RESEARCH STARTER

Sports Facilities and Government Funding: Overview

Sports facilities, particularly stadiums and arenas for professional teams, often receive significant government funding, sparking ongoing debates about the appropriateness and impact of such expenditures. The construction of these venues typically requires substantial financial backing, as team owners frequently lack the means to fund these projects independently. Public subsidies can help reduce the financial burden on teams, with local governments often agreeing to fund construction in exchange for commitments from teams to remain in the area for a designated period. While these facilities can enhance local tourism and property values, critics argue that they primarily benefit private team owners, with municipalities deriving limited financial return once the facilities are operational.

The allocation of public funds for sports venues raises ethical questions regarding the use of taxpayer dollars to support private enterprises. Proponents highlight economic benefits, including job creation and increased local business, especially when teams achieve success or host special events. However, detractors contend that the promised economic boosts often fail to materialize and that the burdens of construction, such as displacement of residents or the use of eminent domain, can negatively impact communities. The global trend indicates a growing reliance on public funding for private sports facilities, while debates over funding methods, including public-private partnerships, continue to evolve. This complex interplay between community interests, financial realities, and the cultural significance of sports underscores the challenges in balancing public investment with private gain.

Full Article

Introduction

The use of public funds to create facilities for privately owned sports teams is an issue that has generated increasing scrutiny and controversy over the years. Major cities are typically viewed as potential homes for professional sports teams, but team owners can rarely afford to build arenas or stadiums on their own. Due to the high cost of stadium construction, local and state governments are generally asked for financial support for such ventures. Government funding also saves teams the cost of borrowing to finance a stadium facility.

Public subsidies are granted on the condition that a particular professional sports team will remain in a city for a given amount of time. After public funds are granted, the facility is generally owned by the local government, eliminating the need for property taxes. The team owner retains all rights to the team itself, and profits from ticket sales go toward the maintenance of the facility and player salaries. When these costs have been covered, the remaining revenue goes to the team owner as profit. Team owners also profit from concession sales, parking fees, and, in particular, skybox privileges, which are purchased primarily by major corporations. In some cases, agreements with the city require that locally owned businesses or companies owned by women or people belonging to marginalized groups be provided opportunities to compete for the concessions or partner with larger companies. The host city receives little profit once a stadium is up and running. However, most cities are able to translate their status as the "home city" for a particular team into increased tourism revenues and business opportunities, as well as increased property values.

Understanding the Discussion

Eminent domain: The power of the state to claim land from private landowners for the purposes of the common good.

Referendum: Also known as a plebiscite, a referendum is the submission of a proposal to a popular vote. In the United States, referendums (also called propositions or ballot initiatives) are commonly used to adopt new laws or policies, or to overturn already-established laws.

Statute: A written law created and approved by a legislature.

Subsidies: Grants, tax incentives, or other financial assistance given by a government to help fund a project that is seen as benefiting the public interest.

Tax revenue: Public funds generated by the taxation of goods, property, income, and/or services.

History

Sports events have been popular since ancient times, and attending them has often been seen as an act of social and civic importance. The Colosseum of Rome was created as an arena to showcase gladiator contests and other spectacles and was able to seat over fifty thousand people. Entrance fees were often waived for attendees and were paid by politicians and rulers who were seeking popular support. The Olympic Games originated in ancient Greece, and in modern times the event has been celebrated so enthusiastically that most host cities build new arenas, housing, and stadiums created solely for the purpose of accommodating the Olympics.

The popularity of sports grew dramatically in the United States throughout the twentieth century, resulting in the need to create larger and more sophisticated playing facilities. Prior to the middle of the century, public subsidies for sports arenas were rarely considered or implemented. The Cleveland baseball team played in a public stadium, but it was the only professional sports team to do so before 1950.

By the 1960s, the privately owned arenas that had been built after World War II were in need of extensive repair or replacement. By that time, the cost of building new stadiums of the necessary size had skyrocketed, leaving most team owners with little choice but to seek public subsidies. By 1970, roughly 70 percent of sports stadiums in the United States had been built with the help of public funds.

From 1970 through the early 1980s, the average sports arena cost around $87 million to build, with approximately 90 percent of the cost being covered by public subsidies. The stadiums and arenas that were built in the 1960s and early 1970s were constructed along utilitarian rather than aesthetic lines. They were generally located on the outskirts of a city and near a highway to allow easy access for attendees.

As the popularity of professional sports continued to build, along with a booming economy in the late 1990s, cities built new stadiums at a quicker pace. Newer stadiums were created with modern amenities in mind that were more centrally located in cities and urban communities. In some cases, weather conditions caused teams to want to build new stadiums to shield players and their fans from the elements. Other stadiums upgraded skyboxes and other amenities to attract corporate season ticket holders. With the rising costs of construction, many cities found themselves in the midst of public debate regarding the funding of these structures. Public referendums on the issue were common, and as a result, the overall percentage of public funds dedicated to the construction of new sports facilities declined. Average citizens noticed the exorbitant salaries of sports players and high profits of teams and, at times, voiced opinions against subsidizing construction.

Between 2000 and 2009, thirty-one major league stadiums and arenas opened in the United States. The average cost of a baseball or football stadium was $528 million, and the average cost of a basketball or hockey arena was $276 million. Over $8 billion was allocated in public subsidies between 2000 and 2009. Despite a decrease in the percentage of public subsidies allotted to new sports arenas, the actual amount of money dedicated to these ventures had increased due to the growing costs of construction.

Supporters of government subsidies for the construction of sports facilities maintain that new stadiums are an economic boon to their host cities. The idea of having a home team instills civic pride, and popular teams, particularly those that make it to championship games, draw fans and tourists that would not visit the area otherwise. Businesses that are located near stadiums benefit from this influx of tourists, and the stadiums themselves often create new jobs. New businesses may also be attracted to an area with a stadium, especially if it can be shared by teams or used year-round. If stadiums are located in central urban centers, supporters highlight job opportunities for people who are low-income or chronically unemployed, as well as hard-to-employ young people. Cities that are experiencing difficult economic circumstances may have trouble attracting new business, and subsidies may be a way to keep a sports team in a specific location.

Opponents of subsidies claim that the construction of new sports facilities does not typically increase tourism or the local economy and object to the use of taxpayer dollars for what are essentially private enterprises. During large sporting events, such as championship games, tourists who may have visited the area tend to stay away to avoid the stadium crowds, resulting in no net increase in tourism. Opponents also note the inconvenience to local residents without an equitable payoff.

Opponents also argue that team owners profit from stadium subsidies at the expense of the host city. Additional revenue is generated by the sale of luxury skybox tickets, which are considered separate from regular ticket sales. Skyboxes are typically rented by large corporations that spend more money per person than an average ticket holder, none of which goes to the local government. Many who are opposed to subsidies feel that the funds allocated for stadium construction should benefit the community as a whole, rather than sports teams and their fans.

The power of eminent domain remained an extremely important issue linked to the construction of new sports stadiums. In 2006, Washington, DC, exercised its right of eminent domain for the construction of a new stadium for the Washington Nationals baseball team. Five homeowners were forced to leave their properties, and litigation was brought by several homeowners regarding the value of the properties. The city maintained that the area was essential for the location of the new stadium.

The New York Mets and Yankees won a court fight in early 2009 to get additional funding for stadiums that were originally funded by tax-exempt bonds for construction in 2006. An independent review of the deal noted that it would cost the city of New York $363 million while saving the New York Yankees $787 million over forty years. Meanwhile, the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) was growing in Europe; this method of funding breaks from the traditional model of relying heavily on public funds. Instead, PPP relies on a variety of funding sources, including money from private investors and stock investments, as well as some public subsidies.

In 2009, Chicago, Illinois, was a contender for the 2016 Olympics, generating many protests over proposed takeovers of land to accommodate events and to house athletes. In one case, low-income residents feared being displaced permanently even after the Games had left. In another case, the site of a failed hospital was desired for an Olympic Village to house athletes, even though there were substantial costs to remediate contaminated soil and few efforts were visible to save the hospital. Despite their bid, Chicago was not chosen to host, and the 2016 Olympics were instead held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Sports Facilities and Government Funding Today

While public funding for private sports facilities remained in practice into the 2020s, several attempts were made over the years to reduce that spending by removing the loophole that allowed tax-exempt funding through municipal bonds. Bills were introduced by various politicians throughout the 2010s and 2020s to eliminate the use of tax-exempt bonds for professional sports venues; however, none of the bills were passed.

Chicago received attention again in 2022, when its National Football League (NFL) team, the Chicago Bears, announced plans to either renovate their existing stadium, Soldier Field, or to build a new stadium in the suburb of Arlington Heights. While both plans were met with criticism and a general lack of enthusiasm, the Bears franchise remained convinced that either option would help boost tourism. The team purchased a 326-acre site in Arlington Heights in 2023 and, by 2025, had released preliminary renderings for a new enclosed stadium on the site. However, negotiations continued as city leaders reiterated their desire to keep the team in Chicago, and legislators in Indiana vied for the team to build a new stadium in their state. Critics raised concerns over using public funds to support the project, as discussions continued among state leaders, local and team officials, and other stakeholders concerning a package that would include over $850 million in infrastructure funding for the project. 

Similarly, the state of Nevada’s 2023 allocation of around $380 million in public funds to build a new baseball stadium for the Major League Baseball (MLB) team, the Oakland Athletics, which had announced a decision to move from Oakland to Las Vegas, was also met with a mixed reception. Other examples of public funding of sports facilities continued into the mid-2020s, including the Washington Commanders' 2025 announcement to build a new stadium with an estimated $1 billion in taxpayer funds, prompting further debate. In a 2023 article for the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, researchers estimated that around 40 percent of the funding for newly opened and planned sports venues up to that point in the 2020s had come from taxpayers.

These essays and any opinions, information, or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.


Bibliography

"Chicago Bears and Soldier Field: What to Know about the Possible Stadium Move—or Transformation. Chicago Tribune, 28 Feb. 2025, www.chicagotribune.com/2025/02/28/chicago-bears-soldier-field-stadium-news/. Accessed 3 Mar. 2025.

Coates, Dennis. "A Closer Look at Stadium Subsidies." The American, 29 Apr. 2008, www.american.com/archive/2008/april-04-08/a-closer-look-at-stadium-subsidies. Accessed 19 Jan. 2009.

Delaney, Kevin J., and Rick Eckstein. "Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle Over Building Sports Stadiums." Rutgers UP, 2003.

DeMause, Neil. "Why Do Mayors Love Sports Stadiums?" Nation, vol. 293, no. 40732, 15 Aug. 2011, pp. 14-17.

Friedman, Michael T., and David L. Andrews. "The Built Sport Spectacle And The Opacity Of Democracy." International Review for the Sociology of Sport, vol. 46, no. 2, 2011, pp. 181-204.

Geeter, Darren. "Taxpayers are Paying Billions for the Renovations and Constructions of NFL Stadiums. Here's How." CNBC, 22 Dec. 2022, www.cnbc.com/2022/12/22/taxpayers-are-paying-billions-for-nfl-stadiums-heres-how.html. Accessed 23 June 2023.

Maltby, Emily, and Sean Gregory. “Loser’s Game.” Time, 9 Dec. 2013, p. 14.

Merrefield, Clark. "Public Funding for Sports Stadiums: A Primer and Research Roundup." The Journalist's Resource, 10 Apr. 2024, journalistsresource.org/economics/sports-stadium-public-financing/. Accessed 3 Mar. 2025.

Mondello, Michael J. "Stadium Funding and the City of Jacksonville." International Sports Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, 2003, pp. 91.

Moore, Brenden. "Bears Stadium Package Has 'Positive Momentum' in Springfield, But Not in End Zone." NPR Illinois, 17 Feb. 2026, www.nprillinois.org/chicago-il/2026-02-17/bears-stadium-package-has-positive-momentum-in-springfield-but-not-in-end-zone. Accessed 9 Mar. 2026.

Pobiner, Joseph A. "Build or Else, the Big Boys Say." Planning, vol. 64, no. 5, May 1998, p. 6.

Rich, Wilbur C. The Economics and Politics of Sports Facilities. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000.

Sonner, Scott. "Governor Signs Public Funding Bill for New A's Stadium in Vegas, Growing Global Sports Destination." AP News, 15 June 2023, apnews.com/article/las-vegas-oakland-athletics-governor-signing-f190c44133bbcee47a15278135b6088f. Accessed 3 Mar. 2025.

Stinson, Alexandra. "There Are No Good Reasons to Subsidize Sports Stadiums. Governments Keep Doing It Anyway." Reason, 30 Jan. 2026, reason.com/2026/01/30/there-are-no-good-reasons-to-subsidize-sports-stadiums-governments-keep-doing-it-anyway/. Accessed 9 Mar. 2026.

Walsh, Michael. "Public/Private Partnership Makes Sports Dome a Reality." Parks & Recreation, vol. 33, no. 1, Jan. 1998, p. 26.

"Yankees, Mets Get More Bonds for Ballparks." Syracuse.com, 16 Jan. 2009, www.syracuse.com/news/2009/01/yankees_mets_get_more_bonds_fo.html. Accessed 3 Mar. 2025.

Zimbalist, Andrew. “Sports Facilities and Economic Development.” Government Finance Review, vol. 29, no. 4, 2013, pp. 94–96.

Full Article

Introduction

The use of public funds to create facilities for privately owned sports teams is an issue that has generated increasing scrutiny and controversy over the years. Major cities are typically viewed as potential homes for professional sports teams, but team owners can rarely afford to build arenas or stadiums on their own. Due to the high cost of stadium construction, local and state governments are generally asked for financial support for such ventures. Government funding also saves teams the cost of borrowing to finance a stadium facility.

Public subsidies are granted on the condition that a particular professional sports team will remain in a city for a given amount of time. After public funds are granted, the facility is generally owned by the local government, eliminating the need for property taxes. The team owner retains all rights to the team itself, and profits from ticket sales go toward the maintenance of the facility and player salaries. When these costs have been covered, the remaining revenue goes to the team owner as profit. Team owners also profit from concession sales, parking fees, and, in particular, skybox privileges, which are purchased primarily by major corporations. In some cases, agreements with the city require that locally owned businesses or companies owned by women or people belonging to marginalized groups be provided opportunities to compete for the concessions or partner with larger companies. The host city receives little profit once a stadium is up and running. However, most cities are able to translate their status as the "home city" for a particular team into increased tourism revenues and business opportunities, as well as increased property values.

Understanding the Discussion

Eminent domain: The power of the state to claim land from private landowners for the purposes of the common good.

Referendum: Also known as a plebiscite, a referendum is the submission of a proposal to a popular vote. In the United States, referendums (also called propositions or ballot initiatives) are commonly used to adopt new laws or policies, or to overturn already-established laws.

Statute: A written law created and approved by a legislature.

Subsidies: Grants, tax incentives, or other financial assistance given by a government to help fund a project that is seen as benefiting the public interest.

Tax revenue: Public funds generated by the taxation of goods, property, income, and/or services.

History

Sports events have been popular since ancient times, and attending them has often been seen as an act of social and civic importance. The Colosseum of Rome was created as an arena to showcase gladiator contests and other spectacles and was able to seat over fifty thousand people. Entrance fees were often waived for attendees and were paid by politicians and rulers who were seeking popular support. The Olympic Games originated in ancient Greece, and in modern times the event has been celebrated so enthusiastically that most host cities build new arenas, housing, and stadiums created solely for the purpose of accommodating the Olympics.

The popularity of sports grew dramatically in the United States throughout the twentieth century, resulting in the need to create larger and more sophisticated playing facilities. Prior to the middle of the century, public subsidies for sports arenas were rarely considered or implemented. The Cleveland baseball team played in a public stadium, but it was the only professional sports team to do so before 1950.

By the 1960s, the privately owned arenas that had been built after World War II were in need of extensive repair or replacement. By that time, the cost of building new stadiums of the necessary size had skyrocketed, leaving most team owners with little choice but to seek public subsidies. By 1970, roughly 70 percent of sports stadiums in the United States had been built with the help of public funds.

From 1970 through the early 1980s, the average sports arena cost around $87 million to build, with approximately 90 percent of the cost being covered by public subsidies. The stadiums and arenas that were built in the 1960s and early 1970s were constructed along utilitarian rather than aesthetic lines. They were generally located on the outskirts of a city and near a highway to allow easy access for attendees.

As the popularity of professional sports continued to build, along with a booming economy in the late 1990s, cities built new stadiums at a quicker pace. Newer stadiums were created with modern amenities in mind that were more centrally located in cities and urban communities. In some cases, weather conditions caused teams to want to build new stadiums to shield players and their fans from the elements. Other stadiums upgraded skyboxes and other amenities to attract corporate season ticket holders. With the rising costs of construction, many cities found themselves in the midst of public debate regarding the funding of these structures. Public referendums on the issue were common, and as a result, the overall percentage of public funds dedicated to the construction of new sports facilities declined. Average citizens noticed the exorbitant salaries of sports players and high profits of teams and, at times, voiced opinions against subsidizing construction.

Between 2000 and 2009, thirty-one major league stadiums and arenas opened in the United States. The average cost of a baseball or football stadium was $528 million, and the average cost of a basketball or hockey arena was $276 million. Over $8 billion was allocated in public subsidies between 2000 and 2009. Despite a decrease in the percentage of public subsidies allotted to new sports arenas, the actual amount of money dedicated to these ventures had increased due to the growing costs of construction.

Supporters of government subsidies for the construction of sports facilities maintain that new stadiums are an economic boon to their host cities. The idea of having a home team instills civic pride, and popular teams, particularly those that make it to championship games, draw fans and tourists that would not visit the area otherwise. Businesses that are located near stadiums benefit from this influx of tourists, and the stadiums themselves often create new jobs. New businesses may also be attracted to an area with a stadium, especially if it can be shared by teams or used year-round. If stadiums are located in central urban centers, supporters highlight job opportunities for people who are low-income or chronically unemployed, as well as hard-to-employ young people. Cities that are experiencing difficult economic circumstances may have trouble attracting new business, and subsidies may be a way to keep a sports team in a specific location.

Opponents of subsidies claim that the construction of new sports facilities does not typically increase tourism or the local economy and object to the use of taxpayer dollars for what are essentially private enterprises. During large sporting events, such as championship games, tourists who may have visited the area tend to stay away to avoid the stadium crowds, resulting in no net increase in tourism. Opponents also note the inconvenience to local residents without an equitable payoff.

Opponents also argue that team owners profit from stadium subsidies at the expense of the host city. Additional revenue is generated by the sale of luxury skybox tickets, which are considered separate from regular ticket sales. Skyboxes are typically rented by large corporations that spend more money per person than an average ticket holder, none of which goes to the local government. Many who are opposed to subsidies feel that the funds allocated for stadium construction should benefit the community as a whole, rather than sports teams and their fans.

The power of eminent domain remained an extremely important issue linked to the construction of new sports stadiums. In 2006, Washington, DC, exercised its right of eminent domain for the construction of a new stadium for the Washington Nationals baseball team. Five homeowners were forced to leave their properties, and litigation was brought by several homeowners regarding the value of the properties. The city maintained that the area was essential for the location of the new stadium.

The New York Mets and Yankees won a court fight in early 2009 to get additional funding for stadiums that were originally funded by tax-exempt bonds for construction in 2006. An independent review of the deal noted that it would cost the city of New York $363 million while saving the New York Yankees $787 million over forty years. Meanwhile, the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) was growing in Europe; this method of funding breaks from the traditional model of relying heavily on public funds. Instead, PPP relies on a variety of funding sources, including money from private investors and stock investments, as well as some public subsidies.

In 2009, Chicago, Illinois, was a contender for the 2016 Olympics, generating many protests over proposed takeovers of land to accommodate events and to house athletes. In one case, low-income residents feared being displaced permanently even after the Games had left. In another case, the site of a failed hospital was desired for an Olympic Village to house athletes, even though there were substantial costs to remediate contaminated soil and few efforts were visible to save the hospital. Despite their bid, Chicago was not chosen to host, and the 2016 Olympics were instead held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Sports Facilities and Government Funding Today

While public funding for private sports facilities remained in practice into the 2020s, several attempts were made over the years to reduce that spending by removing the loophole that allowed tax-exempt funding through municipal bonds. Bills were introduced by various politicians throughout the 2010s and 2020s to eliminate the use of tax-exempt bonds for professional sports venues; however, none of the bills were passed.

Chicago received attention again in 2022, when its National Football League (NFL) team, the Chicago Bears, announced plans to either renovate their existing stadium, Soldier Field, or to build a new stadium in the suburb of Arlington Heights. While both plans were met with criticism and a general lack of enthusiasm, the Bears franchise remained convinced that either option would help boost tourism. The team purchased a 326-acre site in Arlington Heights in 2023 and, by 2025, had released preliminary renderings for a new enclosed stadium on the site. However, negotiations continued as city leaders reiterated their desire to keep the team in Chicago, and legislators in Indiana vied for the team to build a new stadium in their state. Critics raised concerns over using public funds to support the project, as discussions continued among state leaders, local and team officials, and other stakeholders concerning a package that would include over $850 million in infrastructure funding for the project. 

Similarly, the state of Nevada’s 2023 allocation of around $380 million in public funds to build a new baseball stadium for the Major League Baseball (MLB) team, the Oakland Athletics, which had announced a decision to move from Oakland to Las Vegas, was also met with a mixed reception. Other examples of public funding of sports facilities continued into the mid-2020s, including the Washington Commanders' 2025 announcement to build a new stadium with an estimated $1 billion in taxpayer funds, prompting further debate. In a 2023 article for the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, researchers estimated that around 40 percent of the funding for newly opened and planned sports venues up to that point in the 2020s had come from taxpayers.

These essays and any opinions, information, or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.


Bibliography

"Chicago Bears and Soldier Field: What to Know about the Possible Stadium Move—or Transformation. Chicago Tribune, 28 Feb. 2025, www.chicagotribune.com/2025/02/28/chicago-bears-soldier-field-stadium-news/. Accessed 3 Mar. 2025.

Coates, Dennis. "A Closer Look at Stadium Subsidies." The American, 29 Apr. 2008, www.american.com/archive/2008/april-04-08/a-closer-look-at-stadium-subsidies. Accessed 19 Jan. 2009.

Delaney, Kevin J., and Rick Eckstein. "Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle Over Building Sports Stadiums." Rutgers UP, 2003.

DeMause, Neil. "Why Do Mayors Love Sports Stadiums?" Nation, vol. 293, no. 40732, 15 Aug. 2011, pp. 14-17.

Friedman, Michael T., and David L. Andrews. "The Built Sport Spectacle And The Opacity Of Democracy." International Review for the Sociology of Sport, vol. 46, no. 2, 2011, pp. 181-204.

Geeter, Darren. "Taxpayers are Paying Billions for the Renovations and Constructions of NFL Stadiums. Here's How." CNBC, 22 Dec. 2022, www.cnbc.com/2022/12/22/taxpayers-are-paying-billions-for-nfl-stadiums-heres-how.html. Accessed 23 June 2023.

Maltby, Emily, and Sean Gregory. “Loser’s Game.” Time, 9 Dec. 2013, p. 14.

Merrefield, Clark. "Public Funding for Sports Stadiums: A Primer and Research Roundup." The Journalist's Resource, 10 Apr. 2024, journalistsresource.org/economics/sports-stadium-public-financing/. Accessed 3 Mar. 2025.

Mondello, Michael J. "Stadium Funding and the City of Jacksonville." International Sports Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, 2003, pp. 91.

Moore, Brenden. "Bears Stadium Package Has 'Positive Momentum' in Springfield, But Not in End Zone." NPR Illinois, 17 Feb. 2026, www.nprillinois.org/chicago-il/2026-02-17/bears-stadium-package-has-positive-momentum-in-springfield-but-not-in-end-zone. Accessed 9 Mar. 2026.

Pobiner, Joseph A. "Build or Else, the Big Boys Say." Planning, vol. 64, no. 5, May 1998, p. 6.

Rich, Wilbur C. The Economics and Politics of Sports Facilities. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000.

Sonner, Scott. "Governor Signs Public Funding Bill for New A's Stadium in Vegas, Growing Global Sports Destination." AP News, 15 June 2023, apnews.com/article/las-vegas-oakland-athletics-governor-signing-f190c44133bbcee47a15278135b6088f. Accessed 3 Mar. 2025.

Stinson, Alexandra. "There Are No Good Reasons to Subsidize Sports Stadiums. Governments Keep Doing It Anyway." Reason, 30 Jan. 2026, reason.com/2026/01/30/there-are-no-good-reasons-to-subsidize-sports-stadiums-governments-keep-doing-it-anyway/. Accessed 9 Mar. 2026.

Walsh, Michael. "Public/Private Partnership Makes Sports Dome a Reality." Parks & Recreation, vol. 33, no. 1, Jan. 1998, p. 26.

"Yankees, Mets Get More Bonds for Ballparks." Syracuse.com, 16 Jan. 2009, www.syracuse.com/news/2009/01/yankees_mets_get_more_bonds_fo.html. Accessed 3 Mar. 2025.

Zimbalist, Andrew. “Sports Facilities and Economic Development.” Government Finance Review, vol. 29, no. 4, 2013, pp. 94–96.

More Like ThisRelated Articles

Related Articles (5)

Related Articles (5)