Public Financing For Stadiums

**alaskaguy** · 11-05-2007, 12:30 PM

A potential relocation of the Seattle SuperSonics to Oklamhoma City has been portrayed by the media as a ransom demand on Seattle for better facilities.

Nevertheless most economists conclude that government financing of stadiums is a bad investment. Any thoughts?

**sodakjoe** · 11-05-2007, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

A potential relocation of the Seattle SuperSonics to Oklamhoma City has been portrayed by the media as a ransom demand on Seattle for better facilities.

Nevertheless most economists conclude that government financing of stadiums is a bad investment. Any thoughts?

I would say that economically, no, it's probably not a great investment. The tax dollars that a stadium brings in doesn't really change all that much from an old facility to a new one. Where paying for a new stadium is beneficial has nothing to do with money. It's about fans, civic pride, and tradition. To have a successful franchise, you need a fan base that is willing to pay the tax dollars necessary to keep the team there. When cities fork over the money for new facilities, it's not because they think they'll make money, it's because it makes the people of their city happy.

**isufbcurt** · 11-05-2007, 12:40 PM

kind of off topic, but I think the move would be great for the sonics. I go to OK City 4 times a year for work and the Ford Center is pretty darn nice and when New Orleans relocated to play there they had alot of support at the games.

Now on topic, I have no problems with city's helping to finance sports venues. These teams bring alot of income to the city and in some cases the city is mainly known because of the sports teams.

**aeroclone08** · 11-05-2007, 12:42 PM

Seattle has voted down public financing of a new basketball arena I think 3 times now mostly because they've already built 2 new stadiums in the past 10 years.

**alaskaguy** · 11-05-2007, 01:13 PM

A lot of the opposition is that government has limited revenue. Social activitists make a stink whenever government money is rationed away from social programs to support millionaire players and billionaire owners.

**Wesley** · 11-05-2007, 01:17 PM

Oklahoma City can have them. Seems these teams are using Okie City as a threat to move to in about five other cities also. Just fill them up, and then see where the owners can pipedream to move to. Like Honolulu and Kansas City will want a team. KC just built a new venue for the Utah Jazz. Let's move them now.

**alaskaguy** · 11-05-2007, 01:28 PM

Another anti-stadium argument is that it is that public financing is nothing more than a transfer tax. When the government approves subsidizing the cost of a stadium they favor one form of entertainment over others. Taxpayers don't consider that we should raise taxes and spend millions on subsizing the cost of most other forms of entertainment. Yet we do for professional sport stadiums. Subsidizing sports stadiums influences people to spend their limited entertainment budgets on attending events in the sports stadiums rather than going to the movies, eating at restaurants, etc. So people are just transfering their entertainment dollars from one entertainment source to another.

**Flag Guy** · 11-05-2007, 01:32 PM

Don't care to completely debate the topic (should be in class... think I'll actually go) but nice facilities and a good team bring people into the city, who spend money on parking, food, hotels

City pride certianly becomes a factor too

**pulse** · 11-05-2007, 01:36 PM

The only thing building a new stadium can do to help a city is to revitalize long depressed areas. That isn't to say that is a reason to do it, but its the only benefit I can think of. It does create jobs, which politicians will always spout, but it doesn't create that many and they're low paying anyway and sporadic (game days).

I think public money for stadiums is a bad idea. As far as an NBA team moving from one city to another.... ehhh.. let 'em threaten to move, its not like an NFL team moving.