Response should have 1 source for each discussion
1. The use of public funds to build structures such as professional sports facitlities can easily be validated. From an economical perspective, the amount of jobs that such stadiums provide is negligible at best also, “the rate of return a city or metropolitan area receives for its investment is generally below that of alternative projects” (Zaretsky, 2001). Most motivation to build facilities comes from the factor that a new stadium may stimulate the local economy. Community growth and pride also comes from the moving of a professional team into town. “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food.” (James, 2:14, ESV).
The performance of the team also effects how much funding is recieved, which is rightfully so due to the increase of revenue. “Ticket sales show performance today and performance in the future. If you make it to the World Series, every team but one in the last 14 years has experienced an increase in attendance of an average 10 percent”(Povich, N.D.). The increase in attendence can bring signifigant tourism oppurtunities to the area. However, in many cases the attendence of such games has decreased. “In the NBA, several lower-level teams, like the Sacramento Kings, Milwaukee Bucks and Detroit Pistons had major attendance drops. The Pistons averaged only 13,272 tickets sold per home game in the plush 21,000-seat Palace” (Worley, 2017). The potential decrease in attendence could end up costing investors more trouble then benefit. Many fans choose to watch games at home rather than spend big money to attend.
Ability to attract tourist is an issue with many sports stadiums. Most of the attendees live within a specific radius of the stadiums. “ good example, once again, is Oriole Park at Camden Yards. This ballpark is probably the most successful at attracting outsiders since it is only 40 miles from the nation's capital, where there is no major league baseball team. About a third of the crowd at every game comes from outside the Baltimore area.” (Zaretsky, 2001). If the stadiums are is surrounded by a thriving city, investors should expect low attendacne and lack of profit. Decison to build stadiums and waste public funding is dependent on the area as a whole.
RESPONSE:
2.
the Las Vegas Raiders, the name in which the Oakland Raiders plan to adopt shortly, are a great example of public financing for a sporting facility. Clark County, in which Las Vegas resides, approved tax-free bonds in excess of $750 million in order to finance the building of the Raiders’ new football stadium (Wornow, 2018). According to Wornow, there have been 45 stadiums for major sports teams that have been publicly financed with a total of over $3.2 billion spent. The Raiders’ stadium is reported to cost roughly $1.9 billion, in which that $750 million will become a very large chunk. This means that, as a positive, there will be a much smaller portion that is needed to be financed through private means. Financing of such a large facility can be no easy task and every bit of funding can help in this process. In addition, it can be argued that hosting a professional sports team in your city can mean more jobs and more revenue generated by local businesses, thus creating a healthier and more prosperous city than if a sports team were not present.
Opponents of this public financing of a stadium could claim, though, that this money could be better served elsewhere. Wornow claims that police forces in Oakland were decreased in order to fund the Coliseum in this the Raiders currently play. Detroit has also seen similar moves in the form of cut pensions because of the construction costs to the Red Wings stadium. According to the Sports Fans Coalition, there are no benefits to taxpayers because in doing so they do not receive discounts at the stadium, they do not see available usage for youth teams, and taxpayers do not see advantageous ticket prices compared to out-of-area users. Their remedy to this is to incorporate low-income fan seating options, free usage for local sports teams (youth and public schools), and a commitment by the team to stay in that city for at least twenty years (Sportsfans.org, n.d.). The main item that taxpayers are concerned about, though, is that there does not seem to be choice involved when cities decide to finance a new stadium. Taxpayers are forced into paying for the stadium without any incentive or drive to actually want the stadium there in the first place. Issues will arise when people are forced into this agreement. As 2 Corinthians 9:7 has stated, “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (ESV).
RESPONSE:
3.
There are many issues within sports finances, but one that sticks out more than any other is public funding of professional sports teams. This subject really hits home for me since I am from Cincinnati, OH and they are known for one of the worst public finance deals in history of sports. Now there can also be some positives to public financing as well and we are going to talk about both.
Public financing is a way for a professional sports team to be able to get a new stadium or upgrades and have the local community help pay for it. The community typically wants the team to stick around because they usually bring a larger economy to the area through the games and revenue of the team. Bu there are still some teams out there that are so bad and have been so bad for so long that there is no benefit for them to stay.
The Bengals closed a deal with Hamilton County in 2011 and was instantly known as the worse deal in all of sports for public financing. (Bennett, 2011) The exact quote in the article that stuck out to me was: "the monster that ate the public sector." (Bennett, 2011) The city anted the Bengals to stay and the Bengals knew that, so that took every advantage that they could. The Bengals wanted help with all upgrades and funding for the stadium and they received it, but the problem is that the Bengals have not been doing their part by winning. Winning would cause more people to come to the games and boost the economy.
The deal that they struck cause the “County to face a $14 million deficit in the Sales Tax Fund, is hoping to reduce projected capital maintenance with both stadiums by at least $16 million over the next five years.” (Hamilton County issues letters to the Cincinnati Bengals and the Reds, 2011) This means that the count was not getting their money back and now in a deficit all because they wanted to overpay the team to stay here.
There are instances where public financing for a team can be beneficial. Look at teams that win and sell out. It creates more revenue and taxes for the surrounding areas, which in return makes it worth closing the deal. Makes me think of Bible Verse: “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.” (Bible) In a public finance, you are a family and have to work together to make it work for both sides.
RESPONSE:
4.
Community recreation areas, golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools and public school sport facilities are all, by nature, financed primarily by taxpayers. However in the United States, major sports facilities constructed exclusively for private, professional sports teams have been built with billions of dollars of taxpayer support over the years. This is an issue that is much discussed and much studied.
One of the ideas that economists most agree on- according to former Bush administration economic advisor and Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw’s popular economics texts- is that the government should not subsidize professional sports. Legislation proposed by President Obama in 2015 would have ended the practice. President Trump used Twitter to bring attention to the NFL’s “massive tax breaks” and tweeted “change tax law”. In 2017 a bill sponsored by New Jersey Senator Corey Booker (D) and Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) introduced a bipartisan bill that would ban the use of tax-exempt bonds to finance professional sport stadiums and arenas. This is definitely something that has the attention of the public.
It is a fascinating issue in that each specific facility is a unique situation with unique backstories, political drama, personalities and financing structure and solutions. In this forum, you are asked to focus on a specific case, particularly how public money was used and what was pledged to pay back any debt issued. By researching a case on your own and reading and responding to those put forth by your colleagues, you will have a better understanding of the issues that arise and how situations played out.
RESPONSE: