fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2414 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2414 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Akumu-chan / My Little Nightmare]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Star Trek: The Next Generation/Deanna Troi]

__________________________________________________

04.

[The Borgias]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Kaiba Seto and Jounouchi Katsuya from Yu-gi-oh!]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Spring Breakers]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Murder Rooms]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Twin Peaks]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Mass Effect]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Despicable Me 2]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Ice Age]

__________________________________________________

12.

[Arrested Development]

__________________________________________________

13.

[Super Junior]

__________________________________________________

14.

[Halloween]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #345.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What makes you think sports help the economy? Sports tends to be a huge beneficiary of corporate welfare, plus (see the article I linked earlier) the licensing cost of events gets passed on to everyone who gets cable TV whether or not they like sports.

DA I read all of your comments and don't see any links.

It was directly above the comment I was responding to. Here you go again. TW repeats & criticises a bad rape comparison.

That's an almost nonsensical way of framing the question, though.

The first thing that you have to take into consideration here is that lots and lots of people really, really like sports, and are very willing to pay tons of money. That's the fundamental factor here. The popularity and economic structure of sports is not something that is entirely imposed from outside; on some level, it's the result of the choices and preferences of consumers. The reason, for instance, that sports TV stations are able to demand exorbitant rates for bundling their stations in is because there's tons of sports fans who would demand to be able to see games, and stations know that they need to be able to offer those stations. In other words, it's because there's enormous demand for the product (of course, this may be changing shortly, and TV providers may be reevaluating how willing they are to make that tradeoff).

Of course, sports have also been beneficiaries of corporate welfare, among other things - things like extortionate stadium deals, government-protected monopoly, etc - and I don't support those things at all. If I had my way, every professional sports team in the world would be run like the Green Bay Packers - owned by a community-based fan trust. But even so, at the end of the day, the economic basis for sport is the millions of people who support sports teams and like watching sports. The economics of sports might change if teams had to build their own stadiums, but I am willing to bet that they would not disappear entirely, because sports teams are still massively profitable entities even without that support (which is part of what makes it so objectionable).

So, yeah, at the end of the day, these things are based on the fact that people really like sports. Do you really think it's morally objectionable for them to like sports? Because if it's not, it seems kind of bizarre for me to talk about whether or not sports "helps" the economy - it's something that exists because people want it to, and that's okay.

I was responding to anon's comment claiming that sports help the economy. If you think it's a bizarre topic I suggest you reply to them, not me. But sports teams are not universally profitable, and they benefit hugely on the downside from government support and other subsidies - they're rarely allowed to carry their own losses.

But yeah, sports would be a lot less messed up and a lot less open to criticism without the subsidies - from governments, from cable bundling, or from universities. Then we'd get to find out how many of them are really profitable or even solvent.

Okay cool.

I think it depends hugely on which sport. But I think sports in general would still survive, it would just look different - ranging from shrinking dramatically in terms of resources in NCAA football, to not changing much at all in the case of the NBA. In something like MLB or NFL, the changes would mostly be somewhat smaller contracts, especially at the top end.

Like I said above, I think it's a matter of reform, not of getting rid of the thing entirely.

I think the problem isn't that they wouldn't be profitable or capable of solvency; it's that subsidies have allowed for the inflation of costs, particularly those surrounding player and coach salaries. I think said salaries would see a huge reduction if subsidies were eliminated. And I personally would welcome said reduction.

But that article is just about how much American consumers give to sports leagues via advertising if they have and use certain sports channels on cable/satellite. Of course it phrases it as the leagues getting every possible cent from each subscriber, so it's grossly overinflated.

It says nothing about the impact on the local, regional, and national economies of the places where sporting events take place.

Do you want me to dig up more information on sports subsidies, stadium deals, university sports budgets, etc, for you, or would you rather google that yourself?

You should dig them up for yourself because clearly you have limited knowledge of how major sports events impact economies. Hint: any country hosting either the summer or winter olympics takes in more money during the olympics than they pay out preparing for them.

... at the expense of (usually lower-income) people living in the neighborhoods that get razed to make room for Olympics complexes.

That's funny, according to this article most Olypmic host cities lose money on the deal. Oh, and this article. And this one.

One event does not make the entire world of sports a money pit.

Then let's stop throwing public money into it and see what happens.

Derailing a bit, but the way money has injected itself in sports is really annoying. In football (or soccer, however you want to call it), it's all about multi-million deals to get so and so, and professional team sports are starting to be "whoever has the most money wins because they can pay outrageous amounts of money for athletes". There's a huge gap between team sports played by kids in the playground and professional team sports, and it's only getting huger with each passing year.

Rugby has started to be a bit hit by this but so far, not too much. *clutches rugby*

[ SECRET POST #2414 ]

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?

Re: What do you think of the Olympics boycott?