Is There a Case for Subsidizing Sports Stadiums?

Matheson, Victor A.

doi:10.1002/pam.22096

Cited by 43 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This Tiebout (1956) competition is on two levels: between regions for the monopoly scarce opportunity to host a franchise and within a region to direct activity to a particular area. Rosentraub (2014) argues that despite not positively impacting regional economic growth, professional sports can beneficially reallocate activity within a region to downtown area, a notion supported by the neighborhood effects cited by Matheson (2019). Likewise, access to the major leagues may be perceived as impacting talent location decisions (Delaney and Eckstein, 2006).…”

Section: Public Finance Of Sports Venuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tax increment financing and major league venues

Sroka

2020

SBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis article intends to shine a light on venue-related tax increment financing (TIF) through the first comprehensive inventory of its use at the major league level.Design/methodology/approachFor each 2018 venue in the five North American major leagues, data was collected on TIF contributions to direct venue capital costs as well as to projects using TIF to enable real estate development ancillary to a venue. Neighborhoods surrounding a venue were also assessed for the presence of a TIF district. With both the direct and ancillary elements, data was collected from government, industry, academic, mapping and media sources. A review of this data set and findings are followed by a discussion of implications and directions for future work.FindingsOver one-third of the TIF eligible permanent stadiums and arenas studied in the five major leagues have a direct or strong TIF connection. Direct TIF contributions to sports venues, as well as TIF use intended to generate real estate development around these venues, are most frequent and financially significant in arenas and soccer-specific stadiums. Additionally, arena and stadium projects using TIF often accompany ancillary real estate development.Originality/valueA primary purpose of this article is to provide a previously missing general reference resource to governments and citizens of jurisdictions considering facility TIF use on the scope, nature, extent and identity of TIF projects related to major league sports venues. More generally, the inventory and assessment of TIF use in professional sports venues offered by this article sets the stage for future research on associative relationships between TIF contributions and facility finance outcomes as well as the normative value of venue-related TIF.

show abstract

Section: Public Finance Of Sports Venuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tax increment financing and major league venues

Sroka

2020

SBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Professional sports stadiums have been largely publicly funded in recent decades (Humphreys 2019). The public funding of stadiums is a topic of interest among economists and are of policy relevance, due to the large costs associated with building stadiums (Matheson 2019). The rationalization for public funding generally appears under the guise of economic growth, such as economic expansion and job creation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Public Choice of Public Stadium Financing: Evidence from San Diego Referenda

Johnson

Hall

2019

Economies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local politicians and team owners frequently argue that the public financing of stadiums is important for local economic development. The sports economics literature, however, has largely found that new professional sport facilities do not generate any new net economic activity. We provide context to this literature by exploring the public choice in the public financing of stadiums. In 2016, San Diego had two ballot measures related to the San Diego Chargers. Measure C would allow officials to raise hotel taxes to pay for a new downtown stadium for the Chargers. Measure D would also raise hotel taxes, but explicitly prevented any money being spent on the Chargers. Both measures failed to receive 50% of the votes cast. We find that zip codes with a higher voter turnout were more likely to vote against both measures, highlighting the importance of the timing of referenda in limiting the ability of clearly defined groups, such as Chargers fans, to have a large influence on the voting outcome. Meanwhile, areas with more Trump voters were more likely to support higher taxes for the purpose of building the Chargers a new stadium.

show abstract

“…Professor Matheson () argues that some aspects of professional sports teams constitute a public good. Following a local team, talking about the local team with friends and family, and the intangible “sense of community” and “world class city status” generated by high‐profile sports teams clearly embody characteristics of a public good.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Matheson () further observes, correctly, that public subsidization of a public good can generate Pareto improvements, since profit maximizing firms operating in competitive markets undersupply pure public goods. Unfortunately, the market for professional sports teams falls far short of the ideal assumptions that generate this prediction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Facility Subsidies Redux

Humphreys¹

2018

J Policy Anal Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is There a Case for Subsidizing Sports Stadiums?

Cited by 43 publications

References 19 publications

Tax increment financing and major league venues

Tax increment financing and major league venues

The Public Choice of Public Stadium Financing: Evidence from San Diego Referenda

Facility Subsidies Redux

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About