Letter to Mike Jerman of Utah Taxpayers Assoc.

[WorldBall]

Mike Jerman
Utah Taxpayers Association

Dear Mike,

We have met before to specifically talk about tax policy and funding of education. I respect your wealth of knowledge and appreciate your watch dog mentality on watching how our taxes are levied and spent.

I also agree that using RDA money is probably not the best funding method for constructing a soccer specific stadium.

However, I disagree with one point in your argument that money generated by professional soccer is siphoned from other sports. I have never purchased seasons tickets for Jazz, Stingerzz, or professional hockey. It has been a long time since I have purchased seasons tickets for college football or basketball. I have purchased tickets for individual games and enjoyed watching those games. I also purchased tickets to watch 2002 Winter Olympic events.

To the point, I *have* purchased seasons tickets for ReAL Salt Lake and am on a waiting list to purchase additional tickets for other games including the World Cup Qualifying game. If ReAL were not in Utah I would not have made this significant investment on any other sport or sporting event.

Additionally, some of my friends that do have season’s tickets to Jazz or other sporting events don't understand soccer. They have stated that they won't purchase RSL season’s tickets. They have not expressed any interest in even seeing a pro soccer game. They are not soccer fans and don't understand soccer or have interest in it.

If ReAL Salt Lake weren't in Utah soccer fans would not have an opportunity or outlet for supporting soccer. Blitzz, BYU semi-pro soccer, and local college soccer is not the same as Major League Soccer. There are a lot of soccer fans in Utah that have never had this opportunity to enjoy the sport at the professional level that they love.

I think that you should re-consider this portion of your argument concerning MLS soccer in Utah.

Thanks for your time,

(WorldBall)
Soccer Fan
ReAL Salt Lake Seasons Ticket Holder

[bordelais7]

I also fall under that same category. I haven't bought a ticket to a sporting event in over 4 years.

Unfortunately, I cannot support the letter ever since the Utah Taxpayers Association showed me the light and let me know that if I don't buy tickets for RSL this season, I'll just end up spending the money on something else. Not sure what, yet, but I'm sure I'll think of something. Maybe I'll eat an extra meal every day. Or maybe I'll just leave all of my lights on in my house all the time so that I can compensate for not buying soccer tix by paying a higher utility bill. And actually, I've been thinking of buying some more sod to lay down on my existing layer of sod on my lawn. You know, just for extra padding.

Good letter 🙂 I like the UTA, it's just that they become so narrow-minded in trying to accomplish their goal. Kind of like how soccer fans become when they really, really want a stadium, I guess.

[clarette]

Wait... so is this dude actually arguing that RSL should just like bugger off and die because people might go to a soccer game instead of the Jazz?

Last time I checked, I didn't need some "taxpayers association" to tell me what sports I'm allowed to pay to watch.

[jasoncox]

Well, I used to take an occasional road-trip to Denver to watch the cRapids. Other than that, I've never purchased a single ticket to any sporting event on the Wasatch Front. I've been to games on others' dime, gotten free tickets, and been to Weber State games for free with a student ID but I've never spent any of my own money.

So, if anything, RSL and SLC are just taking money away from Colorado. And the same goes for the 10 people that are coming with me to the home opener.

[Rover]

Originally Posted by clarette

Wait... so is this dude actually arguing that RSL should just like bugger off and die because people might go to a soccer game instead of the Jazz?

Last time I checked, I didn't need some "taxpayers association" to tell me what sports I'm allowed to pay to watch.

The UTA is using a standard argument against building sports facilities. It's called the "substitution effect," where any money generated by the stadium is "stolen" from other businesses because if it goes to the sports team it won't be spent somewhere else--so there's no net gain for the local economy.

It's a ridiculous tack to take because it doesn't account for so many variables in how people spend their money, where the fans come from (out of area types wouldn't have spent their money here if there wasn't a game to attend), and the issues Bordelais talks about.

The studies that show the effect lump data from a bunch of cities together without accounting for poor local leadership, bad site choices, or unfavorable demographics. So the bottom-feeders skew the sample, and local variation is lost in the mix.

All this means is that the UTA is using a canned argument in hopes that no one will look any further than what they say. It's a common strategy by these groups around the country who fight against public money for sports facilities.

[clarette]

It makes them look really stupid, mostly... it's like saying that bringing in Neiman Marcus would be bad because then people wouldn't spend their money at Old Navy.

Apples and oranges.

Do they really think people are that stupid?

[bordelais7]

Wait, wait, wait...

you're saying that people actually spend money at Old Navy?

[clarette]

Originally Posted by bordelais7

Wait, wait, wait...

you're saying that people actually spend money at Old Navy?

Point taken, rep coming shortly. :D

[Jose Luis Luviano]

Not everyone has the incredibly good taste in sports that we do.

Maybe living so close to DC United killed these guys' interest in professional sports.

Our empirical analysis indicates that spending on spectator sports is largely offset by reductions in other forms of leisure spending.

[bordelais7]

I agree to an extent, JLL. Any such form of spending will usually be somewhat offset. The fact, though, is that it's not 0%, nor is it 100%. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.