Atlanta Sports Council Proposes $10 Million Super Bowl Exemption
To win the Super Bowl in 2019 or 2020, the Atlanta Sports Council wants Georgia taxpayers to forego $10-12 million in sales tax from ticket sales.
The lobbying group, which has the backing of the Governor’s office and Mayor Kasim Reed, hopes to file a bill which will allow the state to waive sales tax for high-profile sports events. Presumably, this power would reside in the hands of the state economic development commissioner and the Revenue Department.
While we’re at it, let’s provide sales tax exemptions for all large, rotating sports events, like the 2018 college football national championship and 2020 NCAA Men’s Final Four. Atlanta’s bid to host the 2018 football game already promised three million in sales tax reimbursements, with or without the approval of the state legislature or city council.
The NFL requires tax-free tickets to any city awarded (!) the Super Bowl. Other freebies include 30% off in-stadium catering for box seats, a free bowling alley (?), and no-cost snow removal. Thankfully, Atlanta specializes in the last one.
Dan Corso of the Atlanta Sports Council forecasts the Super Bowl would bring in $400 million of economic activity, which would generate $30 million in sales tax.
Familiar discontents from the left and right have opposed the implicit subsidy. Senator Vincent Fort: “It’s corporate welfare at its most cavalier. Enough is enough. It just doesn’t make sense.” Tying it to last year’s transportation bill, Senator Josh McKoon said “it is unthinkable that Republicans would give away tens of millions of dollars to moneyed special interests.”
Taxpayers routinely finance new facilities for billionaire sports franchise owners. This particular system of public risk and private profit is a familiar hobbyhorse and embarrassment. Deep in your bones, you already knew John Oliver had a 20 minute lecture at the ready.
But in this instance, not a dime is at stake. There is no doubt that Georgia will receive $0 in Super Bowl sales tax in 2019 and 2020. We’ll either have one, which requires supplicating to the NFL shield, or we won’t.
There are lots of good arguments about the immorality of a $300 million bond to replace a perfectly good stadium or the market distortions of exempting sales tax on new construction materials for the same. Think tanks will spend eternity debating if Super Bowls double tax revenue or crowd out other tourists.
Clearly the Super Bowl increases tax revenue; whether it offsets associated costs likely depends on the size and circumstances of the city in question. It’s a better investment for New Orleans than Glendale— which would you rather visit? Regardless, the $300 million bond, the missed sales tax revenue, and the grotesque public accommodations are a sunk cost.
Above all: why does the public allow this to continue? Perhaps, in the most important accounting, citizens care more about sports than good government.
About Author
Chet Martin
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am announcing an exploratory committee to bring the Raiders and Super Bowl 53 to Bowman. Unfortunately, the original funding source via Powerball fell through but what’s another $300 million for a stadium in Northeast GA.
Given Bowman’s history of Coca-Cola sponsorship, this is something we can get done
While I’m definitely not going to be the NFL defender, at least we need to be factually accurate.
San Francisco and the NFL mutually decided not to take down the muni wires as reported at sfgate.com. They changed the plan to accommodate the muni wires.
The Raiders are not necessarily staying in the bay area. They were offered money by the NFL as a consolation prize to build a stadium, but not near enough. It is still a fluid situation.
I’m so sick of hearing how the NFL is responsible for grown men banging heads thus causing concussions. Players have a choice. They choose to play ball knowing the inherent risks involved. They make millions doing so and should accept responsibility for bodily harm caused by their career pursuit.
PEDs were addressed – http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000396116/article/nfl-union-announce-agreement-to-new-ped-policy
Domestic violence penalties are more severe than any other major sports league and certainly more punishing than any I’ve heard of in the normal business world.
Please cite your data for this statement – “run by a bunch of owners that are a who’s who of cartoon bad guys.” and the part about no money going to breast cancer from pink colored gear.
If Atlanta wants a Super Bowl, it will come with a price same as with every major sporting event.
ACP, thanks for the links on breast cancer funding. The actual percentage is not much different than the amount that gets to education through lottery sales. But I guess the NFL could also argue that by using October as a month to wear pink accessories while millions watch the games, there is an increase in awareness and possibly contributions that are not counted in NFL sales.
The rest can be debated. You cite 3 owners as a reflection of the overall ownership. Hardly an indictment of the entire group. Concussions are a hazard of the job, players know this going in and play despite being told not to. Then file lawsuits years later. Sorry, not buying this one.
+1. Same with the tobacco lawsuit. They plastered a warning label on the cigs in the mid-60’s. You got cancer after knowing it was dangerous? You shouldn’t have gotten a dime. Biggest civil miscarriage of justice ever.
One of the greatest mistakes people make in politics (and life) is continuing to fight battles that are already lost. Whether because of emotion, denial, or laziness to recycle talking points some refuse to move on.
That preface is to say that those of you familiar with my writing know that there was likely not a more outspoken critic of this stadium deal and the process of how it came about than me. I was “not a fan”.
That said, I lost. Period. The stadium is under construction. I’ve moved on.
This is a different argument. As Chet notes, we’ll get 0 of $0 by holding the grudge over a bad stadium financing deal. Part of the upside in building this redundant stadium was to get a Super Bowl. It would be the hight of stupidity to now try to torpedo one of the main trophies of building a new stadium that has a defined positive economic benefit because some are still fighting a lost battle.
I’ve moved on. The other critics should too.
I think this one has a 30 year lease (not stopping to look it up) so at least we’ll have to wait a few years longer this time before the upgrade carousel begins again, at least with the NFL.
Where’s the like button here?
Charlie: I hear what you’re saying. It’s done. There’s nothing we can do about it, so we might as well enjoy ourselves and get on board. My problem with that however is that that’s how they keep getting away with it. Owners know that a great majority of fans will bend over and take it and then when push comes to shove, not act any differently and still buy tickets, still watch the games and what not. There’s essentially no price to be paid. If you can get away with backdoor deals with some (IMO) corrupt politicians and garner yourself a few hundred million in tax dollars without the taxpayers really getting pissed, of course you’ll do it.
The only way all of this is ever going to stop is if people decide they’re tired of billionaires getting hundreds of free public millions for their pet projects and actually not buy tickets, not watch games and speak out at every chance.
Again, while your point is taken, I’ll say it again this way:
1) The Super Bowl is going to be held somewhere.
2) The semi-official rule is if you build a new stadium, you get a Superbowl
3) To get rule number two, the NFL (as with any other major event sponsor) is going to dictate some terms for the bid (check out the demands for Olympics these days…or even the RNC or DNC conventions)
4) The Superbowl is going to sell out wherever it is, is going to be a major media draw/advertisement for the host city, and will have people from all over show up, eat at restaurants (sales tax), stay in hotels (ALL THE TAXES!), rent cars (more taxes!), and spend money in many other area attractions (taxes, taxes, taxes).
5) Any major convention city routinely makes concessions to land the deal, in order to gain the ancillary benefits and revenues that come with that deal.
6) So, in summary, the place to take a stand is when the financing deal is on the table. After it’s done, we’re unilaterally disarming when some city, somewhere, will be happy to take the deal offered – and all the publicity, tourists, business revenues, and tax revenues that come with it.
The question comes down to what is gained from hosting a Super Bowl in other areas of sales that generate taxes. I know the tax revenue measured in Brown County in January when Green Bay hosts a playoff vs. no game is huge for a county with less then 260,000 people. It’s not too shabby for the half dozen counties that I-41 and I-43 pass through to the south, Oneida Indian Reservation to the west, or little Oconto County to the north either. Not including the extra profit from general sales to local business. Again, that’s just for a ‘at-home’ playoff.
Why would the NFL make a no sales tax stipulation ?
If a $100+ fee @ were attached for the stadium and they give a portion to the NFL, packagers would still grab them up, Mark them up and sell them out.
There’s no doubt Arthur Blank knew it would require a $10M tax exemption to get the Superbowl when that was touted as a benefit of a new stadium.
Did government leadership not know it would cost $10M to get the Superboel, or did it sit on that information during public debate and when touting hosting the Superbowl?
It’s indication they were out of their league in negotiations if they didn’t know.
It’s indication of how they think the public should be handled if they did.
Rock on, Donald Trump. The establishment is clueless.
“Rock on, Donald Trump. The establishment is clueless.”
Wait what? Donald Trump would fork over that money to the NFL faster than Felicia Moore could file an inquiry (wait, that’s the current mayor…HEY-OH!)
Trump would be the worst kind of crony capitalism, corporate welfare we’ve ever seen. He would blow that type of stuff WAY UP. Crony capitalism on East German era steroids. Reason #680 to keep that blowhard as far from the White House as possible.
Trump very well would fork it over pronto. The point I sought to make wasn’t that Trump wouldn’t do such a thing, but the $10M tax exemption is is an example of pols that were either stupid or (more likely) think the public is stupid (not without reason), and that Trump has tapped into people’s anger about such things. Trump has no record as an officeholder, he’s done well in deal-making on his own behalf, and there’s an ear for the bluster his deals would well serve the public.
I didn’t think it three months ago, but it appears Trump may rock on, just as the establishment rocks on: $30M parking structures not in the deal, eight figure bridges over I-75 not in the deal, transportation improvements not in the deals, etc.
You forgot to mention the NFL is (or was until very recently) a monopoly non-profit.