Stadium Subsidies - Essay Example

Stadium subsidies have become quite common in the past decades. Many s or cities choose to subsidize stadiums and other sports facilities. But as common as this is, it is also a highly controversial subject which has been debated and argued upon for years, and the arguments for or against subsidizing stadiums and other sports facilities tend to be very extreme and drastic. Those who oppose the subsidizing of stadiums and other sports facilities state that building stadiums should not be done, and may result in terrible consequences not only to the residents of the town, but also to all residents of the USA. Contrary to this, those who are in favor boast about the wonderful advantages and benefits to a city which has a stadium. Those who support subsidizing stadiums claim that the construction of stadiums creates a ripple effect that greatly contributes to a city in many various fields. Firstly, building stadiums and other sports facilities creates more jobs. In order to build these facilities, which can be huge and contain up to tens of thousands of people, there is a seemingly high number of construction workers needed to complete the construction of these buildings. Secondly, the existence of the stadium is claimed to attract fans and other people to it and its surroundings, resulting in them spending more money in restaurants, hotels, taverns and local stores nearby. This is claimed to be highly beneficial to local businesses and a catalyst to economic growth. Thirdly, creating stadiums requires the building of much infrastructure in order to make the stadium more available and accessible to people. It demands improvement such as "new roads, sewers, lighting, land acquisition and environmental cleanup" Reed, par.3) .improving the citys infrastructure, however costly it may be, certainly improves the life conditions of the citys residents. Fourthly, the constructing of a stadium can restore and revitalize a decaying part of the town. It is actually a derivative of all the previous reasons mentioned for why it is beneficial to construct a stadium more jobs, economic activity and infrastructure definitely revitalize that part of the town, and could once again make it a central and important part of the town. However, the truth is far from it. Those who support subsidizing stadiums have their own reasons for doing so- their own benefit. These are sports team owners, players, and government officials. Undoubtedly, the team owners and players depend on the population. Without their support and adoration, theyll never succeed. Government officials also have something to gain- more taxes from the public. Stadium subsidies are in fact partly, and sometimes mostly, financed by the public. Since local towns are interested in attracting successful teams to them, the teams arent asked to participate in the building of stadiums, and furthermore- the team owners and players are those who receive most if not all of the profits that are generated of the stadiums. This creates the absurd situation in which the burden of financing these sports facilities falls on the citizens and the government, when only a part of the population is even interested in sports and supports the construction of these facilities. Given the fact that "public subsidies for stadiums exceed 500 million dollars a year" (Sutter, par. 1), this is proving to be a heavy financial strain for citizens. Moreover, seeing as how "30% of stadium subsidies are federally subsidized" (Chong, par. 11), the burden on taxpayers doesnt only fall on local citizens, but on all federal taxpayers. When this isnt the case and only local citizens pay for these sports facilities, they pay even more money. In order to build the Camden Yards baseball park, for example, each Baltimore household pays about 14$ a year! (Sutter, par. 13) Without a doubt, society pays a great price in order to have these sports facilities. The question is, is it worth it? Are people getting a return for their money? Are stadiums and other sports facilities really contributing to cities as some claim? The answer, as Ive already stated before, is a definite no! Firstly, in contrast to pro-subsidy studies which show that thousand of jobs are created because of the building of sports facilities, more sober ones clearly show that the number is significantly smaller, and only reaches a few hundreds. One example is of Arizonas Bank One ballpark, which created merely 340 jobs at a staggering cost of 240 million dollars in subsidies (Sutter, par. 8). Not only this, but these jobs are temporary and once the construction is complete, the jobs are, of course, terminated. These jobs are also part-time jobs, and most of the stadiums employees can only work during the season and on game days, and this is also in low-paying positions, like vendors and ushers. Secondly, while it is true that stadiums usually attract more activity to their surroundings, studies have found that they do not produce an increase in the overall economic and other activities, but are simply drawing activities which would have otherwise been done elsewhere, to the area where the stadiums are. In simpler words, instead of people spending a certain amount of money to go to the theater, they spend it on tickets for a ball game. They dont do both, hence their economic activities are not increased. Also, it is true that businesses which are close to stadiums tend to be more successful, but again- it is because peoples activities are deflected and redirected there. They dont buy more, the just do it next to the stadium, or sometimes inside it. "Inclusion of restaurants and souvenir shops within the stadium and provision of municipal parking facilities direct fans spending to the team, not local merchants". (Sutter, par. 11) Thirdly, the infrastructure built especially to supply better accessibility to the sports facilities are unneeded and constitute themselves a heavy strain on the economy. Fourthly, whereas a stadium can revitalize a decaying part of the city, it does so at the expense of the other parts of the city which are badly affected. Due to the diversion created by the stadiums, many businesses are negatively influenced and may sometimes run out of business. Generally speaking, one can safely say that the costs of building a new stadium dramatically outweigh the benefits, if there are any. The sports teams that play in the stadium never generate enough positive economic benefit to repay the initial cost of construction (Chong, par. 9). Quite the contrary, research suggests that "professional sports may be a drain on local economy rather than an engine of economic growth" (Coates, p. 18).Even if the sports teams did repay the cost of construction, it would be to the government, not to the public. This is actually not surprising at all, seeing as how sports teams operations only make up less than 1% of local economy (Chong, par. 9). This means that the government chooses to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in something which barely generates any money! This would be unacceptable if the country didnt have better, more important things to invest in, but it sure does! Building the sports facilities comes instead of things like welfare, security, infrastructure repair or improvement and many more. To be more specific, investing in stadiums means "more sports but less of something else: police and fire protection, road repair, parks, or private consumption". (Sutter, par. 13) Furthermore, not only do the stadiums hardly generate enough economic benefit, an overwhelming amount of studies show that in most cases there is no economic change in cities where there are stadiums, and if there is a change- it is a negative one! A study done by Robert Baade of Lake Forest College studied 30 cities for 30 years and found that "27 experienced no significant impact from new stadiums while 3 cities experienced a negative impact". (Nader, par. 5) To conclude, in spite of what scheming team owners and players as well as government officials say, building stadiums does not help genuinely help the community and improve the economy or anything else, for that matter. Even the supposed benefits, like more activity (economic and otherwise) near the stadiums, improving infrastructure, property values going slightly up and more, are actually detrimental things which negatively affect the public. Not only this, but ironically, in order for this to happen, the taxpayers must pay even more taxes in order to have these stadiums, in which only a fracture of society is interested in. although most of the people oppose building stadiums (two thirds of the people), the government decides to build those anyways, sometimes forcing the all citizens to pay for it, when the stadiums are federally subsidized. The cost of these stadiums reaches massive amounts of money, which absurdly go to the team owners and players. The stadiums dont fail miserably in generating enough money to repay the construction, especially considering the fact that all sports teams operations are a minor and relatively insignificant part of the local economy. Also, it has been found that fewer fans attend games today than before, when the stadiums were first introduced to the public. Still, an unbelievable amount of money goes to funding these stadiums, instead of it being used to much more important things, such as improving the quality of life by providing the community with more health care facilities, amusement and entertainment facilities which are more mainstream than sports ones, better police and fire departments to protect and help people, and much more. Clearly, the public is heavily paying for something that not only doesnt contribute, but also denies people of better things which could really improve their lives. In my opinion, if city officials, business people and sports fans are interested in building stadiums and think it is financially wise to do so, they should raise money from those interested in it. The funding of stadiums should not be a burden to society as a whole, but an investment to those who really want it and are ready to make the sacrifices needed for it. References 1) Reed, Lawrence L. "Stadium Subsidies Strike Out". 1 May 1995. Mackinac Center for Public Policy. 21 November 2006. 2) Sutter, Daniel. "Public Subsidies for Sports Stadiums Dont Spur Economic Growth".1 April 2000. Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. 21 November 2006. < http://www.ocpathink.org/viewperspectivestory.asp?ID=428> 3) Chong, Ji H. "Stadium Subsidies". 7 August 2002. Taxpayers for Common Sense. 22 November 2006. < http://www.taxpayer.net/bailoutwatch/stadium.htm> 4) Coates, Daniel and Brad R. Humphreys. The Stadium Gambit and Local Economic Development. Economic Development Policy, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 18. 20 November 2006. 5) Nader, Ralph. "Stadium Subsidies Scalp the Public". 27 March 2000. Boston Globe. 21 November 2006. < http://www.commondreams.org/views/032700-101.htm> Read More