Writing A More Accurate Headline: Phoenix Cities Take Big Loss on Superbowl
For reasons I will not get into yet again, cheer-leading local sports subsidies is essentially built into the DNA of most big city newspapers.
Last week our paper ran this headline:
'15 Super Bowl visitors boosted tax revenue by double digits
Wow!
Combined sales tax revenue for January and February totaled $14 million in roughly similar categories for restaurants, bars, hotels and retail in downtown Phoenix, Westgate and Scottsdale. That was up 19.5 percent over the same time a year ago.
That sounds awesome. Take that, all you public subsidy skeptics. Giving the Superbowl the benefit of the doubt and ignoring things like growth and the really good weather this winter, that is $2.28 million increase in taxes which we will generously ascribe all to the Superbowl. And probably mostly taken from non-Arizonans, so its like free money.
It is only later in the article that the paper sheepishly inserts this:
Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale and tourism bureaus from Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe and Mesa combined to spend more than $5.6 million on Super Bowl events and public safety.
So we spent $5.6 million (probably under-estimated) to make $2.28 million (probably not all Superbowl related). The headline was thus a total crock of Sh*t but typical of how, in small ways and large, the media helps push for bigger and bigger government. I am sure the hotels and restaurants did well -- if so, then they are free to form a consortium to pay for the Superbowl's cost next time. Or better yet, have some other sucker city host it and I will happily watch on TV.
Update: I missed this part:
The Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority and Glendale provided a $6.2 million rebate to the NFL on Super Bowl ticket sales, said Kevin Daniels, authority chief financial officer.
I can't tell from the article if that $6.2 million is or is not in the numbers above. I presume it is netted out before hand so that the gain in sales tax would be $6.2 million higher than reported above if this provision did not exist. But this does mean that another valid headline would be:
Nearly 75% of Superbowl Sales Tax Gains Given to the NFL
NL7:
I think you forgot the intangible benefits. Specifically, the intangible benefit to politicians of being associated with popular entertainment activities. Surely that's worth at least $3 or 4 million to the taxpayers?
May 11, 2015, 1:43 pmMatthew Slyfield:
A celebrity death match between said politicians and a pride of starving lions would easily be worth 10 times as much.
Since the lions only have their natural weapons, it's only fair that the politicians be restricted to their natural weapons.
May 11, 2015, 2:26 pmNot Sure:
Feeding politicians to lions seems needlessly cruel.
To the lions.
May 11, 2015, 9:04 pm