The Pros And Cons Of Stadium Subsidy

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

     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.

Colleges bring an incredible amount of money by their sport teams alones. According to John Brill, a sports journalist writer, “College football and basketball generate more than the National Basketball Association, a total of more than $6 billion yearly.” The money made from these sporting events are not being used correctly which is frustrating many college athletes. The money that is being

Then came the concern that the universities built stadiums that were too big. Many feared that there would not be enough people to fill the seats on game day. A majority of the stadiums were built too large for the time period. The teams had to grow their fan basis by winning important games in order to get more people through the gates. Also, many stadiums were built to hold one big game and crowd a year. But, would this one game bring enough money in to pay off the millions of dollars that were spent to build the stadium? The large stadiums eventually paid off when the fan base became larger, but it took years for that to happen. Now, there are so many people that want to come to the games that there is simply not enough room for everyone.

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.

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

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.

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

There are many benefits to a town building a new stadium. If its built right, the city and taxpayers can benefit. It would be more jobs more money and things happen. It gives the city something for entertainment and all sorts

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.

First, you have to tear down the old and decay section of the city. Even if some residents or business owners do not want to re locate, they must compromise for the good of the community. Next, you have to hire the workers to repair the streets, front of exiting building, sewage line, and the lighting of the area. In order to get the stadium done you have to hire construction workers, people to lay the bricks, electricians, pipe layers. When renovating the old community, it is the local merchants that supply the materials. By supplying the materials they are able to employ people of the community and therefore decrease the unemployment rate of that

This directly impacts the projected NPV of the project as almost 95% of the cash flows are derived from this boost in sales. In addition to the financial support, remodeling the Stadium location also fits well with their business strategy. Some of the key supporting evidence includes a high percentage of the target market in the trade area at 42% of college educated adults, and a population with the highest median income of the group at $65,931. Most important to Target however, would be the maintenance of their brand. As a company that places a high value on the image of their brand, revitalizing a lagging store would both keep their presence in the local area and potentially draw more customers to an upgraded location. The final decision would be to accept the project under no budget constraints, but not issue new debt or equity to achieve it.

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.

State and local governments have become increasingly responsible for financing many of the new arenas and stadiums demanded by professional sports teams. While local officials have a long history of efforts to attract team to their communities, the task of securing the funds needed to build the required playing facilities is relatively new. During the early years of professional sports through the 1950s, most teams played their home games in a privately owned stadium or arena. Team owners wanted little involvement from the public sector in their business affairs. Later, when publicly funded facilities became more common, the teams and other users paid rental fees that helped offset the