Cities need to do what LA did when the Rams and Radiers left because the city would nit use tax dollars to update their stadiums, let the teams go. No city should pay for private stadium with tax payers money. A city may have to wait for a team, but teams need a place to play and will come back when no one gives them a tax break.
1
StevenMC19Apr 1, 2026
+1
Sports are the one rare business in which they rely on enough competition to survive. They need the 20-30 or so other teams in order to even exist. Certain sports structures have situations in which the owners are required to vote on significant actions, as the change affects them all. Commissioners also have a certain amount of power to deny actions taken, usually within the realm of personnel decisions, but sometimes as a mediator or tiebreaker among owners.
If they see a trend in which owners are slowly being locked out of major markets, thus reducing their value overall with national TV deals or merchandise sales, they'd sooner push the offending owner or the majority investor in the consortium out of his or her seat in power by either forcing them to sell or capitulate to a lesser deal in their own city. Only in instances where the other owners see a move as also beneficial to them, they'll roll with it, such as the Athletics from an aging Oakland Coliseum to a flashier new park in Vegas (even at the short term sacrifice of having to go to Sacramento for a bit, or tolerating Fisher's insistence not to deal with the city of Oakland even though they were bending over backwards to give him everything and more to keep the team).
So the likelier outcome is that the team would rather stay in their established markets if the move isn't lateral at the very least, preferably an upward relocation.
1
Smidge-of-the-ObtuseApr 1, 2026
+9
Good to see. For the millions and billions that these teams make, it has been a game of playing cities against each other to whomever will offer the best tax breaks, only to move again before the host city truly sees a return on its investment.
Also a nice change of pace to see a normal legislative bill that doesn’t involve the other 99% of a dumpster fire that the US has become.
9
[deleted]Apr 1, 2026
+4
[deleted]
4
StevenMC19Apr 1, 2026
+1
What? They're very VERY much for-profit.
The only exception is Major League Baseball, but even they're for-profit. Their only real exemption is that they're allowed to operate with impunity towards anti-competition laws thanks to a decision in 1922 by the Supreme Court denominating baseball to be a game and not a business. Regarding non-profit status, MLB specifically lost that status in 2007.
1
BromodrosisApr 1, 2026
+2
Glad to see we're out of real problems in this country.
2
Commercial-East4069Apr 1, 2026
+4
I’ve been a huge sports fan all my life, but teams are literally extorting state and local governments with the threat of leaving.
4
StevenMC19Apr 1, 2026
+1
I'm sure there are thousands who won't be about this because it's no relevant at all to the BIGGEST current events, but I'm very happy that amidst all the wackiness, there are still protective measures being pushed in politics.
For Billionaires and ownership consortiums to dangle the threat of relocation because the city they're playing in can't afford to pony up the cost of a new stadium and the infrastructure upgrades that the owner demands, it's a slimy tactic that will ultimately destroy one of modern society's greatest contributions...simulated tribalism that allows for escapism and catharsis...except for Cleveland.
Also, there should also be rules in place to prevent owners from reneging on deals already made because they suddenly want more. The previous owner of the Tampa Bay Rays had a deal in place with St. Petersburg for a new stadium, but then pulled out when he decided he wanted to get more from the deal after the fact.
1
SurroundTinyApr 1, 2026
Thank God. There were millions of Americans marching in the streets about it just this weekend.
0
OkSir7411Apr 1, 2026
-2
This bill is unnecessary.
If cities give these teams money and without any way to ensure they are paid back, that’s their fault.
Stop subsidizing industries! The bill should be to prevent giving money to sports companies
-2
Commercial-East4069Apr 1, 2026
+1
But our system is ran by politicians, who are terrified to be blamed for the team leaving and who love to be in the good graces of a potential donor. Just don’t do it is an unrealistic solution to a real problem .
1
OkSir7411Apr 1, 2026
+1
So giving them tax money and forcing them to stay is the solution? Guess what? They won’t stay… theyll just sell assets and get around the law. This law is unnecessary regardless of how many Bernie sycophants (No less culty than MAGA morons) downvote it.
1
Commercial-East4069Apr 1, 2026
+1
No, don’t give them the tax money and make it difficult for owners to move.
The asset is the team… selling it isn’t inherently bad for fans or the city.
It’s a real problem that billions of our tax dollars are going to build stadiums and the leverage the billionaires have is relocating to a place that will give them billions of tax dollars. If this isn’t the solution, what would you suggest?
I
1
OkSir7411Apr 1, 2026
+1
There is nothing from stopping the ownership or the league itself from nuking the team and making it unprofitable. The government needs to stop financing teams and stadiums. Let the private sector fund it ifself and do with it what it wishes
1
jjaime2024Apr 1, 2026
-10
All this will do is leads to teams folding.
-10
Commercial-East4069Apr 1, 2026
+8
Even the small market teams sell immediately for billions of dollars and outside of the big spenders in the MLB and NBA, everyone is turning a profit. Why would anyone fold? They use the threat of leaving to leverage state and local governments to buy new stadiums for them.
8
MiddleAgedSpongerApr 1, 2026
+13
Who cares? If a team can't make it without tax payer money then they don't deserve to exist. Or is the free market only good for poor people?
13
maddprofApr 1, 2026
+6
Good. Level every professional sports stadium/arena/field and make the space a public park.
6
GoldberrySpringApr 1, 2026
+3
The only thing Wisconsin's divided government ($5b+ budget surplus) has agreed on in the last five years was to fund stadium renovations for a team that has never won shit. I wouldn't care if they folded and I've been a fan all my life.
3
notjustsome-allApr 1, 2026
+1
Don’t forget the $300 million in taxpayer money they freed up for the Bucks new arena by cutting FF the same amount from the UW system.
Wisconsin also has a great example of public ownership with the Packers. There is no reason every team can’t be publicly owned. Any state or municipality that pays for stadium construction or renovation sure as hell should get a proportional ownership stake in the team for that money. That will never happen obviously, but it should happen.
1
iamgrzegorzApr 1, 2026
+3
It won’t, leagues are expanding, signing record tv deals, team are sold for record sums.
Teams are moving teams due to greed, they want cities to sponsor stadiums from taxpayers money. It only benefits the already rich owners.
3
meltdown_popcornApr 1, 2026
+1
So cities should subsidize these businesses? I don't think they're that important.
22 Comments