My hometown has been fretting of late about whether a proposed sports complex should receive funds, directly or indirectly, from the municiple government.
There are votes to be won and lost in the 'public money for arenas' debates, and the government of Canada has also been weighing its options (and publicly equivocating) about the matter. Yesterday, news came of a clever roundabout way for Harper's government to financially back the projects without directly doing so. The portion of the Federal gas tax given to cities, previously only to be used on public transit and a few other select endeavors, could possibly in the future be used for municiple projects, including arenas. A few hours after word got out, the government sorta maybe stepped back from the idea.
As a number of recent books argue (which I admit I've only heard talked about on the radio), profitability in sports has, for a number of generations, been less about building a community-connected winning brand and more about getting governments to pay one of your major expenses: facilities. In a sense, sports teams hold governments ransom. If you decide your city won't try to lure or retain sports francises with direct subsidies and tax expenditures, there is surely another jurisdiction that will. The same, of course, goes for non-sports businesses.
This recent Globe and Mail piece looks at how the reactions to public funding for pro sports differs from public funding for the arts. This post on Colby Cosh's Maclean's blog makes the case that the widespead acceptance of funding for, say, an art gallary, put beside widespread antipathy towards money for a pro sports area makes perfect sense when you think about the meaning of 'public'. Both are worth reading.
As with all political issues, and I really mean all political issues, we can find great insight into the mess by watching Yes Minister. In this clip, two top bureaucrats discuss public funding for sports stadiums:
Yes Minister is the best.
The conversation seems to have all taken place on Facebook! Alas. For what it's worth, I agree with Paul.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think it would be worth examining how the rhetoric of elitism can work to disguise situations that are exactly the opposite - where the "commoners" have all the power and money, but can still use "elite" to sneer at their opponents.
ReplyDelete