In the age of social media and technology, sports teams and league are scrambling for ways to bring fans to games. As one of the world’s premier sports leagues, the NFL attempts to solve this issue by continually building the biggest and most luxurious stadiums to play in. Owners believe that in order to have success and generate revenue, their teams must have new stadiums with the latest technology. While everyone agrees that there’s nothing wrong with this, the question is who should pay for them? The government shouldn’t fund NFL stadiums because they are not public works projects, the so called “benefits” doesn’t offset the costs of construction, and their economic impacts are overestimated due to unseen economic activity. Unlike almost everything else that the government subsidizes that benefits the public, NFL stadiums aren’t public works projects. This means that it serves no higher …show more content…
The so-called “benefits” of a new stadium- new jobs, generates money, attracts tourists, and leads to economic development- don’t offset the construction costs of a new football stadium. Subsidies continue to get bigger for sports stadiums, with some hitting $400 million since 2000 (Zimbalist, Andrew, and Roger G. Noll), while the impact remains the same: zero. These claims are false because the only way projects produce economic growth is when a community’s resources become more productive (Bull). Additionally, economists argue that pro sports stadiums have a minimal impact on economic activity when you consider 1) stadium prices continue to increase while stadium wages remain the same, 2) the majority of the jobs made by stadiums are part-time, 3) almost all the money generated by stadiums goes back to the team and their league, not the city, and 4) consumers would just spend their money on other forms of entertainment, also known as Unseen Economic Activity (Sacking the