As his administration approaches its final inning, Bill Clinton has an opportunity to be the first president to step up to the plate on an issue few politicians dare take a swing at: sports.
Today's pro-sports industry is a practically unregulated monopoly that not only has little government oversight, but also enjoys special tax benefits and public subsidies. During the past two years, pro teams have begun playing in new facilities that cost taxpayers some $9 billion according to the Cato Institute. Yet the Team Marketing Report states that the ticket prices teams charge their taxpaying fans have risen by 80% since 1991, four times as much as the Consumer Price Index.
It is not an issue that is likely to be addressed in the one-on-one matchup between former Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush and Al Gore, whose homestate Tennessee Titans recently recruited the Houston Oilers with hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars.
But it is something Clinton is going to read plenty about in his new private home next year. Both New York baseball teams. and possibly the football Jets are looking for new publicly-financed homes for themselves.
Beyond periodic comments on his golf game, Clinton has not been very outspoken on sports policy issues. As part of his "New Markets Tour" to stimulate U.S. business involvement in poorer communities, however, he urged all pro teams to follow the lead of the New Jersey Nets ownership, which is donating all of their profits to local youth development groups. How many teams have heeded the president's words? None.
As the clock ticks down on his presidency, Clinton needs to use his bully skybox and follow up. He could do so by creating a special national advisory commission to study sports policy.
A commission of knowledgeable stakeholders would determine if changes were necessary and if so how they should be implemented. It would be the first time that sports issues would be discussed in a careful, in-depth way, rather than the typical under-the-gun shouting matches in a panicked environment after a team threatens to leave town.
Few political leaders even have tried to field the issue. (One exception is Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who made an unusual proposal in a Playboy interview: "If we legalized pot, we could build all the pro stadiums we'd need, and probably a bunch of schools too.")
This year, the Clinton Administration did offer one reform idea proposing the elimination of a special loophole that allows team owners to attribute half of the purchase price to player salaries and amortize it over five years. Like most sports-related legislation, it has not gotten beyond first base. But there are plenty of other issues a commission could look at:
*Tax code changes. A current federal tax exemption helps finance new sports facilities. But if states and localities want to mortgage their futures, why should the rest of the country subsidize the auction? Congress also should reconsider the automatic 50% write off corporations receive on sports tickets. New arenas are filled with luxury boxes and club seats, knowing businesses will buy and deduct them. As a result, average fans end up subsidizing a tax break that pushes the price of attending games far out of their price range.
*Public financing of sports facilities. San Francisco Giants' owner Peter Magowan. built his $319 million PacBell Park. almost entirely through private sources. That's not going to be possible everywhere, but owners should at least be asked why not. And, if local governments are going to provide stadium construction funding, what tangible benefits should they receive in return? Communities should receive some kind of concession -- perhaps, a revenue royalty, a stay-put guarantee or low-price ticket set-asides. Bush, for example, made $14.9 million. on his $600,000 initial investment largely based on the value of the new stadium, but there were no direct benefits for Texas taxpayers.
*An antitrust exemption. A commission also could be a vehicle in which the pro leagues could make a case for an expansion of their antitrust exemption to give them a stronger hand in restricting teams from fleeing ommunities.
*More public financial information. As economic hardship is used to justify new stadiums and ticket price increases, teams need to increase the level of public disclosure when it comes to their financial books.
There is not one magic solution. The overarching goal should be to bring more balance and accountability back to how the government deals with professional sports. The industry delivers a wonderful product, and it should not be arelessly tampered with.
Elected officials, however, have allowed the industry to acquire enormous leverage at the expense of the public. That relationship needs to be adjusted. Ideally, owners would run their teams as public trusts. But at least, laws and government policies should not encourage activity that is not in the public interest.
Clinton recently set up a White House commission on performance enhancing drugs.. Now he should convene a similar panel for the broader, more complex sports policy problem. If Clinton puts the issue in play, maybe Bush or Gore would field it nextyear. Bush, for instance, could pull a Nixon-to-China move and take on the subsidies he took such advantage of. And, now that the Oilers left Houston for Nashville, maybe Bush has a different view of franchise relocation.
It's also possible that running mate Joe Lieberman will bend Gore's ear on the subject. Two years ago, the New England Patriots announced that they were moving to Hartford, Conn. into a lavish, publicly-financed stadium. But when the Massachusetts Legislature anted up their own aid package, the Patriots reneged. "America, rightly or wrongly, is a sports-crazy country," Clinton said in 1998. "And we often see games as a metaphor of what we are as people.".
Today's situation does not reflect well on us. By creating a sports policy panel, Clinton could throw out the first pitch towards changing things.
|
