Many people believe that support for sports subsidies relies on fan support. John Oliver, Dennis Coates and her companion Brad R. Humphreys present several viewpoints regarding the stadium 's arising arguments and questions. In his parody video Last Week Tonight, John Oliver 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______. Oliver speaks to a broad audience while Coates and Humphreys appeal to a specific audience, consisting primarily of economists. When considering both Oliver 's and Coates & Humphrey 's texts, it is evident that the genre of the text had the greatest impact on the choice of the organization.
Throughout Oliver’s video he makes several clever comments that keeps a broad audience not only entertained but educates them on stadium subsidies. Oliver cleverly begins his parody video by mentioning that he loves sports and that the only times he 's cried as a grown man has been while watching the actors play a coach role and delivering inspirational speeches. Oliver finishes his video by delivering an emotional and uplifting speech in which he states it 's time to fight back. He continues explaining that he has no problem with stadiums having large
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
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.
Howard Chudacoff raises the controversial question of whether or not college athletes should be paid during a time of the year when people are most focused on college athletics, March Madness. Chudacoff is a firm believer that college athletes are given enough amenities as it is and do not deserve extra compensation or paychecks. His main arguments to support his position revolve around the royalties that power five athletes receive in regards to education centers, training facilities, and the fact that these players receive a free education. Chudacoff paints the picture of these facilities throughout his article and appeals to the reader’s pathos by descriptively showing the reader how college athletes really do live like millionaires.
As college sports continue to progress and attract millions of fanatics, the idea of paying these young athletes seems more reasonable considering all the revenue they generate. New York Times features an article by economist Joe Nocera, called Let’s Start Paying College Athletes. Nocera argues that payment to college is inevitable, the NCAA generates $6 billion dollars in revenue, and can only compensate the athletes with an inadequate education due to all the time athletes spend contributing to the athletic department. His professional background and analysis, with the help of a few others, helped Nocera develop a 5 element plan to reform college athletics. Some of the elements such as lifetime health insurance
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.
His statistics show the outlandish amount of money that is generated by big-time college sports, often disputed by the NCAA. Not having enough money to pay athletes what they deserve has been one of the biggest arguments from universities and colleges for many years. However, Eitzen’s article and the statics he provides proves that these big-time sports programs generate more than enough to compensate their athletes more than what they receive from athletic scholarships. One statistic he provides states that “The NCAA has signed a 6.2 trillion dollar, 11 year deal giving CBS [Columbia Broadcasting System] the right to televise its men’s basketball championship. (That’s 5.45 million dollars a year, up from 2.16 million with the arrangement that ended in 2002)” (Eitzen 3). This statistic does not include the money the NCAA generates from advertising and ticket sales from the tournament. Athletes see none of this money. According to Eitzen, the athletes and their performance are the reason all this money is being made, yet they are not rewarded for their efforts. Eitzen states that these athletes are being served another injustice by witnessing their coaches benefit from all their hard work. He writes about a set of unfair regulations the NCAA has created in order to keep big-time college sports “amateur”. The regulations state, “They may receive only educational benefits (i.e., room, board, tuition, fees, and books); cannot sign with an agent and retain eligibility;
The popularity of college athletics have risen immensely over the past few years. The idea of paying college football athletes has been a continuous debate since the early 1900’s. This paper will debate whether college athletes should be paid a monetary compensation outside of their scholarships. This will be done by examining reasons for and against the monetary revenue for the athletes.
Each season college students and fans support their sports team in hopes of a National Championship Title. They purchase season tickets, team clothing, and expensive sports packages from television providers in order to watch their team from afar. This generates a lot of cash for universities and retailers.
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
In today’s world of big time professional sports there are the two major players and they are football represented by the National Football League (NFL) and baseball represented by Major League Baseball (MLB). Now there are other sports that the American public enjoys watching, however the argument generally boils down to which sport is the true favorite of the American people: baseball or football. In this paper I will attempt to examine both sports from several different angles to include attendance, television revenue, ticket costs, venues, salaries, entertainment value, and athlete perception. The goal of this exercise will be to determine, once and for all, which sport is the American
America is in the midst of a sports construction boom. New sports facilities costing at least $200 million each have been completed or are under way in Baltimore, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Nashville, San Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, Tampa, and Washington, D.C., and are in the planning stages in Boston, Dallas, Minneapolis, New York, and Pittsburgh. Major stadium renovations have been undertaken in Jacksonville and Oakland. Industry experts estimate that more than $7 billion will be spent on new facilities for professional sports teams before 2006.
Sports teams are switching to a variable-pricing strategy for tickets so that they can get a higher profit on games with record attendance numbers. They feel the need to do so because the marginal costs, such as construction payment and players’ salaries, did not equal to the marginal revenue, since attendance was severely dropping. To pay for the marginal cost, the sports team needed to capitalize on things that they were sure of, like increasing attendances to games between major sporting rivals.
Sports fans spend too much on sports apparel. An average sports fan spends 725 dollars a year. Does it bring joy to them or their families? No! What it brings is a hole in your wallet. Buying a player jersey is cool and all, but that player could change teams. Let's face it. Kevin Durant, Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning all left their teams for another. And I feel bad for the suckers who bought Babe Ruth jersey when he was still in Boston. It's far from cheap too. This money could've been used on more important matters like college or grad school. Good grief, I keep go on and
The value of entertainment in our society is arguable. We as a society constantly search for new ways to entertain ourselves; professional sports are a major contribution to our source of entertainment. If those who support athletes and their sports have no problem paying to see them,
Sporting events is a place for people to go, relax, have fun, and do something they enjoy doing, watching sports. However, the average family finds it difficult to buy tickets to them and still there are 66,960 fans that attend an NFL game. (Wikipedia) The public contributes to the athletes’ salary and then complains about how