Until 1950 the vast majority of owners of professional sports teams built and maintained their own stadiums. Local authorities now routinely contribute between 70% and 80% of the construction of facilities, however, even as costs have soared. A recent example was in Florida, when Miami-Date County commissioners approved giving $347 million toward construction of a new ballpark for the Florida Marlins.

The cities’ motivation is simple: Because leagues are monopolies and team owners can move at will, local authorities are fearful of losing franchises and the financial benefits assumed to come with them. The result of this power imbalance has been an increase in what has been derided as “ball pork”, both in the percentage that municipalities contribute and in the number of facilities built — more than 40 have been constructed since 1999.

However, a 2008 study, Sports and the City: How to Curb Professional Sports Teams’ Demands for Free Public Stadiums, concludes that:

• There is little or no positive correlation between stadium construction and local economic development. Income tends to stay with the teams, because facilities are self-contained and most fans return directly home after games.
• New facilities frequently cost more money and create fewer jobs than the best alternative public investment.
• The burden of public funding of stadium construction is frequently born by lower- and middle-class taxpayers, many of whom are, paradoxically, priced out of newer facilities.

The author considers several broad strategies for curbing stadium subsidies, and concludes that the best approach would be a requirement for teams to share facility revenue based on the percentage of public funding.

Rate this article

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...