The Bread & Circus effect: The Danger of Public Stadium Funding

In 2016 when the measure C initiative to raise hotel taxes to benefit a new San Diego Chargers stadium failed, the Chargers left their hometown of many years to go to Los Angeles. A team expecting government aid as a prerequisite to be in a location is an exceedingly common story in the world of modern sports. Even when they do not contribute directly to the creation of the stadium, the government usually spends millions of dollars on associated infrastructure improvements. All the vast spending packages are justified under the justification of future economic growth in the area. The owners are arguing that the building of a new stadium will add far more to the local economy and community than the money that the government is spending. They are painting themselves as the selfless providers of a good. Although the major sports leagues have no lack of money and would require stadiums to play even without government help, the easy accessibility of government funding means that the cheaper option is usually a massive lobbying campaign and support of government funding for a specific stadium. Even before the obvious theoretical problems with this approach, the economic benefit numbers typically given by sports teams are highly dubious. This is a clear example of business interfering in government processes to the detriment of most. Even sports franchises themselves are unable to recognize their most lucrative opportunities as they are blinded by the potential of massive sums from the government. Rather than creating new economic opportunities, the primary effect of government spending on stadiums is a redistribution of wealth from the people to specific sports fans. The practice of government sponsoring has become so common that local governments are simply expected to sign off on stadiums rather than evaluate whether that money could be used better in the hands of the citizens or even in more traditional infrastructure.…