Sport (outside the national teams) is a private rather than public enterprise in this country, that includes the stadia etc. Hence there being little to no regulation on who can own a club and no sanctions if they run them like an utter dickfleece.
The Olympic Stadium is a special case as UK Athletics retain a stake in it (and it was built with public money for the 2012 Games). Really West Ham should be paying for its upkeep now as they will be the majority user but we have a government that is utterly clueless in any kind of negotiation, so not only are they getting it for a tiny, nowhere near market value rent they've managed to bend the government/London Assembly into carrying on maintaining it at their own expense.
No, but it is considered something of a coup for a city/territory/state to acquire a franchise, yes? Because vast swathes of the country don't have a major team anywhere near them in a given sport. So you can see why public money is spent acquiring and maintaining a team. Given that we don't have a franchise system (hence clubs can't be spirited away on a whim if the local authorities aren't flashing the cash, not unless your name sounds a bit like MK Wrongs) and our land mass is much smaller the same does not apply.
That's fair, but I don't think it's right to characterize our franchises as actively trying to help our communities monetarily (they do run charities, of course, but that's a tiny percentage of the organization).
For the most part, sports franchises here are seen as good for a place based on perceived economic traffic introduced to the area (though I've never seen a positive impact be conclusively proven). It's a latent effect, in short, not a manifest one. There's no real way to say that having a team actually improves an area at all.
To me asking the community to help pay for the stadium almost makes more sense in the UK because clubs there are much more "grassroots".
The latter bit was part of the argument for a) building the Olympic Stadium where it is and b) having a football tenant, that it would rejuvenate a deprived area of London. Bollocks I say, stadia in this country have been in awful parts of towns/cities for decades, it doesn't do anything. Tottenham will still be a shithole when White Hart Lane is rebuilt, Wembley is still a dreadful place, East Manchester is still largely speaking a dump even though Citeh have been there for over 10 years (and Moss Side was a poor area when they played there). There's matchday trade around the immediate surrounding area but that's about it.
Not as such, originally some bright spark had the idea that it would remain an athletics venue only after the Games, despite the fact we have about two high profile meetings a year, if that. When they realised they were desperate to get a long term tenant in (and football was the only option) they've bent over alarmingly for West Ham, whatever you think about Gold/Sullivan/Brady they are significantly better at driving an agreement in their favour than the Government are.
I remember reading that West Ham announcing they were able to offer cheap season tickets once they move in for 16/17. Kids for £99 and adults from £289 with reductions in all other bands. No wonder as they give to one hand and take it back from the other, some proper spin right there.
It's a proper mess. What a shambles of a deal. No-one is happy apart from the Pornodwarves who've made a packet from selling Upton Park and now get a (shit) ground for very little outlay. West Ham fans hate it, everyone hates West Ham for getting a ridiculous deal at everyone else's expense, the team have been shit since they moved there and no-one knows what to do for the best now. I suppose the one positive is that everyone now hates Karren Brady a lot more.