Again, here is the original statement I replied to:



And you haven't explained how it's ethical (right) for millionaire and billionaire owners to receive taxpayer money for their for-profit playgrounds.
- wolfhounds

It's a business deal between the owners and the cities and state governments that give sports teams taxpayer money. They are investing in the sports team in the hopes that it will boost the economy, create jobs, provide more business for local hotels, restaurants, bars, and night clubs. Boost tourism to the city to attend sporting events, concerts, etc, held at the venue. Players and sports teams also pay taxes to state and city governments.

Now it's your turn to explain how it is unethical.

Yes, it is easy to explain why governments give taxpayer money to sports teams. Again, if you want to discuss aspects of , is it worthwhile economically to do so, then that becomes complex and best left to the experts. I think you're wrong to call it arrogant, because it is easily explained why they do so.
As far as answering the question, I haven't answered it. My hope was to ask a question where the answer would explain why they do it.

The debate is about if players and owners are unethical because of the money they make. I haven't read a reasonable argument that states that they are.
- MJL

I guess it depends on your ethics. I don't know about all owners, but I feel comfortable in saying the Flyers owner is greedy. He's a well known disciple of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. From what I've read about Objectivism I can comfortably say its unethical to me.

I guess it depends on your ethics. I don't know about all owners, but I feel comfortable in saying the Flyers owner is greedy. He's a well known disciple of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. From what I've read about Objectivism I can comfortably say its unethical to me.
- Dkos

I'd like to see some documentation of what he is a disciple of.

I'd like to see some documentation of what he is a disciple of.
- MJL

Go for it. I'm not doing your research for you

Go for it. I'm not doing your research for you
- Dkos

Ed Snider is one of the most ethical sports owners in the United States.

It's a business deal between the owners and the cities and state governments that give sports teams taxpayer money. In the hopes that it will boost the economy, create jobs, provide more business for local hotels, restaurants, bars, and night clubs. Boost tourism to the city to attend sporting events, concerts, etc, held at the venue. Players and sports teams also pay taxes to state and city governments.

Now it's your turn to explain how it is unethical.
- MJL

I feel it's wrong because taxpayers pay twice - via taxes, and via tickets, parking, etc. I feel it's wrong because if something is feasible, profitable, the owners should pay everything, or at least the overwhelming majority of expenses.

I agree with all of your reasons above, and none of them change regardless of who puts the money into the funding of new stadiums or the operations and expenses of franchises. We haven't even discussed the taxes, deductions, write-offs, etc. these owners get from and because of these franchises and stadiums.

In general, I think we're way too accepting of money being given to the rich for their extra-curricular activities while huge numbers of people struggle day to day, week to week. In the case of Detroit, as opposed to sinking $200 million into a stadium, why not take that same amount of money and, over a period of however many years, hire the people who live in the city to rebuild the city? I mean, if it's all about jobs and economic growth, I know for a fact there are better ways of achieving those ends as opposed to idea of trickle-down economics.

Anyway, we likely won't agree, and that's fine. Thanks for the conversation, I always find it interesting.

The report got little play at the beginning of the week but has since picked up steam, with outlets including Yahoo Sports and NBC Sports chiming in. Considering recent outrage over the National Football League's classification as a nonprofit and Major League Baseball's longstanding antitrust exemption, it's not surprising to find the press and public weary of the law providing special treatment for the booming business of sports. As NBC Sports's Dan Feldman quipped, "Because nobody deserves a tax break like billionaire owners of sports teams."

http://www.bloombergview....reak-so-do-lots-of-people

I wish I was making as much non-profit as the NFL.

I feel it's wrong because taxpayers pay twice - via taxes, and via tickets, parking, etc. I feel it's wrong because if something is feasible, profitable, the owners should pay everything, or at least the overwhelming majority of expenses.


- wolfhounds

Taxpayers don't all pay twice. This goes back to another point I made. There isn't a single taxpayer that is forced to pay for a ticket to a hockey game. They do so of their own free will. The Owners do pay the overwhelming majority of expenses.

I agree with all of your reasons above, and none of them change regardless of who puts the money into the funding of new stadiums or the operations and expenses of franchises. We haven't even discussed the taxes, deductions, write-offs, etc. these owners get from and because of these franchises and stadiums.


- wolfhounds

If you agree with all of my reasons, then why was it arrogant to state that I know why sports teams receive taxpayer money?

Lot's of businesses receive tax breaks. Individual's all receive tax breaks, deductions, and write offs.

In general, I think we're way too accepting of money being given to the rich for their extra-curricular activities while huge numbers of people struggle day to day, week to week. In the case of Detroit, as opposed to sinking $200 million into a stadium, why not take that same amount of money and, over a period of however many years, hire the people who live in the city to rebuild the city? I mean, if it's all about jobs and economic growth, I know for a fact there are better ways of achieving those ends as opposed to idea of trickle-down economics.


- wolfhounds

They aren't being given money for their extra-curricular activities. That ignores why they're being given money, it's not a gift. They are being given money as an investment for the reasons I outlined. Again, whether it is a smart thing to do economically, is a different conversation then whether it has anything to do with ethics. Or that owners and player are unethical for making the money that they do. Investing in sports teams doesn't stop government from doing other things. Building sports arenas is part of rebuilding a city, to bring in economic growth and jobs.

Ed Snider is one of the most ethical sports owners in the United States.
- MJL

Ok. You convinced me. All pro sports team owners are unethical.

Taxpayers don't all pay twice. This goes back to another point I made. There isn't a single taxpayer that is forced to pay for a ticket to a hockey game. They do so of their own free will. The Owners do pay the overwhelming majority of expenses.
- MJL

Taxpayers paying twice and people not being forced to go to a game have nothing to do with one another. Every single person who goes to the game is a taxpayer; they are paying twice. Period.

I guess we can quibble over 'overwhelming majority.'

If you agree with all of my reasons, then why was it arrogant to state that I know why sports teams receive taxpayer money?

Lot's of businesses receive tax breaks. Individual's all receive tax breaks, deductions, and write offs.

You said their receiving taxpayer money was easy to defend. I've yet to see it.

They aren't being given money for their extra-curricular activities. That ignores why they're being given money, it's not a gift. They are being given money as an investment for the reasons I outlined. Again, whether it is a smart thing to do economically, is a different conversation then whether it has anything to do with ethics. Or that owners and player are unethical for making the money that they do. Investing in sports teams doesn't stop government from doing other things. Building sports arenas is part of rebuilding a city, to bring in economic growth and jobs.

Again, we can quibble over 'extra-curricular activities', but I'd rather not.

I think it's wrong.

Detroit waves Hi.

Taxpayers paying twice and people not being forced to go to a game have nothing to do with one another. Every single person who goes to the game is a taxpayer; they are paying twice. Period.

I guess we can quibble over 'overwhelming majority.'


- wolfhounds

Absolutely it has something to do with one another. The taxpayer has a choice to pay twice. They don't have to.

Really can't quibble over "overwhelming majority". Earlier you posted that the Red Wings received 200M. What's the Red Wings player payroll each season, plus operating costs? I bet they surpass that 200M real quick.

You said their receiving taxpayer money was easy to defend. I've yet to see it.


- wolfhounds

Incorrect. I stated that it's easy to know why they receive taxpayer money, why they do it. You labeled me arrogant for saying so.

Again, we can quibble over 'extra-curricular activities', but I'd rather not.

I think it's wrong.

Detroit waves Hi.
- wolfhounds

Haven't seen a reasonable argument for why it's wrong. "Detroit waves hi" doesn't get it done.

Absolutely it has something to do with one another. The taxpayer has a choice to pay twice. They don't have to.

Really can't quibble over "overwhelming majority". Earlier you posted that the Red Wings received 200M. What's the Red Wings player payroll each season, plus operating costs? I bet they surpass that 200M real quick.
- MJL

Having to or not doesn't change the fact they are paying twice.

Incorrect. I stated that it's easy to know why they receive taxpayer money, why they do it. You labeled me arrogant for saying so.

Incorrect? It's a direct quote:

Before I defend that, which is pretty easy to do, why do you think local or state governments give taxpayer help to sports teams?
- MJL

Not list reasons why - those are easy. Defend. Not the same thing.

Haven't seen a reasonable argument for why it's wrong. "Detroit waves hi" doesn't get it done.

You have to prove

"Building sports arenas is part of rebuilding a city, to bring in economic growth and jobs."

I simply offered that Detroit would probably disagree with the statement.

Having to or not doesn't change the fact they are paying twice.


- wolfhounds

They have a choice of whether to go to a game or not. There is nothing unethical about it.

Incorrect? It's a direct quote:


- wolfhounds

No it's not.

Not list reasons why - those are easy. Defend. Not the same thing.


- wolfhounds

If it's so easy why did you call me arrogant for claiming to know why? You stated how complex it was.

You have to prove


- wolfhounds

I would say the onus is on you to prove it.

I simply offered that Detroit would probably disagree with the statement.
- wolfhounds

Opinion only.

Getting way off track of whether owners or players are unethical for making the money that they do. Haven't seen a legitimate argument for why that could be unethical.

Absolutely it has something to do with one another. The taxpayer has a choice to pay twice. They don't have to.

Really can't quibble over "overwhelming majority". Earlier you posted that the Red Wings received 200M. What's the Red Wings player payroll each season, plus operating costs? I bet they surpass that 200M real quick.





Incorrect. I stated that it's easy to know why they receive taxpayer money, why they do it. You labeled me arrogant for saying so.
.
- MJL

Defending it, which is what he asked you to do and knowing why it's done are two different things.

Defending it, which is what he asked you to do and knowing why it's done are two different things.
- Briere

Correct they are two different things. I never claimed that I could easily defend it. I only claimed that I know why it is done.

No it's not.
- MJL

This is where I leave the conversation. Take it easy, MJL.

Today @ 11:02 AM ET
Ethics is a branch of philosophy we could debate all day.

The point, as was already made, is that millionaires and billionaires are receiving taxpayer help with for-profit businesses when those same businesses already rely upon taxpayers to support them via tickets, parking, jerseys, etc. for their very existence.

Please, defend that.
- wolfhounds


Before I defend that, which is pretty easy to do, why do you think local or state governments give taxpayer help to sports teams?
- MJL

Correct they are two different things. I never claimed that I could easily defend it. I only claimed that I know why it is done.
- MJL

actually, you did.

This is where I leave the conversation. Take it easy, MJL.
- wolfhounds

Your missing the point. What I can defend, is my statement that I can easily explain why they give taxpayer money to sports teams. Which I did . Which you called me arrogant for claiming that it's easy to know why they give taxpayer money to teams. It is your misrepresentation that I said I can defend giving them the money, as in if it's right or wrong to do so. In the entire conversation, I haven't attempted to defend, or explain if it is right or wrong for sports teams to receive taxpayer money. I only stated why I think they do receive taxpayer money.

actually, you did.
- Briere

Incorrect.

Incorrect.
- MJL

nice try.

im actually not against using taxpayer money to support or help businesses in som einstances. and it can be an intersting discussion either for or against it.

You're talking about Income Taxes. Everybody pays one tax or another...or they are Jeremiah Johnson types living in the wilderness. The only reason some people don't pay any income tax is because they earn next to nothing.
- wolfhounds

Actually, they pay about a -9% in the entitlements they take

I don't begrudge the players for wanting to get their fare share, but I still think its greedy.
- Dkos

Why shouldn't a player earn every penny they can during their career? The money is either going to the owners or them. And if they compete better than the competition they will earn a longer piece of the pie. It's completely performance based.