Friday, May 20, 2011

The Super Bowl and supersized excess | Michael Tomasky

If you wanted a teachable moment on the concentration of wealth in American society, the Super Bowl supplied it

What a scorcher of a piece in Tuesday's Washington Post by sports columnist Sally Jenkins on the out-of-hand bacchanalia of the modern-day Super Bowl experience, and the larger question of the deep reach of the NFL into the financial coffers of straitened states and cities and into the wallets of taxpayers. A real five-alarmer. There's much to quote. Let's start with this:

"Everything you need to know about the future of the NFL could be seen in the gloriously decadent stadium that hosted this Super Bowl. As NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell pointed out, 'Quite frankly, that's our stage.' It was the cleanest, safest, nicest stadium anyone has ever visited. It was also the most extravagant and economically stratified. It cost double what Jerry Jones said it would, and taxpayers financed about a quarter of it, yet its innermost marble interiors are totally inaccessible to the average fan.

"A tipping point was reached with this Super Bowl, for me. It was the screwed-over anger of those 1,250 people without seats that did it. Those travel-weary, cash-whipped fans paid small fortunes to go to the game, only to discover their stubs were no good, because fire marshals declared some sections unsafe. All of a sudden, the whole thing seemed offensive. It was just too much.

"For absurdity, how about those four Navy F-18s flying over the stadium ? with its retractable roof closed? Everybody inside could only see the planes on the stadium's video screens. It was strictly a two-second beauty shot. Know what it cost taxpayers? I'll tell you: $450,000. (The Navy justifies the expense by saying it's good for recruiting.)"

That F-18 thing is really like something out of Honecker's East Germany, is it not? The power of the state on carefully orchestrated video-screen display, turning everyone in the crowd for those few seconds into captive Winston Smiths.

Here's more, in regard to Cowboys Stadium:

"It's the shiny new toy in the league. New stadiums are such a priority for owners that it's a critical piece of the labour negotiations taking place with the players' union. A major reason owners resent the 60% cut of revenue that goes to players is because it's not easy to finance stadium projects. They want a restructured agreement so 'we can make the kinds of investments that grow this game,' Goodell says, bemoaning the fact that no new construction has started since 2006.

"But how much growth does the league need? It already generates an estimated $8bn, and owners get the first $1bn off the top. If you really love the NFL ? and I do -?you have to wonder if the billionising of the league is really good for it. The average cost of attending a game for a family of four is $412.64. At Cowboys Stadium, it's a staggering $758.58. That's what the league calls growth."

What percentage of an average family's annual entertainment budget is that? Rather hefty. But my question is largely irrelevant, because average families, who live on $52,000 a year, aren't going to Cowboys games. Maybe once a decade. And that's if they can score tickets. Regular people who don't have connections typically have to go to ticket-selling websites, where tickets usually cost a little more.

Then, she really puts the hammer down:

"But in the end, this Super Bowl taught me a lesson: luxury can actually be debasing. The last great building binge in the NFL was from 1995 through 2003, when 21 stadiums were built or refurbished in order to create more luxury boxes, at cost of $6.4bn. Know how much of that the public paid for? $4.4bn. Why are we giving 32 rich guys that kind of money, just to prey on us at the box office and concessions? The Dallas deal should be the last of its kind.

When an owner grows tired of a facility and leaves, guess who picks up the tab? New Jersey still owes $110m on the old Meadowlands home of the New York Giants and Jets, and when both teams moved to their new $1.6bn, privately financed stadium, they got a huge tax break. According to the Wall Street Journal, under their old agreement they paid $20m a year in tax revenues; now they will pay only about $6m a year. Know what New Jersey's deficit is? I'll tell you: $36bn."

How do multibillion-dollar corporations manage to get their tax bills reduced by more than two-thirds? I didn't read the Journal article, but I expect the answer is pretty much the same way the wealthiest Americans got their federal tax rates slashed in half in the last 30 years. It's trickledown, supersized.

British friends, I reckon this kind of thing is headed your way, if it hasn't arrived already. I've been to one British pitch in my life, White Hart Lane (I was there on that infamous day in 1996 when Mark Bosnich made a Nazi salute to mock Jurgen Klinsmann). I loved the place. Now, for all I know, current Spurs ownership wants new digs. But if this were the NFL, there is no possible, imaginable, conceivable way that an NFL team would use such a facility. They'd long since have ransomed the good people of Tottenham for millions.

I doubt it can be as bad over there as it is here, though. And naturally, it's worst in Texas, where they have to do everything on an epic scale and there is very little countervailing civic pressure, and in New York, where a half-million dollars buys you a tiny little studio apartment.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Veronika Vaeková Eve Brittany Lee Daisy Fuentes Asia Argento

No comments:

Post a Comment