Sports Owners Should Fund Stadiums

Louis they had to use taxpayer funds just for all the sporting stadiums including the Rams, Blues, and Cardinals because St. Louis isn't a big enough city (Nocera 6). giving proof that St. Louis is not a big enough city to withhold several major franchises. The city itself does not meet its quota for the amount of people needed: "St. Louis a city of fewer than 320,000 people, with a shrinking tax base, simply couldn’t afford to help finance the $2 billion stadium that the Rams’ billionaire owner, E. Stanley Kroenke, was seeking"(Nocera 3). St. Louis is just a ghost town compared to cities like N.Y.C, Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles. Having a thriving franchise means picking a big city that can pour more people into watching them. The St. Louis Rams will be relocating to Los Angeles but, "Kroenke and the Rams are not getting a penny in public money from Inglewood, Los Angeles or California, even though the stadium they are building is quite likely to cost more than $2 billion" (Nocera 21). The new stadium will be almost $2 billion more and Kroenke, the Rams owner, will not get any help from the public to help pay for the new

Another reason these teams are targeted is because their home cities do not want to put up more money towards new stadiums for their rich, spoiled rotten owners.

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

Public financing for stadiums is an ongoing debate. Some studies show public funding does not generate economic impact. Other studies show public funding generates economic opportunities. Recently, November 16, 2017, the voting citizens of San Diego, California, reject a measure to finance a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers. In comparison, voting citizens of Arlington, Texas agree to sales, hotel and rental car tax increases to help fund the Texas Rangers new ballpark. What is available in Florida may vary from what is available in Texas. Depending on the instance, it comes down to politics. Politics is based on locality. Politically acceptable and politically realistic measures could depend on locality. The facilities built serve

This money does not come without an opportunity cost and money that goes into stadiums are being taken is being taken out of vital services that we need like our school system and parks. “the pride that having a sports team in your city brings is much more valuable than thirty libraries” is a completely atrocious statement. The worst part is most common people don’t even realize how much of their tax money is going into these stadiums and thus will not choose their politicians that will defend them on this issue. The government is generally used in terms to describe politicians but in a democracy our government is representation of their citizens. It is our job in the democratic process to be outraged when politicians use our money to benefit the few and to keep them out of office. In Johnstons book he talks to a few capitalists who claim that they did nothing wrong if the rules were set up to be cheated and I agree with them. They are unarguably very unscrupulous but in their mind if they are not going to cheat and make a fortune, then someone else just is. Like many rappers before us said “ don’t hate the player hate the game” and since we have the ability to change the game I think it is up to us to make sure it

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.

Sports Stadiums are an iconic staple of American tradition. However not everything about these venues is positive. Team owners take advantage of laws and fans to meet their own goals. Citizens and city officials from various locations have taken up their grievances with the NFL in the past. And it has gotten to the point where even political parties join together to bring to light issues with the organization. NFL stadiums are not good for cities because they take advantage of tax payers, hurt citizens on an economic level and cost them billions in subsidies.

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.

Economic theory introduces us to four different types of markets: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. Professional sports teams operate in an environment that is different than the typical business structure. The goal of this paper is to look at this industry, in particular the NFL, in an economics context and gain an understanding of the market structure of this unique industry. To do this I will discuss a brief history of the National Football League in the U.S. and how this organization is structured. I will also discuss typical market structures and type of

While growing up in the state of Texas I was introduced to National Football League (NFL) at a very young age. Not only was I obsessed with great players like Emmitt Smith and Michael Irving, I had a more finical appreciation for the lucrativeness associated with the NFL. My young adulthood as well as my teenage years was spent playing and learning football with the aspirations of hopefully making it to the NFL. Unfortunately, my playing days ended with tryouts at Texas Tech University, but my love for the game has remained stagnant over the years even till this day. The NFL today is Americas most watched sports league and has taken the crown as the most lucrative and unique economic force in sports. Forbes offered approximations stating that on average, the NFL generates more than $6-9 billion a year in revenues alone. A third of the individual franchises in the league were appraised at over more than $1 billion while the other franchises average nine figures or higher. The NFL as an organization generates its revenues through a multitude of ways ranging from huge television contracts, in-stadium ticket sales, advertising ads paid for by sponsors and merchandise. Their business model unlike most other leagues, is centered on a hard salary cap on player contracts which provides cost certainty with its sponsors. In this paper, I will examine the economic and historical narrative associated with the growth of the NFL’s

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

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 taxpayers willing to donate money to sports industry for support to athletes and everything else involved. Everybody else that does not enjoy or want things to do with sports should not be paying for the people that do. Many citizens, due to ticket prices, never get to use those facilities in the first place, so they shouldn't have to help pay to have them built. These leagues make millions, if not billions of dollars a year they should build the stadiums with their own funds found on Debate. A stadium will bring benefits to the city or town as a whole and employ more people. When a new stadium is built usually it means the old one was dated or the city wanted something new and shiny, when opening the same people are being hired to run the new one as the one prior to it so really new people are not being employed. Sports teams are making enough money to build their own stadiums if needed so cities do not really need to help them. Canada should not be using taxpayer dollars to run new facilities and support

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.

I chose the topic about if I think that professional athletes should get paid more than teachers, doctors, firefighter or law enforcement.