Socialist View of Today's 'Stadium Mania'

'In the early 1900s, baseball stadiums were built and paid for by the teams. By the late 1960s, new parks were springing up in most major cities. These modern venues catered to baseball and football, were usually located downtown, and were built on the public dime. Owners, politicians and the media often trumpeted these new stadiums as part of a downtown renaissance.

'But Roger G. Noll, co-author of Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums, disputes this claim: "There's never been a publicly subsidized stadium anywhere in the United States that had the effect of increasing employment and economic growth in the city in which it was built."

'In some cities, crucial services deteriorated after stadiums were built. Baltimore and Cleveland have mostly publicly funded baseball and football facilities, but their public schools are in receivership. (Cleveland's schools were actually once promised $15 million per year income from the stadiums.) And as Washington, D.C. built its new baseball stadium, thanks to the insistent "leadership" of Mayor Anthony Williams, the city also closed its only public hospital.

'In the old days, sports venues hosted multiple activities and were expected to last 60 or 70 years. By the early 1990s, owners began asserting that facilities built in the '60s and '70s were already obsolete.

'Not satisfied with simply having a new stadium, team owners also began to demand separate stadiums for each sport. They decided these new stadiums must come with private suites that teams could sell to corporations and individuals for thousands of dollars per year. For example, indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had private suites at every sports facility in D.C. to woo his clients.

'How do sports owners get their new stadiums? Many threaten to move their teams, painting local pols as "bad guys" who won't work with them. Wealthy owners also enjoy backroom access to politicians, who get campaign donations for their troubles. Donations quadruple when you add the ones from "community leaders" who show their appreciation after stadiums are built.' (Socialism.com)

SOMEONE ELSE SPEAKS: 'Recent studies have confirmed a fatigue with public financing for stadiums. It just is not worth it. The economic advantages for the host city are less and less. The internet and cable television have made everything far closer; you can see a game anywhere in any city through such creations. Do you really need a stadium?

'Also, the greed is simply out-in-the-open now. People making $50,000 a year paying costs for billionaire owners to house millionaire players is a sham. The players have proven they don't care which city they play in, just the one paying the most. Why should a fan go out of his way and take more dough out of his pocket for this sort of thing? He should not.

'At the very least, there should be some sort of reward for public funding. How about the team making sure ticket prices remain in the bottom ten? That would be both rewarding and gracious. Instead, we often get owners who raise ticket prices almost immediately. Gee, thanks for the support, Mr. Billionaire.' (from InternetGilletteStadiumCompilation...also check out the "Top Ten Myths Surrounding the Montreal Expos")