Apple Chips in $2M to Help Offset Tax Payer Super Bowl Expenses, post.
Apple, Google, and several other tech companies have chipped in US$2 million each to help defer taxpayer costs for Super Bowl 50, which will be hosted in San Jose. The contributions are part of a $40 million fund started by the Super Bowl Host Committee.
As a European, I am more than a little confused. How can the most successful sporting event in the world, with the highest ad prices anywhere, be *losing money*??
I'm serious, how the heck does this work? Can somebody explain?
And by the way, wouldn't two million from Apple be better spent going to a children's hospital or whatnot, instead of subsidising sports? Or maybe more exactly: why would the superbowl need taxpayer's money? If the fans don't care enough to keep it afloat, why save a commercial entertainment even with public money?
Will it make more sense if you know that the NFL holds a tax exempt status? They don't pay any federal tax!
ReplyDeleteIt's corruption, specifically cronyism. Same as Detroit dumping $400 mil on a sports stadium while not honoring pension commitments. Or New Jersey handing out corporate tax breaks instead of funding pensions. Or California "farmers" selling their subsidized water to cities for huge profit. Or the local highschool cutting its music program while the superintendent gets a five-figure raise. You get the picture...
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to.
ReplyDelete--
"NFL holds a tax exempt status"
Oh, of course, why not, all the other churches do.
Same as Detroit dumping $400 mil on a sports stadium while not honoring pension commitments.
ReplyDeleteThat's called "economic development."
I'm not impressed by Google, et al, chipping in $2 million - that's like one of us donating what change we find in our couch cushions.
And by the way, wouldn't two million from Apple be better spent going to a children's hospital or whatnot, instead of subsidising sports?
People always make this argument when money is spent on something frivolous. Thing is, the buying and selling of crap is what provides a lot of the wealth of any country.
Think of the NFL like a big manufacturing company. When a manufacturing company decides to build a new plant, they play off one location against the other trying to get the best deal on land prices, taxes, etc. The NFL does the same thing every year with the Super Bowl.
ReplyDeleteAny region that wants the Super Bowl has to make various promises to the NFL: their stadium will have so many seats, there will be so many hotel rooms available, police will provide security, etc. Some of these promises cost money, and that’s what Apple, Google, et al are helping out with.
They are not paying the NFL, they are paying a local committee that had to make promises to the NFL to get the game in San Jose. Unlike the NFL, these local committees rarely make money on the game.
As a one living five miles from that stadium: These money (total pledged are $40m) won't go to NFL but to local county to offset the costs with organising the event. By a rule, a quarter of the money will go to chariries.
ReplyDeleteHere is an article in local newspaper about that http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/40-million-Super-Bowl-fund-unlikely-to-benefit-5536571.php
Thanks, George.
ReplyDeleteThough... if the county are losing money on the deal, why do they work so hard to get the superbowl in their location?
ReplyDeleteDan, I hear you.
ReplyDeleteBruce, thanks.
"why do they work so hard to get the superbowl in their location?"
ReplyDeleteThere will be a lot of money spent in the SF Bay Area during the two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl. In theory the area will receive more money than the county has to spend.
Another theory is that the area receiving attention from people watching the game on TV will (somehow) help the area in the long term.
A seldom mentioned theory is that hosting the game makes local politicians feel important, which is something politicians everywhere like to feel.