The Pros And Cons Of Sports Stadiums

Since the stadiums are most on the metropolitan areas, the fans from suburbs spend lots of expenditures, money and time, to watch baseball games. They give up the opportunities to do something else rather than watching games. Every year, the Major League Baseball receives more than $2 billion from advertising, sales of tickets and merchandise. And the “New York Yankees” got more revenues than the combinations of the other teams’

Money may be spent on the local economy during sporting events, but it doesn’t always wind up back in the hands of the residents (Baade, Baumann, Matheson, 2008, p. 797). The worst part of leakages is that the money given to build those additions and stadiums through taxes isn’t always reciprocated back to the people and the community (Zirin, 2011). The tax money is instead morphed into private profits that escape from the people who originally gave up the money in the first place (Zirin, 2011). The income multiplier for sporting events is considered to be much lower then normal systems of expenditures because of the specialized leakage effect in professional sports (Baade, Baumann, Matheson, 2008, p. 797). This specialized leakage effect stems from the majority of profit that is made goes to athletes and owners, but athletes and owners don’t necessarily live in the immediate city they play for (Zaretsky, 2001). If we replaced assets from an NFL team to a large manufacturing plant we could see that the profits would now go to the thousands of workers who most likely live in the city they work in and can directly put money back into the economy in larger

1. The author of “Thoughts of the downtown stadium” from The San Diego Union Tribute, Joe Panetta and Greg Lucier wrote about their opinions on the Measure C. They argue that Measure C will have some poor effects on San Diego, although they are not directly saying it, they give negative examples on what will happen to the society when they take the stadium away.

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.

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

Olympic Games have been held in places such as Russia and Athens. So why not have it be in Park field this year? The article hosting the Olympics will wreck our town written by Tim says how it probably won’t even be worth the risk to try and hold the Olympics there. Tim brings up very important facts and details about why this wouldn’t be a good idea. Having the Olympics in Parks field is not a good idea and here are the reasons why.

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.

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.

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

Spending on the construction of new sports facilities grew at a staggering rate post 2007. A total of 13.4 billion is being spent on around 81 arenas and other major as well as minor sport facilities in and around the U.S. at least through 2010. The association of exceedingly high cost has put the subject of public financing of new stadiums and playing arenas under exceptional examination. The development of another stadium or playing arena is a costly job which these days can often surpass a few hundred million dollars. In the pre-1990 's period the vast majority of the sports facilities were for the most part supported through public financing, however with the progression of time as the financing prerequisites for developing new sports facilities grew, so did the financing techniques. Public financing for major sports arenas is mainly done by heavily subsidizing the construction process of these stadiums. The main argument of local governments favoring the use of tax payers ' money for construction of sports facilities is that these facilities will better the entire area and city as a whole. The main sources of public financing for building new sports facilities include; sales taxes, general obligation bonds, beneficiary taxes, tax increment bonds, revenue bonds and proximity taxes.

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.

Early in 2015, the National Football League's (NFL) Miami Dolphins organization began a comprehensive renovation consisting of significant design augmentations to their home field previously known as the Sun Life Stadium. Although the lion’s share concluded ahead of the 2016 preseason final and highlighted an innovative canopy encapsulating two off-seasons to complete, significantly upgraded club level seating and luxury suites would serve up a finale for 2017. Architected as an open-air stadium when originally constructed by the Miami Dolphins founder Joe Robbie in 1987, there were never such elaborate plans. Generally speaking, aggressive augmentations evolve into particularly challenging construction projects due to their extensive nature

In the world of sports arenas there is one that stands as a pivotal high point above almost all other stadiums. The University of Southern California’s mammoth of a stadium, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum is one of the biggest sports stadiums in college football, and has been a standard by which others are judge. Being declared a land mark by the state of California after nearly 80 years of use, this structure has had many different uses other than its current purpose of housing one of the most dominate teams in college football, the Trojans. Since its opening day the stadium has set world record in attendance and then beaten the same records hosting some of the most famous people in the world. (Coliseum History)