Must be why there is one pro sports city in the top 10 rankings in quality of life.

I said professional sports improve the quality of life where they exist. Nowhere did I say that you can't have quality of life without one. Basic reading comprehension there, isn't it.

Actually, you made a baseless claim. If they made a real difference, there would be more pro sports cities near the top of the list.

There is no hard data that suggests they improve quality of life, just bullshit platitudes to support the funding of stadia.

The only way to stop the owners from extorting cities is to make a federal law prohibiting tax dollars from being used to subsidize sports teams. It won't happen, but that's the solution

I don't think that the NFL can stop Stan Kroenke and his privately financed stadium for the Rams but the Raiders and Chargers should look elsewhere, especially elsewhere than Carson.

Blech.

The Bismark Raiders has a nice ring to it

Or stop going to games. Let them play in empty stadiums.

Right, then they'll find another city who WILL fund a new stadium with tax money and move there. Thus continues the cycle.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as I see it, the only way to to stop this is by cutting off tax money. Teams will be apt to stay where they are if there is no financial incentive to move

Unfortunately, this happens in cities like Cincinnati, despite the fact the city is on the hook for $8 million per year to the Bengals.

This is why cities like San Diego refuse to build a $1 billion dollar stadium for owners like the Spanos family, who's barely worth barely a billion dollars themselves, despite owning an NFL team.

I think I've mentioned this before but what owners like Mark Davis and the Spanos family should do is sell 49% or 51% of their franchise to another owner, with the NFL requiring both to invest a least $500 million from that sale to build their own stadiums.

That's actually a really interesting point....you take LA out of the equation and where are they going to threaten to move...Portland....Milwaukee...San Antonio? There arent many markets available....

I agree with him, but the problem is for every city that might be willing to put their foot down, there are others without a team lining up willing to fork over the money to get one. Plus politicians don't want to deal with the fallout at the polls of a team leaving under their watch.

New York doesn't have a team. Move one there.

Orlando, Sacramento, Portland and Hartford are all larger TV markets than KC, Cincy, Buffalo and Jacksonville.

Green Bay owns Milwaukee, so...

They do? Portland's MSA has 520K people, Kansas City's has 2.3 million. Hartford's MSA has 273K and is at least a couple hours from Boston or New York. Orlando, Sacramento and Portland's MSA are virtually the same size as KC, give or take 100-200k people.

I guess this is where you come along to tell me exactly what is defined as a TV market, but I would think any Boston or New Yorkers would be largely indifferent about any Hartford team

I'd like to see how you've "proven" that stadiums don't add much to the local economy while I show you what China town in Washington DC looked like before they built the Verizon Center...