The Argument Against Subsidizing Stadiums
There are sound economic models for privately financed teams and venues, so why does government insist on subsizing stadiums?
In a column for The Baltimore Sun, Reason's Adam Summers writes that DC, and other cities, should not subsidize stadiums: "If there is a market for, say, a professional baseball team, and a savvy entrepreneur recognizes the opportunity, everyone wins: Consumers get a product they have been wanting and the owner makes a lot of money.
If there is not sufficient demand, yet the government subsidizes the investment anyway, there are few winners and many losers: A few consumers who really wanted the team may win, and the owner certainly wins big because he has put less of his money up in the first place. But the majority of taxpayers are big losers (particularly those who would not have paid to attend the games anyway). Rather than benefiting sports team owners at the expense of taxpayers, Washington should stay out of the sports and entertainment business completely. Sound economics show that there would be no real benefit to the city from subsidizing such an endeavor (and that there would likely be significant costs from doing so)."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- NYT Editorial Blasts House Transportation Bill - Feb 10, 2012
- Does Gentrification Need to be a Bad Word? - Dec 28, 2011
- Congressional Transportation Committee Debates CA High Speed Rail - Dec 18, 2011
- Washington DC Imagines Itself Without Transit - Dec 12, 2011
- Occupy D.C.'s Urban Design Model - Nov 11, 2011


















