calling a football stadium "private" is total nonsense. First of all, it is used during the football season for games which draw untold millions of dollars into the area. It is used, outside the football season, for a myriad of other money making situations...concerts, revivals, whatever.... The team cannot take the stadium with them if they leave. A stadium is a large, expensive, investment in a city's future and in most cases it is a VERY wise investment. While the Indianapolis motor speedway is truly a private facility, it has all the benefits of a public facility except that the locality does not necessarily get a cut of the pie. Other than the Green Bay Packers who probably do own Lambeau Field, other teams, which are normally not locked into an everlasting contract to stay put, could not possibly afford to erect a "private" stadium to house 8 or 9 home games.
Like convention centers, they usually do not benefit the area in any real way. Let the billionaire owners and millionaire players and the ticket buyers finance their own stadiums. Just like every other business.
I was just sitting in a private football stadium on Monday. Telling you this could spoil your lunch, I know, but you brought it up.
“First of all, it (a stadium) is used during the football season for games which draw untold millions of dollars into the area.”
All the better that the attraction of a football team draws “untold millions of dollars” into an area. That permits the community to cover the cost of the public safety issues and other costs associated with the attraction, leaving them (hopefully) with benefits greater than the additional expenses involved. Why, then, should the community stand the extra expense of building and maintaining a facility from which private parties profit?
It is used, outside the football season, for a myriad of other money making situations...concerts, revivals, whatever....”
From which the owners, be they “private” or “public,” will benefit, helping them to reap a return on their investment. And, again, the community benefits from the fallout of each attraction’s “draw” outside the stadium.
“While the Indianapolis motor speedway is truly a private facility, it has all the benefits of a public facility except that the locality does not necessarily get a cut of the pie.”
Why? Because the speedway is “truly” a private facility? The “untold millions of dollars” drawn into the area by the attraction magically disappear because the speedway is not a publicly funded facility? Explain that dynamic.
“. . . teams, which are normally not locked into an everlasting contract to stay put, could not possibly afford to erect a "private" stadium to house 8 or 9 home games.”
What about those “myriad” of other moneymaking attractions you mentioned? Do they go away simply because the facility is “private”? Jerry Jones, the only franchise owner I know of who has built his own stadium, doesn’t think they will. He expects to generate revenue from the large numbers of tourists who will pay simply to tour his new facility, not to mention the “myriad” of other moneymaking attractions his facility will attract.
Because a team was not locked into a long-term contract to stay put (not an “everlasting” contract, as you put it) a major media market went without an NFL franchise for twelve years, and a greater market has been without an NFL franchise even longer. What might have been their history had the franchise been more invested in the community and had they greater revenue sources than merely their single franchise?