Sports Construction Research Paper

One thing many economists agree on is the overall lack of effect sports can have on a city. Cities seem to be less impacted by a professional sports team because of things like opportunity costs, substitution effects, crowding out, and leakages (Baade, Baumann, Matheson, 2008, p. 797). These economists’ theory is that if there weren’t sports teams, people would still choose to spend money on other entertainment or attractions (Baade, Baumann, Matheson, 2008, p. 797). How the substitution effect works in sports is you imagine a city has a game, which supposedly tons of tourists and outsiders come to enjoy. These outsiders come for the specific event in which they are paying a good amount for, are not going to want to spend tons of money on other

The rise in popularity of professional sports over the last century has brought financial gain and stability to many facets of the economy. Whether it is a new franchise, stadium, or the signing of a big-name player, these activities bring attention to a region or group and influence often comes as a result of that attention. Money brought into an area from ticket revenue, hotel bookings, merchandise sales, and other businesses are impacted financially when a stadium is built. The economic influence a stadium brings to a local economy is a positive one. Many factors come into play when anticipating the construction of a new stadium.

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.

In 2010 there was a study conducted by Greater Memphis Chamber of Commerce to determine what the economic impact of the Memphis Grizzlies and the FedEx Forum was on the economy of the greater Memphis area. A professional sports team such as the Memphis Grizzlies is going to aid the community in increasing the revenue of the local economy. Games or concerts at the arena will draw in individuals from outside of the area who will buy such things as food, luxuries, or hotel rooms, which directly impact the local economy. This is why it can be beneficial for a large community such as Memphis to be able to host a professional sports team. In order to determine the benefits and economic impact, the community and organization need to be able to determine

Stadium subsidies are used to fiancé new stadiums. The government provides financial support to franchises that allows them to build their new stadiums. These subsidies are costing tax payers millions and do not seem to be in the best interest of the city the stadium is in. Those in favor of using tax payer dollars to build stadiums argue that the economic impact a professional franchise has on a city is great and a new stadium will help generate revenue. Research has shown this is not the case. Most stadiums cost the city and never produce enough revenue to make up for those costs (Bast, 1990).

The past 20 years have witnessed a massive transformation of professional sports stadiums in North America and the rest of the world. In the United States and Canada alone, by 2012, 125 of the 140 teams in the five largest professional sports leagues, the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Soccer (MLS), and National Hockey League (NHL), will play in stadiums constructed or significantly renovated since 1990. This new construction has come at a significant cost, the majority of which has been covered by taxpayers. Construction costs alone for major league professional sports facilities have totaled in excess of $30 billion over the past two

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.

Zanesville would get a 19-yard catch by Andrew Everson and then a 17-yard run by Murphy to give the impression that their offense was ready to turn it on. Then with 2:49 left in the half Everson would get sacked by Marques Sherman for

   Abstract:  The Stadium  construction boom continues, and taxpayers are being forced to pay for new high tech stadiums they don’t want.  These new stadiums create only part-time jobs.  Stadiums bring money in exclusively for professional leagues and not the communities.  The teams are turning public money into private profit.  Professional leagues are becoming extremely wealthy at the taxpayers expense.  The publicly-funded stadium obsession must be put to a stop before athletes and coaches become even greedier.  New stadiums being built hurt public schools, and send a message to children that leisure activities are more important than basic education.  Public money

The issue at hand, however, is that power has shifted from the cities to the teams themselves. Professional athletic organizations have started taking advantage of cities by threatening to relocate unless they get public subsidies for expensive stadium renovations and construction. With this in mind it is imperative to ask today’s question: Do public subsidies for professional athletic organizations benefit their local community?

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

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.

Of course I had dreams of playing professional sport like every other young male in the world but, a wise man spoke to me and he asked me how much my favorite basketball player makes on average, I did the research and Lebron James makes over 300 million dollars annually. Younger me got that information and as expected I held strong on my dreams of being a professional athlete until he showed me 0.0015% of Americans make it into the NBA.”Out of every 10,000 kids playing basketball in high school only 3 will make it to the pros. Note, this doesn’t mean they’re going to stay in the pros more than 5 seconds. This doesn’t mean they’re going to get a sneaker deal and be in a Pepsi commercial This simply means they’ll get drafted.” (Odds of Playing).

In this article, Jen Fela explains the the 2006 World Cup set the standards of environmental “green goals” for future FIFA World Cups and how environmental measures have been taken for the 2010 World Cup. Fela reminds the reader that all mega sports events come with a price, and the 2010 World Cup has the hefty carbon price tag of 2.75 million metric tons of emissions. To combat this environmental threat, she calls South Africans to use the same techniques (such as using rainwater tanks and planting thousands of trees) that the Germans used to host the first carbon neutral World Cup in 2006. She also states that with the increase use of coal-generated electricity in South Africa, new ways must also be formulated to reduce the tournament’s carbon

There are direct impacts to the environment for every sport event that happened, be it small scale or global. Mega –sport events are progressing every now and then since they are stimulators of major programs of improvement and regeneration for means of expressing the personality and enhancing the status of cities that are holding these events. Mega-sport events are then catalysts of development and change of the venues both in the local and national level (James and Dodours,