The name of the game is money

In addition, because discretionary funds are limited in any population, sporting events do not generate new income as much as they represent a transfer of existing money within the business community. That is, the more people expend on tickets, stadium food, and souvenirs, the less they have to spend on other forms of recreation such as eating out, going to the movies, and/or purchasing sporting equipment.

In his study of all major league cities over a 28-year period, economist Robert Baade concluded that "Sports investments appear to be an economically unsound use of a community's scarce resources." Stanford economist Roger Noll argues that "Opening a branch of Macy's has a greater economic impact" than building a new stadium. San Francisco budget director Teresa Serrate can document just a $3,100,000 net gain from the baseball Giants in a city with a gross economic product of $30,000,000,000.

If the economic benefits argument falls short, owners and their supporters can be counted on to roll out the "community pride" position. In a 1996 interview, NFL team owner Art Modell--whose Cleveland Browns became the Baltimore Ravens--stated that "The pride and presence of a professional football team is far more important than 30 libraries."

While $270,000,000 of public funds in Maryland were used to subsidize the Ravens and NFL Washington Redskins, whose new stadium is in the Maryland suburbs, some Baltimore schools were rationing toilet paper and chalk. Students wore coats to class in school districts that could not pay heating bills. Funny how residents get the pride-along with a whopping bill for generating that feeling--and reduced community services, while owners and players, who mostly do not live in the area once the season is over, reap the profits.

I would imagine that, taken as a group, owners of professional teams--or, in the case of corporate ownership, the CEOs of these organizations--are staunch opponents of "giveaway" programs associated with welfare capitalism. When their economic interests are at stake, though, "socialism for the rich," as the NFL has been referred to, in the form of taxpayer-funded stadiums, is perfectly rational and acceptable.

For the most part, team owners and professional athletes do not even engage in a pretense of being concerned about the economic well-being of the people who support their industry. In the aftermath of the $17,600,000,000 NFL television deal, there was much speculation about how high the salary cap would go and what impact this economic windfall might have on player movement via free agency. However, neither the athletes nor the owners, to my knowledge, have uttered a word about sharing any portion of this money with fans/taxpayers by way of reducing ticket prices (or at least holding them steady), making charitable donations in lieu of exorbitant salary increases, or contributing additional funds toward the upkeep of existing stadiums or the construction of any new ones.