City funding for professional sports

Jan 2009
Via Bloomberg: "Oakland Pays $17 Million for NFL Raiders as Cops Fired"

I find this an interesting topic. I never really supported the public financing of stadiums, etc. I understand they bring business to the cities, etc., but I think there is a better way to go about it. Major cities should sign agreement to unilaterally not offer such money to professional teams. The teams aren't going to go anywhere in that case- they will stick with the biggest and best markets. Right now the problem is basically cities are in a position to bid against each other. I don't know if my solution is logistically realistic, but it's an idea.
Dec 2012
Under no circumstances, no level of government should subsidized a professional sports team or an arena/stadium. Let the private sector build it and profit from it, but taxpayers should not have to foot the bill. Also, there have been many studies, books and even a John Stossel program that shows there is no real economic benefit of having a sports team, especially publicly subsidized.

Up here, we have a sports dome that is hardly used: 82 games in the spring/summer, a few times in the summer and autumn for football, a couple of concerts a year and one NFL game. Let's be gracious and say the dome is used 150 times per year! Yikes!
Dec 2012
Nova Scotia Canada
I agree with Andrew320, I don't believe that the government should in any form be funding any professional sports teams or arena/stadiums. There are much better things that the governments money can be going to.

However i have no problems with the government funding money for local sports teams so that children whose parents don't have the money can still play the sports of their dreams. Coming from a low income family its heartbreaking watching your parents tell you you can't play hockey or soccer this season because they just can't afford it but they make too much money for you to qualify for sports aid.

Similar Discussions