KSL.com Comment Board

[StarsOnSunday]

Originally Posted by Burninator

How does it work? I tried to post this, but I don't know if it went through...

"In Argentina, if a neighborhood wants to have its streets paved, the members of that neighborhood have to pay for it. I'm thankful that I live in the USA where those sort of things can generally be managed and paid for by the government using our tax dollars.

Real Salt Lake already has money ($90-$100 million) to build all the different parts of the stadium complex, including public-use elements (youth soccer fields in particular). Apparently, Real Salt Lake also wants to share the stadium field with local high schools in order to host soccer and lacrosse games.

Why should Real Salt Lake have to pay for land and infrastructure improvements (TRAX, parking, road improvements) that will directly benefit the public? How many people travel in and around the 9400 South/State Street area? All of those that do, and yet do not attend soccer games, will directly benefit from the construction of the stadium. We don't live in Argentina. We live in the good ol' USA where some of our tax dollars support public infrastructure instead of other, less-worthy ends. If we can build Franklin Covey field and the E-Center entirely with public money, I think we can help Real Salt Lake with public infrastructure and land costs.

This is the private-public partnership that Real Salt Lake desires. They want to share the stadium, they want to involve the community, and they want to have a wonderful relationship with Salt Lake County and its residents, whether they attend Real Salt Lake games or not. They do not want to charge Salt Lake County for these improvements, either. They want to charge transients in SLCo through a hotel tax that will primarily tax visitors to our state, and at a very acceptable rate(1.25%).

Mayor Corroon was probably correct in not wanting to pay $87 million after interest, so a new funding model needs to be found. The visceral reaction to much of the half- and misinformation regarding the stadium is what many of us feel: if a private business can't stand on its own, does it deserve to exist, period? If a business offers significant value to the public through its existence, however, that business definitely can ask for limited public financial support to reach its goals.

Real Salt Lake is good for Sandy, good for Salt Lake County, and good for Utah. Let's find an acceptable way to make this public-private partnership work and help Salt Lake County residents to understand the benefits they will reap from Real Salt Lake's continued presence in Salt Lake County."

Good arguments? Someone needs to post Dean Howes' statement on the leak...

⚽ Geoff
-----------------------
REGULATORS! Mount up!
Stick it to the Man! The Man hates soccer!

Forget the piddily KSL boards! This needs to be published in the papers! Please Geoff, send this to both the Des News and the Trib. Although I wouldn't call out Argentina by name, as the papers might doubt your credibilty on the subject. You can skirt that issue by refferring to "in some nations" or "on parts of Latin America".

[RSLfrontrowfan]

From the KSL board:

Originally Posted by PH

Soccer is NOT the greatest game in the world. It's just about the most BORING sport in the world, except it's lost that distinction to golf. In either sport, only the participants get anything out of it. And in the case of SL ReAL, all they get is loss after loss. But that's OK, because watching soccer is a waste of time! the fans can relate to it better that way, too!

My response:
Let's just review some numbers. ESPN reported that the Italian Serie A league soccer match on March 12th between AC Milan and Juventus was seen by an estimated worldwide audience of 2 billion people (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=188190&cc=5901) - and that was just a regular league match. The 2002 world cup was seen by a cumulative worldwide audience of 28.8 billion over the 25 match days of the tournament (1.15 billion per match day). The biggest sporting event in the U.S., the superbowl, was only seen by an estimated worlwide TV audience of 750 million viewers. Not even close! SOCCER is the world's sport. The NCAA mens basketball final was only seen by 45.6 million viewers (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635194014,00.html). So you see nothing the U.S. has to offer even comes close. SOCCER IS THE GREATEST SPORT ON EARTH! You will be reminded of this over and over again this summer as ABC, ESPN and ESPN2 show every world cup match. I hope you have a TIVO so you don't miss one second of the GREATEST sporting event on earth!

[knowwonnose]

Originally Posted by RSLfrontrowfan

From the KSL board:


My response:
Let's just review some numbers. ESPN reported that the Italian Serie A league soccer match on March 12th between AC Milan and Juventus was seen by an estimated worldwide audience of 2 billion people (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=188190&cc=5901) - and that was just a regular league match. The 2002 world cup was seen by a cumulative worldwide audience of 28.8 billion over the 25 match days of the tournament (1.15 billion per match day). The biggest sporting event in the U.S., the superbowl, was only seen by an estimated worlwide TV audience of 750 million viewers. Not even close! SOCCER is the world's sport. The NCAA mens basketball final was only seen by 45.6 million viewers (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635194014,00.html). So you see nothing the U.S. has to offer even comes close. SOCCER IS THE GREATEST SPORT ON EARTH! You will be reminded of this over and over again this summer as ABC, ESPN and ESPN2 show every world cup match. I hope you have a TIVO so you don't miss one second of the GREATEST sporting event on earth!

I don't think it is fair to compare TV viewing audience to rate the excitement level of any activity. I know that there are some things that are very exciting in my life that I don't want to watch on TV. Still, soccer is an exciting game for those who understand it and whose inclination is toward this sport. However, the enjoyment of any sports or activities is in the eye of the participants and viewers. One need not comment that soccer is a boring sport because they don't like it. In the same way, no one needs to assume that everyone in the US should like soccer because it is the world's favorite game.

Heck, I have friends from England who only want to watch rugby, one from Irland that prefers American NCAA basketball and one from Romania who is a die-hard NFL fan.

You're right, soccer is a huge game in the rest of the world, and growing in popularity in the US. It is called the greatest game in the world because it has the greatest number of followers, but all fans and non-fans will create their own judgement about the level of excitement they receive. The worse thing RSL fans can do right now is to criticize non-fans for not following the sport.

[I_Believe_In_Kreis]

Originally Posted by knowwonnose

The worse thing RSL fans can do right now is to criticize non-fans for not following the sport.

True, but non-fans are establishing a dangerous precedent when it comes to stadium funding and it's important we educate them. It seems like the average non-soccer fan's line of thinking goes as follows:
"Americans don't dominate soccer. Therefore I don't like soccer. Since I don't like it, it must not be very popular. Therefore RSL (or MLS as a whole) is going to fold. So why should I want my tax dollars going towards a stadium? After all, the team is as good as gone, and I don't like soccer anyway."
There's so much flawed reasoning here it's scary. Another example (from my own life): I don't like to fly. Does that mean I should be opposed to having an airport? After all, it's nothing but my tax dollars being used to subsidize a bunch of private businesses. Why should United, Delta, etc. get a government piggyback? Let 'em build their own damn airports!
See what I mean?

So while we shouldn't make fun of non-soccer fans for not being fans, we DO have a right (and I would argue an obligation) to help people see why the stadium is a good idea, why the team is going to be here for a long time, etc.

[Jose Luis Luviano]

There are some pretty hefty taxes on airline tickets that are supposed to be used for airports.

In addition, airlines have to pay landing fees.

Jet fuel, I am pretty sure, is heavily taxed as well.

So, in effect, airlines and their passengers do (or are supposed to) pay for airports themselves.

[knowwonnose]

Originally Posted by I_Believe_In_Kreis

True, but non-fans are establishing a dangerous precedent when it comes to stadium funding and it's important we educate them. It seems like the average non-soccer fan's line of thinking goes as follows:
"Americans don't dominate soccer. Therefore I don't like soccer. Since I don't like it, it must not be very popular. Therefore RSL (or MLS as a whole) is going to fold. So why should I want my tax dollars going towards a stadium? After all, the team is as good as gone, and I don't like soccer anyway."
There's so much flawed reasoning here it's scary. Another example (from my own life): I don't like to fly. Does that mean I should be opposed to having an airport? After all, it's nothing but my tax dollars being used to subsidize a bunch of private businesses. Why should United, Delta, etc. get a government piggyback? Let 'em build their own damn airports!
See what I mean?

So while we shouldn't make fun of non-soccer fans for not being fans, we DO have a right (and I would argue an obligation) to help people see why the stadium is a good idea, why the team is going to be here for a long time, etc.

Probably true. Also, the only name I know in soccer is Mia Ham and she's a girl and she doesn't even play any more. I think the World Cup has an incremental benefit for soccer, but you're right, the US will have to do well or wannabe fans will just turn if off and assume it is boring.

[I_Believe_In_Kreis]

Originally Posted by Jose Luis Luviano

So, in effect, airlines and their passengers do (or are supposed to) pay for airports themselves.

As will the stadium, but just like the airport, it all starts with government money up front.
And my point wasn't to create a rational argument against the airport (I am, in fact, pro airport) - it was to create an irrational one that parallels the thinking a lot of people have towards the stadium. So in effect, the flawed thinking in my airport argument is the same flawed thinking RSL is dealing with, and WE have to be the ones to get people to see that.