which reflects a decrease in property tax revenue. Tax abatement was a scam that benefited local Old Boys more than a company looking to minimize expenses.

  42. I don’t like how Sherman carries himself sometimes but he’s a bright guy who seems to be maturing. I agree with him. In what other industry do the tax payers foot the bill for someone else’s work place? Not to mention after 15-20 years the franchise will request another tax increase for another new stadium or threaten to move the franchise.

  43. Billionaires don’t pay for their own stadiums because they are billionaires and they didn’t get that way using all of their own funding.

    That being said, Richard Sherman is going to get his ass kicked by the union when the league decides to build their own stadiums and reduce the amount of construction and maintenance from the number assigned as league income that is in turn used to determine salary cap numbers.

    Be careful what you wish for, Richard.

  44. I’d like to see how Sherman would react to the pay cut he would have to take if stadiums weren’t at least partly paid by municipalities.

  45. Billionaires don’t get to be billionaires without siphoning up every last dime in their reach.

  46. It’s a partnership with the city or location. An NFL team will bring revenue and other benefits to the citizens paying for that stadium. The owner benefits greatly from it, but so does the city. Capitalism, people. Cities compete to attract teams. Kind of scary the economic mentality going on these days. Needs to be more of an educated debate on these topics, and not just comments from people who don’t understand such a complex issue. I certainly don’t know much either, though.

  47. He’s right. They shouldn’t tax poor people with extra sales taxes so billionaire owners can own and millionaire players can play in a new stadium. Are players going to be happy playing in old crappy stadiums? No, I don’t think so.

  48. Is Sherman willing to give back millions of his profits to repay the taxpayers? If the NFL had to subtract more stadium costs from revenues then the players would see less money.

    I think it should be 100% funded by the NFL, but don’t pretend Sherman has not become a rich man under this current system.

  49. This idiot doesn’t seem to realize that a chunk of that money would come from the players.

    The worse the owner’s economic situation, the more sense it makes for the to play hard ball, and the worse that the likely ending point is for the players. (Also the more likely we are going to see lost games during a future NFLPA contract negotiation, which is bad for everyone.)

  50. I agree. Of course the billionaires should then make sure in the next collective bargaining agreement to keep more of the money available to fund such things out of their own pocket. Surely Sherman won’t have an issue with that…

  51. The reason they really get away with this is people don’t hold politicians accountable. Politicians give businesses sweetheart deals and keep it from the people. Along with the press. They report nonsense instead of real issues. Most, if not all, major companies get earmarks for huge tax breaks. Thousands of small businesses, which actually provide most of the work, get none of these benefits. I would force these guys to pay for their own stadium.

  52. im from long island. Gotta laugh,at least you where your tax dollar going. Id pay the extra tax dollar bc i know its going. to a stadium. School money goes to the teachers. Here in LI teachers make 115 a yr. they get 60 days off normally. Plus paid sick and personnel time off. Should of been a teacher. Were not one of the highest taxed for nothing. Police 80gs to start. 115gs avg pay. Both get full pension. Thats what i got

  53. I’m of an opinion that whoever owns the stadiums is on the hook for their costs. So in the case the Seahawks the city of Seattle is the owner (much like the city of Chicago owns Soldier Field, not the Bears). If improvements are wanted, why should Paul Allen be on the hook? He doesn’t own the place.

  54. I would love to not like this guy but outside of him beating my Packers I have no complaints. He is smart and he isn’t afraid to say what is on his mind. I also can’t agree more and I am glad there is finally a player who will say it too.

  55. Thought that dope went to Stanford. Football teams are a business and businesses drive the economy of a city. Many many businesses make deals with cities to invest in the company yo help the city.
    It is even worse that some multimillionaire is whining about a other rich person.

  56. Besides Sherman being a fake populist, he forgets that economic benefits from the newer stadiums benefit the community as a whole.

    Most of you who support his views with likes and comments are just jelly of what the owners have and want it to be redistributed because of your boy Bernie.

    Yeah owners should foot roughly 1/2 the bill for the stadiums, but that’s it. Don’t act like the large cities need to hit the lottery every 15 years with owner financed boons to your local economy.

  57. The worst part of the deal is that the owners can then sell the naming rights and advertising and immediately recoup at least half of their investments where the taxpayers have to rely on e-pulltabs and cigarette taxes.

    They should start dividing up the kiney earned on the facility to reward both the governments and the ownership.

  58. I do agree with what Sherman said. However:

    1. If players don’t ask for too much money from the owners, maybe they would be able to pay for their own stadium.

    2. The fight between owners and players over money can only make it more expensive for the fans.

  59. Easy to say, but impossible to implement without the federal government involving itself. Not that I’d be opposed if they did. Just tax the teams for 100% of whatever they raise from municipal/state tax sources and bonds. They’d be completely free to work out whatever deal with whatever city they wanted, just minus the profiting off of citizens who don’t care one tiny bit about football.

  60. Kraft paid for his own stadium. Even though Brady deflated the balls, Kraft and the Pats should get a pass just because he paid for his own stadium.

  61. The owners became billionaires by getting others to do what it took to make them money. What’s new?

  62. First off, I am a Seahawks fan, I like Richard Sherman and I love Paul Allen; Paul Allen has done a lot for the city (not that I live there any more) and he keeps his hands off the team and his name out of the papers.

    Seattle people basically agree with Sherman; the Sonics skipped town because people were sick of getting raked over the coals after the Mariners and Seahawks each got their own fancy digs (Safeco is beatiful; Century Link looks pretty bleak on the inside, the parts you don’t see on TV, but the game-watching experience is pretty great).

    The place the Hawks and M’s abandoned, the Kingdome, was an absolute dump at the end, but after 20+ years the city still owed tens of millions on that place.

    Paul Allen put up a lot of money for the stadium, and got the people of the city on board in part by promising he wouldn’t sell the naming rights, so for the first several years it was just Seahawks Stadium. Of course then he ended up selling it to Qwest then Century Link, which irked me quite a bit.

    Anyway it’s easy for Sherman to say this with his team safely in a new stadium, and with the one owner who could afford to build a new stadium in every NFL city. I don’t think the owners should have to foot the bill individually though, I think that all 32 owners should share the expense of new stadiums. It is ridiculous that less-wealthy owners should be held to the same standard as the richest, when they all benefit from every stadium in all 32 cities.

    I don’t have any love for the city of Oakland, but the Oakland Raiders are a pillar of the league in my opinion, and it’s a crime that they would play in any other city or under any other name. If the Packers were somehow in this situation, I’m sure the league would bend over backwards to assist them to stay in Green Bay and have whatever they need to keep Lambeau Field in existence. Why not the Raiders?

    And I feel terrible for St. Louis fans, who have had to say goodbye to TWO teams in my lifetime. I felt awful when the Supersonics got pilfered, but I didn’t want the city to capitulate to the demands of the NBA and the rube owners from hick city, Okla-whatever. I love the sport of basketball, I was a die-hard fan of the NBA but now I couldn’t name a single player that wasn’t in the league before 2008 (ok I’ve heard of Stephen Curry but haven’t seen him make a single basket).

    Keep it up NFL, and I’ll turn my back on y’all as well.

  63. jtwp61 says:
    Jun 9, 2016 6:36 PM
    It’s never going to happen, cities with nfl teams are not willing to let them walk and build elsewhere. The nfl has all the leverage right now.


    I have 2 words for you: St. Louis

  64. Bob Kraft built his own facility, and the state ponied up with some money for infrastructure, which is the way this should work. It’s been a great deal for the Patriots, the town of Foxborough, and the state. Why this isn’t a model for how stadiums should be built is a testament to the greed of the owners in general. These things never go to a vote as the crooked pols pandering to the NFL owners know full well they’ll lose in a landslide. As mentioned previously, it’s been proven over and over again that the cost of building these stadiums NEVER delivers a positive return on investment. You can’t compare it with a MLB stadium that hosts 81 games per year.

  65. winninaintsinnin says:
    Jun 9, 2016 6:42 PM
    Again Hawks prove they have the most intelligent team in the NFL.

    And they don’t cheat like that team on the other coast.

    Unlike the Hawks, who have been convicted of using steroids and PED’s for years.

    Here is a * to go next to your precious Superbowl win.

  66. I’ve been saying this for years,and I’ll say it again.

    1) The most hated team in the league plays in the only privately financed stadium in the league.

    2) In. Re. ‘The Strange Case of the Inflated Balls’ – da commish has been saying this is about “the integrity of the game.”


    This is about ego, power, and MOSTLY – whether you have tickets or not, give a hoot, or whatever about the game, this is about MONEY.


  67. I like days when I can agree with Sherman.

    Municipalities will continue to pay for or subsidize stadiums as they see a greater economic benefit from having the team and stadium in the area. Does it also benefit billionaire owners? Sure. It’s good to be the king, I guess.

  68. I couldn’t agree more but if owners pay more for a stadium are you ok with a pay cut since there will be less money being available for player contracts?

  69. Good Idea. And to start funding them , owners should be allowed to cut player salaries.

    Most stadiums are of joint ownership and used a venues for other activities not related to football. So why shouldn’t a local municipality help foot the bill ?

    After all they, benefit from the revenue generated by a football stadium as much as the owner.

    So, Ricky, maybe until you study up on stadium economic, maybe you should keep quiet….

  70. Good lord Sherman is a whiney little b. Guess he doesn’t realize his 10+m a year also comes from the stadium and taxpayers.

  71. Say what you want against Stephen Ross, who is one of the worse owners in the NFL IMHO, but at least he laid out money for his own stadium renovations instead of South Florida taxpayers. And for once I agree with Sherman! He is absolutely correct here!

  72. Funny listening to most fans talk about Sherman should study economics. There are recent article from Stanford economics and other economists that state that NFL stadiums don’t really impact the local economy.

    If pulled NFL team it stated maybe 1 % impact. Also that whatever revenue generate from taxes don’t offset the initial investments of the city.

    All of those saying Sherman should understand economics should listen to their own words.

  73. sonhoodoo says:
    Jun 10, 2016 8:04 AM
    Municipalities will continue to pay for or subsidize stadiums as they see a greater economic benefit from having the team and stadium in the area

    Major league sports franchises have a negligible economic effect on local economies. A single Costco or Walmart generates more revenue than a major league sports franchise in a local economy.

    The NFL’s primary revenue stream is the TV contracts, which have nothing to do with the local economies. Subsidizing stadiums for NFL teams, which only play 8 regular season games is just pouring money into a project that has a negligible return to both the city government in terms of increased tax revenue, and the local economy in terms of revenue generated by the events.And as was posted earlier in the comments – Seattle is still paying for the Kingdome, and that was demolished 16 years ago.

    Building stadiums is a good deal for a developer and an NFL owner, but they do not benefit a local economy anymore than a Costco, so why should taxpayers pay for a stadium that primarily benefits the financial interest of two individuals?

    The owner saves hundreds of millions, but none of his employees share in that windfall. The developer makes hundreds of millions, but the construction guys get paid the same wage as any other day. I’m sure that certain local politicians enjoy the financial contributions of the owner and the developer, but the other than that, it’s these two people who benefit financially, at the direct expense of the local tax payers.

  74. U Sad bruh?

    Pandering to his Seadderal constituency.

    He’s about as qualified to speak about financing a stadium as he is to speak about scamming a PED urine test.

    Oh wait! scratch that, never mind…

  75. The soccer argument is hollow in that there are far more people that follow it so of course you are going to have more teams. Just like the number of minor league baseball teams in the States.

    It is also a sport that has a low financial bar of entry. You need a bunch of people, one ball and a field. That’s why it is the world’s most popular sport. Poor countries can afford that.

    I agree that as sports stadiums only benefit the few so we should not spend the public $$ on them. These are 1st world problems though. We should count ourselves as lucky that this is what we are talking about.

  76. Well the superbowl brought around 800 million of economic effect on arizona. So the article some posted about a sports team having zero impact is bs. Think about how many jobs for building, maintaining and running a stadium. Businesses from security, food, beverage, merchandise, janitorial. How about the player salaries, and owner salaries and tax revenue from it. The players salaries alone contribute over 10m a year to state taxes. And 50m a year to federal. What about other events at the stadium. What about all the hotels bars restaurants that pop up because of the stadium.

  77. It’s actually happened. He’s talked so much that he’s finally said something that’s accurate.

  78. rohinaz says:
    Jun 10, 2016 4:41 PM

    Well the superbowl brought around 800 million of economic effect on arizona. So the article some posted about a sports team having zero impact is bs

    I’m the one that said that. Apparently, we can’t post links in these comments, but if you google:

    “economic impact of stadiums”

    you’ll find that there is no dispute among economists that the economic impact of major sports franchises on local economies is negligible, and that new stadiums have little to no positive economic effect .

  79. Do it like Minnesota did. Owner paid 500M to build a stadium he doesn’t even own. The city/county do. That’s the way to do things.
    Any idiot that says stadiums bring no economic impact to a city is clueless or looking for an article that agrees with them. Utter BS.
    1st off, if the team moved, you would lose all that state income tax in MN. Case closed.

  80. Nobody forces cities to build stadiums. If a city doesn’t want to build one, they are perfectly free to be like St. Louis and just say no.

  81. I see a lot of people cherry-picking the benefits of stadiums but none of them mentioning the detriments.

    I’ll never understand why so many under-educated capitalism cheerleaders are so passionate and vocal about issues, and always take the side that is strongly against their self-interest.

  82. pantherpro says:
    Jun 9, 2016 9:43 PM
    You suck Seattle and that little software nerd owner of yours! Go Niners!

    You’re right, we Seahawks fans are totally jealous of your team ownership situation down there in Santa Clara.

  83. ariani1985 says:
    Jun 9, 2016 6:17 PM

    this guy obviously doesn’t understand economics.

    I have a Masters in economics and I understand what he is saying.

    Everyone has a right to comment, but the number of thumbs down should tell you that if someone has money, they should use said money to buy things. Instead of yours. Since I am assuming you don’t have a billion dollars, maybe you should think about the reality that someone with a billion dollars asks us (who don’t) to pay for something they just rake money in on.

    Stay frosty. And stupid.

  84. A business is going to make money. If you force the business to invest 1-2 billion in a new stadium. How will it get its returns on the investment? It will come with higher ticket prices, higher t.v. contracts and reduced player salaries. All of those options will be contested. So the obvious answer would be to move to an area that will help pay for a stadium. If the NFL prevents moving, and the business is forced into taking a contract that reduces the businesses profit. The estimated value of the franchise will necessarily be reduced. Making selling the franchise for a profit nearly impossible.

  85. As much as I hate Robert Kraft, I appreciate (I won’t say admire, because it should be the rule, not the exception) that he paid for his own stadium.

    Its ridiculous that taxpayer dollars go to these stadiums. Its ridiculous that games can be blacked out to fans who can’t afford the exorbitant prices after paying to finance the stadium. Surely, though, the taxpayers must benefit from concessions or naming rights that they’re selling at the stadium THEY paid for right?

    Ha, just kidding. Of course not.

  86. A business is going to make money. If you force the business to invest 1-2 billion in a new stadium. How will it get its returns on the investment? It will come with higher ticket prices, higher t.v. contracts and reduced player salaries. All of those options will be contested. So the obvious answer would be to move to an area that will help pay for a stadium. If the NFL prevents moving, and the business is forced into taking a contract that reduces the businesses profit. The estimated value of the franchise will necessarily be reduced. Making selling the franchise for a profit nearly impossible.


    The Bills stadium cost $22M in 1973. Its had several investments in the last 43 years, but they total far less than the cost of a new stadium now. The Bills PROFITS in 2013 were $30M+. It serves its purpose admirably – in that its a great venue to watch a football game. That’s what stadiums are for. They don’t need to be replaced every 20 years. If money isn’t wasted on useless “amenities”, and stadiums are used over a longer time period, they make back the investment many times over.

    These businesses aren’t barely making a profit. They’re making massive profits. Massive profits require investments. If they need $1B worth of bells and whistles to enhance their profits, they should have to pay for it.

  87. The taxpayers of Seattle were paying for the Kingdome 15 years after it was demolished. How did that work out? Study after study shows little economic gain for funding stadiums and other forms of corporate welfare. People have x amount of entertainment dollars and they will spend it.

  88. Richard is correct with his thoughts on this topic. Billionaires should build their own stadiums. But they are greedy with a rigged system. Not unlike corporations today. NFL teams hold cities hostage with the threat of leaving i.e. Saint Louis. The owner moved the Rams with the help from the NFL to a city that doesn’t really care about a NFL team there.

  89. The NFL is like any other business. Plenty of businesses have threatened to move to Mexico or China or India unless a municipal or state government gives them tax breaks, low interest loans, industrial land sites, no infrastructure assessments, etc., etc.

    Many businesses promise the creation of X amount of jobs and to stay in the city and/or state in return for the government financial assistance but about half of the businesses fail to provide the jobs they promised.

    Corporate welfare is alive and well in a city near you! Why should the NFL refuse to play the game of threats and unfulfilled promises?

  90. You clowns trying to compare Richard’s salary/wealth to a billionaire’s seem to have the monetary sense of Dr. Evil….”ONE…MILLION DOLLARS! MUAHAHAH”

    One billion dollars is ONE THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS. Paul Allen was worth 17 billion last time I checked(been awhile). That is SEVENTEEN THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS.

    Did spelling it out in caps help you understand the economics of this situation? A guy like Paul Allen can buy something like Cowboy’s stadium and it wouldn’t affect his financial situation one bit. I mean, it was only three billion right? Peanuts…

    Granted, Paul Allen could buy and sell most of the owners in the league but I think Paul’s wealth is the perspective Richard is coming from and speaking about. He was probably on Paul’s yacht recently enjoying some Dom or whatever.

    If an owner “only” has a couple billion, then they would have to spend ALL of his money to build a new stadium. I doubt Sherman is suggesting they do that.

  91. Sherman keeps making intelligent comments like these and I think folks may start changing their opinions of him. He is spot on, just doesn’t make sense to keep holding these cities hostage in regards to their NFL teams. Looks what greedy Roger is trying to do to Buffalo, essentially demanding they get a new stadium or the team will be forced to move. Regarding Sherman, he’s obviously a very smart dude who doesn’t always use that intelligence in a productive way.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.