Despite decades of economic evidence showing that publicly funded sports stadiums fail to deliver promised benefits, governments continue to spend billions subsidizing wealthy team owners, often at the expense of taxpayers and public trust.
Key Takeaways
- Most empirical studies find stadium subsidies produce little to no local economic benefit.
- Public funding for stadiums largely enriches already-wealthy team owners.
- Stadium subsidies often crowd out other community spending and priorities.
- Lack of transparency in stadium deals increases the risk of corruption.
- Professional sports would continue largely unchanged without public subsidies.
Article Summary:
The article argues that public subsidies for professional sports stadiums are economically unjustified and politically persistent, even though research overwhelmingly shows they do not generate meaningful local economic growth. While fans may find reasons to root for privately funded teams like the New England Patriots, the broader reality is that most major U.S. stadiums today are built or renovated with heavy government support.
Historically, stadiums were largely financed by private owners, and requesting public money would have been considered absurd. That norm has eroded, replaced by routine public spending that can reach into the billions. Recent examples include hundreds of millions of dollars pledged by states for new NFL stadiums in Buffalo and Nashville, as well as a billion-dollar public contribution toward a proposed stadium for the Washington Commanders.
Lawmakers often justify subsidies by citing civic pride or claims that stadiums stimulate local economies through games, concerts, and related development. However, economists consistently find little to no net economic impact. Spending near stadiums typically displaces spending elsewhere in the community rather than creating new wealth, meaning taxpayers fund projects that do not meaningfully improve overall economic activity.
Beyond inefficiency, stadium subsidies can foster corruption due to opaque negotiations and close relationships between politicians and team owners. The article highlights a high-profile scandal in Anaheim, where a former mayor admitted to federal felonies tied to a stadium deal with a Major League Baseball team, ultimately derailing the project.
Despite these failures, the practice continues. States such as Ohio and Oregon are moving forward with large commitments for stadiums, even in cases where no professional team has committed to play there. The article concludes that ending public subsidies would protect taxpayers without harming professional sports, as wealthy owners are fully capable of financing stadiums themselves.
Stinson, Alexandra. “There Are No Good Reasons to Subsidize Stadiums. Governments Keep Doing It.” Reason.com, 30 Jan. 2026, https://reason.com/2026/01/30/there-are-no-good-reasons-to-subsidize-sports-stadiums-governments-keep-doing-it-anyway/.