– Among the 32 NFL teams, only five teams—the New York Giants, New York Jets, Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, and New England Patriots—have stadiums built without government subsidies.
– Historically, private funding was the norm for stadium construction. Early 20th-century stadiums were primarily privately funded, and owners seeking public funds would have been ridiculed.
– In contrast, modern stadium projects frequently rely on massive public subsidies, often running into hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.
– Research by economists J.C. Bradbury, Dennis Coates, and Brad Humphreys (2022) shows little to no tangible economic benefit from sports teams or stadiums, because the level of subsidies typically exceeds observed economic returns.
– The Center for Economic Accountability highlights that sports entertainment competes with other local businesses rather than generating new economic activity.
– Public spending on stadiums diverts consumer spending from other community businesses.
– Ending subsidies would protect taxpayers without significantly affecting professional sports teams.
– Economist J.C. Bradbury asserts that if public funding ceased, wealthy owners would simply finance stadiums privately, with minimal disruption to the sports world.
– The current model represents a form of wealth redistribution favoring team owners over tax payers
BasedTroutFursona on
Would it be a gross violation of federalism for a federal law against public funding of professional sports stadiums? To take away the owners’ threat to move teams to a place that will subsidize them? I think city and state governments would welcome having the pressure to fork over money removed by an outside force.
Sex_E_Searcher on
No good reasons for the taxpayer, but plenty of good reasons for governments that don’t want to lose an election because the beloved local sports franchise left. Everyone wants to stop paying, but no one wants to be the bad guy.
3 Comments
Key points::
– Among the 32 NFL teams, only five teams—the New York Giants, New York Jets, Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, and New England Patriots—have stadiums built without government subsidies.
– Historically, private funding was the norm for stadium construction. Early 20th-century stadiums were primarily privately funded, and owners seeking public funds would have been ridiculed.
– In contrast, modern stadium projects frequently rely on massive public subsidies, often running into hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.
– Research by economists J.C. Bradbury, Dennis Coates, and Brad Humphreys (2022) shows little to no tangible economic benefit from sports teams or stadiums, because the level of subsidies typically exceeds observed economic returns.
– The Center for Economic Accountability highlights that sports entertainment competes with other local businesses rather than generating new economic activity.
– Public spending on stadiums diverts consumer spending from other community businesses.
– Ending subsidies would protect taxpayers without significantly affecting professional sports teams.
– Economist J.C. Bradbury asserts that if public funding ceased, wealthy owners would simply finance stadiums privately, with minimal disruption to the sports world.
– The current model represents a form of wealth redistribution favoring team owners over tax payers
Would it be a gross violation of federalism for a federal law against public funding of professional sports stadiums? To take away the owners’ threat to move teams to a place that will subsidize them? I think city and state governments would welcome having the pressure to fork over money removed by an outside force.
No good reasons for the taxpayer, but plenty of good reasons for governments that don’t want to lose an election because the beloved local sports franchise left. Everyone wants to stop paying, but no one wants to be the bad guy.