Athletes Should Be Paid

The commitment to athletics in Division III has lead to money being spent on new sports and recreation facilities. So much so that it’s been put to question if there is an “arms race” to who can build the biggest and

It is evident that hosting the Olympics games is no walk in the park. The countries trusted with this task have to spend billions to make the games a reality. Some people believe that the countries, even after spending billions of dollars benefit from the games, while others believe that the money can be spent elsewhere more efficiently. To reach a conclusion, one must study all of the different impacts in all of the different sectors the games have.

Public financing for stadiums is an ongoing debate. Some studies show public funding does not generate economic impact. Other studies show public funding generates economic opportunities. Recently, November 16, 2017, the voting citizens of San Diego, California, reject a measure to finance a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers. In comparison, voting citizens of Arlington, Texas agree to sales, hotel and rental car tax increases to help fund the Texas Rangers new ballpark. What is available in Florida may vary from what is available in Texas. Depending on the instance, it comes down to politics. Politics is based on locality. Politically acceptable and politically realistic measures could depend on locality. The facilities built serve

I am going to discuss the topic of National Football League stadiums and their public funding. The purpose of the study is to find out if funding of NFL stadiums is “bad business,” The research I will look at the impacts that a stadium has on the economy in the city. Cities’ like to have attractions that they can draw from and be proud of. Most cities have some form of sport arena, and more are being built or are planned to be built. As with any business there are positives and negatives when hosting a sports team. Cities pay multimillions to help fund and build sport stadiums for teams. I hadn’t researched or looked into this topic before, so I was very intrigued by this. At the end of this paper I will give my own personal opinion.

Sports Stadiums are an iconic staple of American tradition. However not everything about these venues is positive. Team owners take advantage of laws and fans to meet their own goals. Citizens and city officials from various locations have taken up their grievances with the NFL in the past. And it has gotten to the point where even political parties join together to bring to light issues with the organization. NFL stadiums are not good for cities because they take advantage of tax payers, hurt citizens on an economic level and cost them billions in subsidies.

Some people might say that building an indoor baseball, softball, and football field is a waste of money and it would be too expensive. Each day people would have to pay a certain amount of money per hour they are there, or they could get a membership. If there are tournaments, the teams have to pay to enter them. Also Eldred could have fundraisers to earn money for the fields.

The issue at hand, however, is that power has shifted from the cities to the teams themselves. Professional athletic organizations have started taking advantage of cities by threatening to relocate unless they get public subsidies for expensive stadium renovations and construction. With this in mind it is imperative to ask today’s question: Do public subsidies for professional athletic organizations benefit their local community?

Having nice fields would attract students that are moving into the area to attend our school. For example, a student once told me that one of the reasons that he attended his school was because they had nice fields and he wanted to be able to play on them during gym class. The overall appearance of the school would seem much nicer. Having quality fields would attract more student athletes, and in turn, lead to an improvement in our sports teams. No student athlete wants to practice on a low quality field, because it would be a waste of their talent. The sports teams would show much better improvement as well. Fields should be renovated because it would attract all kinds of students and make our sports teams

If I were in charge I wouldn’t spend millions on a new stadium, I would put the money to useful things around the city. The old stadium isn’t that old, everything

The open air makes hosting events extremely difficult. If the teams play in cold cities weather can become a problem. Building expensive outdoor stadiums is a waste of time and money.

Fans, on the contrary, are eager to assist in the funding for new stadiums, as seen in the article written by Holahan and Kroncke. In more than fifteen cities, a new stadium is either being built, renovated, or in the planning stages. The cost for these projects is estimated at more than $7 billion, with most of this money coming from public funds. The public is understanding of paying an additional .02%, for example, to the sales tax to pay for a revenue generating stadium that will add to the beauty of their downtown setting. Then again, “to use tax money from people making $30,000 to $40,000 a year to boost the salary of someone making over $1 million is viewed as unfair” (Holahan and Kroncke) even though both the stadium and players are absolutely necessary to run a successful team. However, what the fans do not

So therefore where the media exposes the benefits of hosting the games such as increased investment and development, this all has to be funded through public accounts which requires reduced benefits elsewhere, or cuts in household disposable income levels.

One of the fundamental problems with Canadian hockey teams competing with their American counterparts is that Canadian teams pay all of the player's salaries and travel are in American currency. However, all the revenue from ticket sales, concessions and advertising is in Canadian currency. American teams have an advantage over their Canadian counterparts because all the money that was created from ticket sales, concessions and selling advertising is one-third more than what Canadian teams will make. This is because of a weaker Canadian dollar, 69 cents to one American dollar, means that Canadian franchises will always make one-third less from basic franchise profits as long as the Canadian dollar stays the same. "The teams are among Canada's fewest businesses that pay most of their salaries and expenses in U.S. dollars out of revenue earned in depressed Canadian dollars" (May p 2). This is a problem because the weaker Canadian dollar makes it harder for these franchises to run day-to-day operations (Duhatschek 7). "The result is

The infrastructure of the Olympic games will be a legacy. The legacy of hosting the Olympic games is most visibly identified by the improved physical character of Greater Boston. Boston 2024 Olympics bid concept shows: Greater Boston region will take an exponential jump forward with a new Midtown multifunctional neighborhood in the core of the city, a new student village at Boston’s public university, a renewed public golf course at Franklin Park and Somerville will get a opportunity to transform into the ‘cycling capital of America.’ (33) Boston 2024 committee also announced that Boston will also build more than 28 venues or renewed in a 10-kilometer radius of Boston urban area, and two major clusters for residences and stadiums will be established by the Government of Boston.(29) As Grillo said in Boston Business journal, 3,000 to 4,000 new affordable workforce units of in midtown can solve Boston’s housing

Unfortunately, these arguments contain bad economic reasoning that leads to overstatement of the benefits of stadiums. Economic growth takes place when a community's resources--people, capital investments, and natural resources like land--become more productive. Increased productivity can arise in two ways: from economically beneficial specialization by the community for the purpose of trading with other regions or from local value added that is higher than other uses of local workers, land, and investments. Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.