Multiple Perspectives
As I argued in my previous posts about professional sports leagues, in this case the NFL, the rising demand for sports entertainment comes with a price to the cities which each team resides in. In my arguments I defended the cities affected by poor deals made by franchisees, claiming that the cities were victims and that leagues and or teams should be held accountable for the debt they leave in the previous cities they were located in. The cities of Oakland and St. Louis are prime examples of the repercussions that may come when building a new stadium or making modifications to an existing stadium, in order to fulfill the demands of the franchise owners. In the article Negotiating With the Growth Machine: Community Benefits Agreements and Value-Conscious Growth What by Colleen Cain, she discusses the public officials, and citizens see the positive outcomes of a new sports team coming to the area. According to Cain (2015), “Residents expressed a desire for the Penguins to be good neighbors, to be more aware of the “community they’ve invaded,’(p. 945). Instead of analyzing the cons of building of a new stadium, in this case study, the city of Pittsburg, PA embraced the Penguin hockey franchise.
I failed to take into consideration is that the cities ultimately made an agreement with the team, the cities understood the debt that comes with building a stadium. Unlike most of my sources were too left sided, only concentrating on the negative aspect of my topic, making the cities the victim of the scenario as if they were completely vulnerable. Cain’s article promoted the idea that cities allowing a franchise moving into the area essential for city growth and community development. Cain has a valid argument, it is on the city officials to decide if a new stadium is beneficial for city growth. Cain discussed Community Benefit Agreements are used so the public can agree if they want a franchise in their community. CBA’s are what the public vote on basically what is built or what needs remolding.
Cain’s article challenges my idea that the NFL should not be held accountable for the debt cities gain from a new stadium, for the cities wanted the team to move in. Like most negotiations, both parties should take into all factors and possible scenarios before reaching an agreement. I still strongly believe that professional leagues should be held accountable for any left over debt, due to the amount of income they gain from these cities. I do not believe it is fair for cities like St. Louis and Oakland to be left with debt from teams that do not even play in the area. Although I do now must acknowledge that these are business deals and city officials and the public should be responsible for voting for what they believe is positive for their own community. There needs to be more protection for the cities due to the amount of money they produce for the “non-profit” professional sports organizations. (501)
