The main debate is one of economic impact. The following two excerpts illustrate this debate: Stadium subsidies do not increase economic activity in total and are not necessary to keep sports leagues in existence. Cities, though, face competition for sports teams; small market cities particularly might need to offer subsidies in response to remain competitive with larger markets. Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati had not reached the end of its usefulness. But with other cities offering stadium deals, the Reds and Bengals secured new stadiums at a total cost ... ... middle of paper ... ... Sound Tax Policy?, 10 Marq.
Lenskyj, Helen Jefferson. Inside the Olympic Industry : Power, Politics, and Activism. State University of New York Press, 2000. SUNY Series on Sport, Culture, and Social Relations. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=44027&site=eds-live.
We Should Build New Sports Stadiums In Roger G. Noll’s article on pro sports’ stadiums in the New York Times, he states that a new baseball stadium in New York City (or anywhere else) is too costly to construct. Mr. Noll is an economist and so it stands that he would understand the financials of building new stadiums. He even attempts to look at the issue, though not an honest effort, from all perspectives. He says that these facilities never pay for themselves, that there is an increase in overall community income, but not enough to offset cost. He states that though highly paid, a team employs very few workers.
Third, despite greater citizen awareness, voters still must cope with a scarcity of teams. Fans may realize that subsidized stadiums regressively redistribute income and do not promote growth, but they want local teams. Alas, it is usually better to pay a monopoly an exorbitant price than to give up its product. Prospects for cutting sports subsidies are not good. While citizen opposition has had some success, without more effective intercity organizing or more active federal antitrust policy, cities will continue to compete against each other to attract or keep artificially scarce sports franchises.
Professional Athlete Salaries In today’s society many will argue whether or not professional athletes are overpaid. In the present time athletes are being paid phenomenally large amounts of money for their entertainment. It is my claim that all professional athletes are overpaid because they do not offer society an essential function that improves or enhances our world in comparison to other professionals such as medical doctors, lawyers, and teachers. Society does not value entertainment enough to warrant such high salaries such as those of many professional athletes. There is no reason that these athletes should demand these tremendous amounts of money.
Athletes are getting what they want from the owners by negotiating through their agents. Athletes’ salaries aren’t from their owners, but they come from other sources (“Athletes’ Salary”). Athletes get paid an extremely high salary for the work they do, and should consider the value of their work. They do not deserve the extreme amount they get paid and something should by done about it. One issue that these high salaries cause is that having all this money spoils the athletes.
Zimmerman, D. (1997). Subsidizing stadiums: Who benefits, who pays? In R. Noll, & A. Zimbalist, Sports jobs and taxes: The economic impact of sports teams and stadiums. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Zirin, D. (2010).
When this happens, it will create another housing bubble because the houses are not worth buying, which means the market value of the house exceeds the house’s value; therefore, nobody will buy the house including the riches since they already have houses to live. Moreover, poor people do not believe they can get access to wealth because they cannot afford anything, and they cannot afford the tuition fees for a good education, which is the traditional route to success.
College sports are big money makers now a days. For most universities, the athletic department serves as one of the main sources of cash flow. Athletes are used to create millions of dollars for the NCAA and the schools that they participate in, and never receive a penny. If we are talking about profit, if all bonds with the university were removed, an athletic department representing itself could compete with some of the most successful companies. So, why does the most important parts of the machine, the players, do not receive any money for their training and participation?
In the end, not all athletes become professionals. When athletes succeed, they potentially give their schools millions more dollars and thousands more students. The NCAA should change its “no pay” rules based on its archaic “Principle of Amateurism.” If the rules are changed, the NCAA does not have to deal with scandals that infringe their “no pay” rules. One of the main points of the “no pay” rules is that athletes may not accept pay in any form from that sport, accept a promise of future pay or receive any form of future assistance. If the NCAA changes the rules, student athletes would be able to receive money and performance-based bonuses they work hard to earn from their schools, boosters, and other third parties.