Owners should endeavor to find ways to finance their new venues without relying on subsidies. Contrary to what stadium proponents claim, the sports environment has only a small effect on local conditions, and in many measures the effect is negative.
The practice of threatening to relocate if the current locale does not fork over more public money for a new stadium is now common practice, most recently seen with the Raiders leaving Oakland for the Las Vegas desert.
Essentially, this is the basis on which municipalities evaluate the benefit of a team. These trade-offs are a part of the marginal cost calculation the city does.
The subsidies are all the more appalling because they are provided to billionaire team owners who do not need them.
The largest of these bonds was given to the soon-to-be Las Vegas Raiders. Our Stance Stadium subsidies are a poor use of taxpayer dollars. And even more impressively, San Francisco was able to retain its baseball team, the Giants, and gain a basketball team, the Warriors, without paying any taxpayer money towards the construction of either stadium.
Much like the social marginal benefit calculation the city performed to find what benefits teams brought to the city, the social marginal cost calculation sums up all of the unintended negative effects from a particular spending plan.
Citizens against sports stadium subsidies
And in addition to their massive upfront costs, stadium subsidies trade-off with other higher-impact budget items, causing the aforementioned cuts to programs like policing and pension plans. Second, sports leagues limit the number of teams that can compete in the league, creating a race to the bottom in which cities compete with each other to offer the most generous subsidy packages to retain the prestige of hosting a major league team. Most sports stadiums, including Audi Field , are funded through municipal bonds, which are attractive to investors because the interest income is exempt from federal taxes. The marginal cost is known only by the government, who deliberates with franchises to decide how much bringing a team to their city will cost. And though the Booker-Lankford bill does seem promising, it must be noted that similar legislation has already been proposed and rejected by Congress, most recently a proposal under President Obama. This consensus is not a recent development, as studies examining the effects of stadiums have come to similar conclusions since the s. On June 13, , Sens. Fortunately, some city councils have begun to look past overstated economic rationalizations, local politics, and a lack of precedent, and are forcing teams to take more economic responsibility for stadium construction. In fact, the majority of studies that conclude in favor of subsidies are either funded by sports teams themselves or methodologically flawed, as they often only report the benefits of stadium construction without factoring in their associated costs. Proponents of subsidies argue that the economic benefits of hosting a major league team far outweigh the immediate costs of stadium construction. Stadiums should not receive further public subsidies. Criticisms[ edit ] Visual Representation of the Social Marginal Cost Many criticisms exist regarding the use of stadium subsidies.
based on 102 review