ot continue to subsidize an extremely healthy industry and its wealthy members. A conclusion will address ways in which politicians can help resolve this issue.
The public funding of sports stadiums is an economic boon, but the cash cow is milked by the private sector, i.e., the owners and players, not the local community and taxpayers. Study after study reveals that the promises of economic growth, increased jobs, and other supposed new stadium benefits, are, indeed, empty promises. For example, many in favor of public funded stadiums contend that the local area gains from increased job creation. However, many of the jobs originated by new stadiums are low-paying, minimum-wage positions that offer few or no benefits. Further, economic experts contend that the costs of building these stadiums and the new jobs they offer are inordinate compared to other methods of adding to a local area’s job base. Baltimore is one such example, “In Baltimore, estimates of the cost per job created by the baseball park at Camden Yards, perhaps the most lauded of the new ballparks, ran from a conservative $127,000 to a worst-case $331,000. That is anywhere from 21 to 55 times the $6,250 per job it costs for the state to generate jobs through its own economic development agency” (Jackson 1).
One of the problems associated with the public funding of private sports stadiums is the nature of the modern sports market. There is a limited supply of teams and many leaders believe to have a major city one needs a major sports franchise. The result is a franchise-owner’s market. When owners saw their profits decline from “free agency” and an inability to secure huge broadcast rights, many of them went welfare shopping to other cities and states who promised huge subsidies for new stadiums. Many stadiums now in existence are serviceable, but they are not built for maximum profit generation. Owners desire new stadiums with a large amou...