Research & Opinion - Should taxpayers fund motorsport events

[TomFun]

Hi all,

I'm doing some research on the public opinion about sporting events and their relation to the tax payer. Was in the news not too long ago that Northamptonshire County Council is owed tens of millions by Silverstone, and also Northampton Town FC. Also, with the questions risen about the sustainability of Silverstone hosting the Grand Prix, whether it will be able to pay the Council back at all.

Basically one very simple, open question and a bit of an explanation is all I'm asking. Any comments, or discussion, more than welcome.

Question is simply, should the taxpayer fund events like the British Grand Prix, as it has done with the Olympics. If so, should it be to it's current extent, should it be more so like in places like China or Bahrain where it is heavily funded by the state in order to promote the countries, tourism etc. or should it be funded privately, by sponsorship, ticket sales etc.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XJ9XMPN

Any and all opinions welcome. Thank you

[black prince]

Hi there this is my first post i am a newby from Australia. been on this planet for over 67 years now.
Yes I don't think that the public should fund motorsport events with their tax as 90 percent of the population don't watch or go to events.
Here in my country we have problems of housing encroachment so the complaints of noise come in and tracks that have been there for best part of 60 or more years are closing due to noise complaints.
But our govt officials will close of streets in our main city's for weeks so that the TV stations can televise these events and the tax payer gets the bill .So the noise debate is lost.
Just my opinion.

[Greg Locock]

I agree. Similarly opera ballet orchestra s and sporting events should not be the concern of government. The main reason these are subsidised appears to be self aggrandizement of the pollies.

[kptaylor]

It's not so simple as this. Taxpayers could fund an event such as an F1 race, but with the current division (or lack of division) of the revenue generated during a race weekend, it is not fiscally wise and no rational decision could be made other than to take the loss for the "prestige" of hosting a race. It's certainly not about having a sound business case showing a profit is possible. Take out taxpayer funding and ask whether any venue should host an F1 event given the revenue projections absent any meaningful share in the money FOM collects. No, hosting an F1 event is not prudent at all given the current state of F1 and the greediness of FOM.

[dren]

Question: Should tax payers fund motorsport events?

Answer: No

[sgth0mas]

If the motorsport brings in more tax revenue than the original investment, that changes the dynamic. I dont have a problem with my government investing wisely, but F1 hasnt been a wise investment in the states. If you can get a NASCAR race for 1-3 million...why pay 25 million for F1 with a similar turnout?

Texas has been battling this with cota over the past year.

[J.A.W.]

Indeed, if the business case stacks up, even on cultural grounds, then sure, motorsport beats opera or excessive military spending..
-but if its a big gravy-train con/junket-fest & notoriously rife with corruption - like the Olympic games/World Cup soccer/F1...

[Greg Locock]

I do not believe that government should take commercial gambles merely to increase tax revenue.

[Sawtooth-spike]

If we didn't have Silverstone, would 80% of formula 1 teams remain in the uk? That's the question.

The government should support the industry. Of which the event is part of. But I do think the event should stand on its own 2 feet more.

[OneAlex]

I think for England F1 is perhaps a special case given how many teams, crew and F1 officials are based in the UK and the subsequent investment it brings into the country. It's not about helping fund a race weekend, it's about protecting an entire year-round industry.

However it obviously shouldn't have money thrown at it as with China, Bahrain etc. The UK is an accountable democracy, and that includes how citizens' money is spent, and the Silverstone race isn't needed as a billion-pound showcase of "national prestige".

Silverstone needs to pay its way and live within its means as much as possible, with government stepping in if necessary or to help with things like infrastructure and access. I think we all remember the debacle a decade or so ago when the "car parks" turned into quagmires.

For other sporting clubs and events... if the council has some spare money it could of course encourage it, but it has to have "value for money" in bringing tourism in and weighed against other initiatives such as local development or Arts projects that could also benefit from the money and may bring even more tourism and exposure. I'm not a football fan so I couldn't say how worthwhile it is for the county to give Northampton Town FC millions compared to spending it on say, youth sports initiatives or regional tournaments.

[Edax]

Question: Should tax payers fund motorsport events?

Answer: No

The way I see it. With taxes you enavitably end up paying money for things you don't need or even like.

I pay for Opera houses despite not having set foot in one for many years, I pay for parks I haven't been to, I pay for artists making incomprehensible artworks which I problably never ever get to see, I pay for public television which I don't watch, I pay for religious buildings despite being an atheist, I pay for sports of which I don't even understand the rules, I even pay food support for people in countries I have never been to .

Thing is it is not about me (at least not only).

Without us collectively taking up the bill these things would not exist, and society would be a grey and dull one.

Does F1 or motor racing qualify this kind of support. I think so. It brings a lot of people around the world joy and inspiration. If you can bring an Israeli and a Iranian on a forum fighting over an exhaust layout rather than some disputed piece of dirt, then the sport must be doing something right.

The notion that everything must be able to pay for itself and that one only pays for the things that one needs at that specific point in their lives, is IMO something that the i-generation is going to regret.

[J.A.W.]

Question: Should tax payers fund motorsport events?

Answer: No

The way I see it. With taxes you enavitably end up paying money for things you don't need or even like.

I pay for Opera houses despite not having set foot in one for many years, I pay for parks I haven't been to, I pay for artists making incomprehensible artworks which I problably never ever get to see, I pay for public television which I don't watch, I pay for religious buildings despite being an atheist, I pay for sports of which I don't even understand the rules, I even pay food support for people in countries I have never been to .

Thing is it is not about me (at least not only).

Without us collectively taking up the bill these things would not exist, and society would be a grey and dull one.

Does F1 or motor racing qualify this kind of support. I think so. It brings a lot of people around the world joy and inspiration. If you can bring an Israeli and a Iranian on a forum fighting over an exhaust layout rather than some disputed piece of dirt, then the sport must be doing something right.

The notion that everything must be able to pay for itself and that one only pays for the things that one needs at that specific point in their lives, is IMO something that the i-generation is going to regret.

Indeed, a very citizen-like post..

Even ~20 centuries ago the SPQR saw it as a mark of civic pride for the gov't to provide a public stadium for sports events,
& a hippodrome - for chariot racing.. ok, so not actually motorsport as such, but a similar vicarious thrill, even so..

[Greg Locock]

So you guys are happy to subsidise my opera and orchestra? That's nice. I don't really see why rich people's games need subsidising. I'd happily pay 500 bucks for a ticket if it meant the government would quit throwing my taxes at whoever screams loudest.

[Just_a_fan]

The USA is an interesting case, of course. There is an inherent mistrust of Government and taxation in the US psyche. The exception appears to be where military spending is concerned; there is a patriotic fervour then. It appears to suggest a paranoia that's left over from the "red under the bed" McCarthy dark days. Can't say I blame them - I don't trust politicians either!

[ARF1]

I'm a "less government" kind of guy, so I say no, tax payers shouldn't fund Grands Prix (or any other leisure-type events). If the demand and business case is there, the private sector will step in and host it.

The real question is, why do governments have to pay for Grands Prix? Their real cost is not so high that the private sector couldn't turn a profit without government subsidies, it's just Bernie/CVC's greed that makes the cost of a Grand Prix prohibitive without millions from benevolent dictators trying to buy respect from the world...