Pros And Cons Of Building A New Stadium In A Town

Stadium subsidies are used to fiancé new stadiums. The government provides financial support to franchises that allows them to build their new stadiums. These subsidies are costing tax payers millions and do not seem to be in the best interest of the city the stadium is in. Those in favor of using tax payer dollars to build stadiums argue that the economic impact a professional franchise has on a city is great and a new stadium will help generate revenue. Research has shown this is not the case. Most stadiums cost the city and never produce enough revenue to make up for those costs (Bast, 1990).

Canadians think that spending money and buying and building new stadiums and arenas will give large economic benefits, but that is wrong; the unemployment rate in Canada is steady, there is not much benefit from building them and most tickets to games are bought by locals so why bother using tax dollars to build something new when its not benefiting Canadian economy? Building new facilities will not support nor boost economic status by employing more people whatsoever. A study conducted by Victor Matheson a professor of Economics at the College of the Cross in Worcester, said, "So, building a new arena doesn't seem to have any effect on a city's employment, per capita income, hotel occupancy rates, [or]

In the United States, new sports stadiums are commonly seen as a vital part of the redevelopment of a city having a great economic growth with the production of jobs and a positive income builder. After this, the owners of the pro sports teams with millions and millions of dollars of subsidies for the construction of new stadiums and arenas and expect these facilities to generate economic benefits exceeding these subsidies by large margins. However, a growing body of fact indicates that professional sports facilities, and the franchises they are home to, may not be engines of economic benefit anywhere claims Sachse, “. In reality, sports franchises typically account for a very small proportion of the total economic output of the cities in which they reside.” Some economical studies on the amount of income and employment in US cities find no evidence of positive economic benefits associated with past sports facility construction and some studies find that professional sports facilities and teams have a net negative economic impact on income and employment. It just shows that these results suggest that at best, professional sports teams and facilities provide non-pecuniary benefits like civic pride, and a greater sense of community, along with consumption benefits to those attending games and following the local team in the media; at worst, residents

Thus we can see why public money is eagerly donated. The full costs of a stadium and the damage it does to communities are often years in the future, long after the politician is known for being the hero that save our local team and has moved on to bigger and better things, now with the campaign funding of the very teams that they built homes for and the fans who continue to pay. Team owners can choose new cities but cities can’t choose new teams thanks to the leagues government-sanctioned monopolies over franchise placement, mayors for example, feel they must offer owners anything they want. “Politicians continue

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?

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.

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

There are plenty of club sports around where we live. Here there are an abundance of students that have to travel one to two hours to Pueblo just to go to volleyball practice. If we were to bring club sports here students would be able to able to play sports that would only be available to us if we traveled. It could help out the parents by not making them drive us three hours to and from sports practices.Then adding more time on the road to go to games.Also if we spend so much time at practices in other cities then we are more likely to get home to late. Therefore we might get home at mid-night making us lose sleep because we have to do our homework. As a result are grades start to fall. So if we were to bring club sports to Rocky Ford it could help us students in plenty of ways.

Sports teams are a symbol of a cities pride. Take for example the Chicago Cubs. They create a sense of loyalty toward that city. However, none of that would happen without a stadium. Stadiums and teams can play a very important role in a cities economy, or they could also be irrelevant. To decide whether or not they are useful or not you must first understand each side of the argument. So first, let’s examine the pros of having a stadium within your city. Then, we will discuss the harms of having one. And finally, decide which side is more beneficial for the economy.

Historically, when sports teams move into a city it bring the influence of sports, and gets the community more involved. After the Cold War, US officials wanted to make young men stronger to be prepared to defend the country through sport. Parks, gyms and other recreational places were implemented because it was thought that through sport these men could prove their country was superior to all nations (Friedman 4/26). These recreational sport and parks would help men develop militaristic values and strategies. President Kennedy introduced the presidential fitness test to have physical training start at young ages as well. Us leaders wanted to close a perceived muscle gap between youth in the US and youth in Europe. (Montez 129).It is also said that by having a stadium in a city would create potential athletes because there was a plethora of parks and gyms around, there was no excuse for an athlete to not be created. This deal however, took that from Cobb County. In the article it states that, paying for the stadium meant budget cuts for the county’s park system. This would create a muscle gap with in the country itself, also eliminating potential athletes that could come from the

Each of the  stadiums are funded in unique ways, communities do not benefit from new stadiums, and stadiums do not save a struggling downtown. Foremost, stadiums hurt public schools, and this money should be used for more important public services.  There are many  reasons we subsidize sports, but stadiums do not help the economy, and there are no net benefits from stadiums.  Teams strive for new stadiums to create an image,  but there are  options so that a community will not loose a team to another city without building a new stadium.

The Olympic Games is one of the biggest and most unrivaled sporting events in the entire world. At first it may seem like a huge plus or advantage for a city or nation to host this event. However on the contrary there are a lot of negative aspects that occur when a nation hosts this event. While the event is taking place, from the outside it looks like a state of the art, prestigious event that it is. Some of the problems that are caused by hosting Olympic games deal with, stadium development, local resident life, security issues, and many others that will be discussed. One of the big problems when dealing with a mega event such as the Olympic Games is the stadiums, which get built, and how they get abandoned or not used after the games are finished. This is one of the major problems surrounding the Athens 2004 games. Many of the stadiums and infrastructure are left untouched and abandoned to this day.

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.