Arizona to Waive Sales Tax to Attract 2009 NBA All-Star Game?
2007 NBA All Star Game Las Vegas 2 Later this summer, NBA Commissioner
David Stern will announce which city will succeed in its bid to land
the 2009 NBA All-Star Game. The game has come under controversy of
late, with this year's game in Las Vegas drawing rebuke for
attracting, in Bill Simmons' words, "so many gangbangers and
troublemakers" (an observation vehemently challenged by Jason Whitlock
when he spoke at Harvard Law School in April). Next year's game will
be played in New Orleans, a city still recovering from Hurricane
Katrina and one that some commentators and players are said to be
uncomfortable with the All-Star festivities being held.
But the All-Star game is still a major attraction, particularly
because it is a weekend long affair that generates significant revenue
and attention for the host city and its businesses. Just consider that
for all of the problems in Las Vegas, All-Star weekend attracted over
85,000 visitors and created nearly $91 million in local economic
impact. That impact in part derives from the type of person who is
able to attend the game: someone who can afford to pay between $1,000
and $6,000 for a game ticket.
And the city of Phoenix wants its turn at those benefits in 2009--so
much so that some state lawmakers are seeking to pass a waiver of the
state sales tax charged on tickets for the game and its associated
attractions (Arizona has a 5.6% sales tax, with no exception for food
or prescription drugs). Matthew Benson writes about this in today's
Arizona Republic. The waiver, which is supported by Phoenix Mayor Phil
Gordon, is said to be worth between $300,000 to $400,000 to the NBA
and its sponsors who buy the tickets. Some believe that the NBA won't
select Phoenix without the waiver, particularly because the city just
held the game in 1995 and the NBA likes to "spread the wealth" when it
comes to All-Star city selections.
There are at least two core arguments against the proposal, however.
1) A State Sales Taxes is Not a Comparative Disadvantage: 45 out of
the 50 states have a sales tax of some sort, and the only states
without one are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon.
Although I grew up a mere 15 minutes from the New Hampshire border, I
just don't see Manchester or Salem or Nashua landing the game, nor do
I see the NBA turning to Anchorage, Wilmington, Billings, or Helena.
Sure, Portland Oregon would be viable, but wasn't landing the first
overall pick good enough news for them? (in fairness, Paul Gerald of
the Willamette Week Online wrote a good piece today entitled
"Ill-Starred: Why Portland Never Gets an All-Star Game"--Portland has
never hosted the game. But they will be hosting Greg Oden for the next
15 years, so I can't feel too sorry for them).
2) Waiving the Sales Tax for an NBA All-Star game Benefits the Rich:
Ken Cheuvront, an Arizona state senator, draws parallels between a
All-Star Game sales-tax waiver and the big-dollar incentives offered
by municipalities hoping to lure retail developers: "It seems
absolutely ridiculous. I don't support it. I don't think it's good
public policy. The tickets sell out anyway." And as Benson writes in
his article, the NBA controls most of the tickets, and they tend to go
those with a lot of money--those who presumably least need the sales
tax break.
What are your views? Would waiving the sales tax for the NBA All-Star
game--but not for groceries or prescription drugs--be a sell-out to
the rich and privileged or would it be good business policy to attract
an event that will generate revenue and attention and that might not
otherwise occur?
-- Posted by Michael McCann @ 6/01/2007 02:25:00 PM -- Comments (5) --
Post a Comment
Do Baseball Statistics Measure Fairness?
Over on PrawfsBlawg, Matt Bodie has a thoughtful post on the oddity of
Major League Baseball teams and many of their fans being so openly
obsessed with nuanced, sometimes esoteric, statistical measurements of
players while being tolerant or at least less vocal towards glaring
inequities between teams (thanks to Octagon associate general counsel
Ryan Rodenberg for the link). Here is an excerpt from Bodie's post:
Sports are supposed to be played on an even playing field. For
example, every team should have an equal chance of making it to the
playoffs. But there is one league that defies this logic. In this
league, 20 teams have a 20% chance of winning their division, 4
teams have a 25% chance, and 6 teams have a 16.7% chance. In
addition, 14 teams have a 7% chance of winning a wild card entry to
the playoffs, while 16 teams have only a 6.25% chance of winning
it. What league is this? Major League Baseball.
* * *
Why would any team or any sport allow for this unfairness? I'm sure
there was some discussion of it at the time of realignment, and
there are occasional posts about it on the Internet. But in a
league newly obsessed with the smallest statistical advantages, you
would think that these glaring differences would get more
attention.
* * *
So is the current breakdown unfair? Statistically, it is
No comments:
Post a Comment