Public vs Private Funding Private Stadiums

     In every move there are two sides to the politics. There are the teams themselves and there are the cities that fight to keep them. In May 1991, Sharon Pratt Dixon, Mayor of Washington, D.C. said, “We’re going to do whatever it takes to keep the Redskins here. Sports has become an industry, and to the extent that we can guarantee jobs for the District residents, we will do whatever it takes, including building the stadium ourselves” (Euchner 1), this is one view of how a city official fights for a team. The other viewpoint is from the side of the team owner, Al Davis, managing general partner of the Raiders said, “just build it” (Euchner 1). These viewpoints are why sports teams move and cities fight to keep

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.

I agree with your position in this argument. In my post, I talked about the economic cost of running the stadium during its season but I didn't consider how much of a burden the football stadium would be during the offseason. Also, I thought it was interesting how you took into consideration the handicap liability in San Diego-I hadn't considered that. However, in regards to the football stadium, what do you think about the construction of a stadium in LA/OC area that was paid for entirely by a private business or group of investors? If a substantial amount of people in the area wanted to invest in a local football team and pitched in their fair share, would that be a reasonable option? That way, the taxpayer's money would continue to better

The government’s role in all of these exchanges is to make sure to protect the people of the city while making trying to make the best decisions that promote a prosperous future for the city. Both of these rules were very clearly broken by the city officials. I do understand that losing a major sports franchise is could destroy a city and for a politician that could mean not getting reelected but if they were truly doing their job they would not care. At the end of the day the officials decide whether or not to write the check. The government a long time ago should have reformed the laws to prevent sports teams from doing these kind of manipulative strategies. There is absolutely no logical reason that the receivers of million dollar subsidies

The city would have to build new stadiums, hire security, improve airports, and add trains/ busses and so on. These massive prices can make Parks field go into debt for years. Parks Field already needs more schools, parks and improved sewers. Everything could cost billions of dollars, and it may not even be worth

Proponents of subsidizing sports stadiums is a great decision because the economic impact it will have on the community is great for two main reasons. First, sports stadiums are massive construction projects. In fact, one could compare them to a medieval cathedral in their attempts to dominate a skyline and inspire pride in one’s city And, just like these cathedrals, they are very expensive, and massive building projects that would require many years of hard painstaking labor. For example, the proposed stadium for the Los Angeles Rams in Inglewood, California, was predicted to cost $3 billion and add 22,000 construction jobs to the economy of Los Angeles, California. Although construction jobs do eventually disappear once a stadium is constructed once the games begin, so does the massive consumer spending. For example, more than 3.5 million people saw the St. Louis Cardinals play at Busch Stadium in 2015.

Some may argue, as the author of the second article does, that the cost of such a project is too great to justify the larger community having to pay for it. A dog park, they may say, is not a necessity, and therefore should not be the taxpayer's responsibility. However, this argument could easily be applied to other public services which few people oppose. Museums, fairgrounds, and even similar parks for children, are all often built and operated by the cities that own them at taxpayer expense.

To support or not to support sports subsidies would solely rely on a fan, however that 's what many people think John Oliver ,Dennis Coates and her companion Brad R. Humphreys present several concepts about the stadiums arising arguments and questions.Through John Oliver’s parody video Last Week Tonight, he attacks stadium subsidies, the process by which local and state governments give hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund stadiums for professional sports teams. The article “Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Subsidies for Sports Franchises, Stadiums and Mega-Events?” Claims that we should not support sports subsidies because of the consensus______. Ultimately their goal is to inform us, Oliver speaks to a broad audience while Coates and Humphrey 's appeal to a specific audience mostly to economists. When considering the texts of Coates and Humphreys as well as Oliver, the genre of the text had the greatest impact on the choice of the organization.

In the article the author makes and assumption that could weaken the logical structure of the argument. The author assumes the reader has little pre- existing knowledge of how sports teams operate in cities and chooses to use “selective logic” to convince the reader. For example, the majority of teams may have stayed in their cities in similar situations that are occurring in Calgary, but there have been teams who have actually left their cities due to discussions such as this. For example, the Seattle Sonics in 2007 were looking to make upgrades to their arena, but due to a lack of funding the team ended up moving to Oklahoma City where they now reside as the Thunder. This is an example of using selective logic. The author chooses to avoid this example in the article because it would weaken the argument that is being presented. The author “selected” pieces of evidence with a purpose to convince the reader of the unlikelihood that the Calgary Flames will not leave Calgary if they do not receive funding. This

The reason for the subsidies of these stadiums over recent years has been the incredible cost of construction. There are over 100 various sports stadium in the U.S. with sixty-four new major league facilities alone have been built over a 16 -year span beginning in the early 1990’s at a combined costs of over $20 billion (Sanderson). One high profile example is of the new Yankee Stadium in New York: “The construction cost is expected to be around $1.3 billion… New York City is projected to spend $220 million on infrastructure and various other improvements across the area” (Robertson). The extra expenditure is the type of costs that investors primarily like to argue as the reason for the subsidies. Since the money is being spent on increasing

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

For example, the J league teams need strong support from the local community, because each team is required to have its own soccer stadium. Some local governments have built stadiums, because they believe that it would give dream of sports to the people in the community. As such, the league teams are paying respect to the opinion of the community, and the people in the community are fully supporting the teams believing that the teams belong to them. On the contrary, the opinion of the people in the community is not reflected in the management of professional

            Taxpayers have been forced to pay for these stadiums in various ways.  People who were not part of the majority and voted "no" on new a stadium have to pay the same amount of taxes as the people

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.