Why don't European sports teams use relocation to get public money?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why don't European sports teams use relocation to get public money?

Flutieflakes017: Feb 16, 2012; only if you've been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain

Long term lurker, first time poster.

I'm working on a research project regarding reducing the ability of American sports teams to have stadiums publicly financed.

I would like to compare the situation in the US with European Sports but am not very familiar with Futball (or Rugby). Can any ~~Eurotrash~~ European goons, or goons interested in European sports (soccer, rugby etc.), provide insight as to why European teams don't threaten relocation in order to get public money or actually relocate when the government doesn't fork over cash for a new arena?

My understanding after some initial research is that many of the largest and most profitable clubs own their own stadiums and finance construction through various debt instruments. It's also my understanding that public money is still in play at least to some extent because European countries/cities compete to attract various international sporting events.

A few theories I've considered but have no data to back up or sense as to how valid they are:
1) Relocating is not a useful threat because local municipalities can't fund multi-million dollar stadium construction.
2) Sports club's roots run so deep that it is culturally inconceivable that a club might move.
3) The promotion and relegation system means there is no scarcity of teams and therefore teams can't credibly hold their home town hostage by threatening to move somewhere else. Other cities already have teams and aren't interested in enticing one to relocate, even if the team they currently have doesn't belong to the top tier.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2016 00:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:46

Flutieflakes017: Feb 16, 2012; only if you've been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain

Simplex posted:

Basically all of the stadiums built in Germany for the 2006 World Cup got taken over by local club teams.

Does "taken over" mean leased out to or bought? My gut says leased because as an American it's hard to imagine a sports team assuming debt-- but I have no idea.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2016 09:27

Flutieflakes017: Feb 16, 2012; only if you've been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

So again, this has nothing to do with sports, large entities bartering with local government for favorable tax statuses is the name of the game world-wide regardless of industry. Focusing on sports arguably leads you to the wrong conclusions since you're too busy focusing on the tree to see the forest. I'm quite certain when you run the numbers the amount sports team receive in assistance represents a fraction of a fraction of a percent compared to overall corporate welfare.

I definitely realize this. The scope of this particular project is focused on sports.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2016 17:25

Flutieflakes017: Feb 16, 2012; only if you've been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain

Whorelord posted:

Then why isn't it the same in America? Why doesn't every decent sized city in America have a decent team?

NFL/MLB/NBA are effectively cartels that bar other teams from entry and the financial costs of starting a new league are high enough to keep people from attempting it. The last successful 'upstart' league merged into the NFL in 1966.

College football, the second most watched sport in the US, fills some of the demand for football in cities that don't have an NFL team.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2016 17:31

Flutieflakes017: Feb 16, 2012; only if you've been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain

Pluskut Tukker posted:

The stadium itself was paid for by a joint venture of its two occupants, However, stadiums are useless without infrastructure improvements and area development, and the costs for those always end up being borne by the public. In Munich, the costs were expected to be so large (they ended up in excess of 200 million euro) that the city government sought approval from the voters.

Of course, this was effectively a kind of state aid (no infrastructure = no stadium), and cities all over Europe have found all sorts of ways to test the boundaries of EU state aid rules. In the Netherlands for instance, the city of Eindhoven bought the land under the stadium and training complex from the PSV football club to supply it with cash, and got away with it because they did so at market value, even though there was absolutely no economically sensible reason for the city to own the ground but not the stadium on the ground. Sometimes the cities own the stadiums themselves and accept reduced rents or payment delays if clubs are in financial difficulties (my local club wouldn't have survived without the city's forbearance - it loaned the club money to finance the stadium and now guarantees a large part of its debt), or they buy the stadiums outright. On the other hand, the city of Madrid was found to be in violation of state aid rules for a land swap deal with Real Madrid where it paid the club far above market value for its grounds.

So to the OP: European sports teams (at least in football, and who cares about anything else?) don't use relocation to get money because they can usually already count on getting public money when they need it, within the flexible limits set by the EU. And beyond that, most teams are so tied to their local origins that they wouldn't be able to relocate, if just for their names. Look at the league tables for any European football league and you'll see that almost all clubs will have the name of their city or region in their name. Although there are exceptions (the Red Bull company seems to be trying to create franchises, but everybody hates them), mostly you can't just transplant AS Roma to Milan, SC Freiburg to Kiel, Lille OSC to Clermont-Ferrand or FC Twente to Limburg.

Thanks, great information. I'm going to follow up on several of these.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2016 20:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:46

Flutieflakes017: Feb 16, 2012; only if you've been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain

Y-Hat posted:

OP, you should definitely look into West Ham United in the Premier League. They're a London club and they still play in the city, but they play in what was the 2012 Olympic Stadium, which isn't part of their former neighborhood. There was plenty of political controversy surrounding the move. I'm not sure what it was about exactly, but I know that there was public money involved.

Thanks for this.

Given the cultural and market forces that prevent teams from threatening to relocate in the UK and on Continental Europe it probably makes more sense for me to refocus my research on the kind of arrangements clubs make to utilize public stadiums and the legal limitations on these kind of arrangements (i.e. EU limitations on "state aid").

# ¿ Sep 29, 2016 01:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why don't European sports teams use relocation to get public money?