The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

On balance,public subsidies for professional athletic organizations benefit their local communities.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 365 times Debate No: 76530
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I negate the resolution resolved: On balance, public subsidies for professional athletic organizations in the United States benefit their local communities.
The following definitions are for clarity:
On Balance is defined as net benefits versus harms after taking into account everything relevant.
Public Subsidies is defined as a characteristic of or associated with a particular locality or area
of, concerned with, or relating to a particular place or point in space of, affecting, or confined to a limited area or part

Observation 1: Pro must prove that the benefits will outweigh all the harms.
Observation 2: The pro has the burden of proving that their benefits are unique and would not have been accrued otherwise, such as if the money gained from the public subsidies were put towards a different cause.

Contention 1: Opportunity Cost

//David Schultz: "Dollar for dollar, the opportunity costs of investing in sports stadiums is a terrible option if the goal is economic development, job development, or producing new economic development in a community. In short, the nearly $3 billion in sports subsidies it documented produced little, at the cost of over $120,000 per job."

The public subsidies never create substantial jobs or result in a reasonable, if any, profit. These part-time jobs can be as little as 16 days a year at minimum wage. We shouldn"t waste 1.2 billion dollars when we could put that money somewhere else and create more jobs and help the community in a more effective way .The public subsidies can be much more effective if they are put somewhere else. More money will be made in a much shorter time frame.
Dallas Morning News]

//David Schultz 2: "A 1996 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, "Tax-Exempt Bonds and the Economics of Professional Sports Stadiums" (Zimmerman 1996) concluded that sports stadiums represent a small percentage (generally less than 1 percent) of a local economy. It also stated that there is little real impact or multiplier effect associated with building sports stadiums. By that, if one looks at the economic impact of the dollars invested in sports stadiums, the return is significantly smaller than compared to other dollars invested in something else."

Contention 2: Gentrification
Subpoint A: Property tax increase
Gentrification, as defined by Merriam-Webster, as "the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents."

This means that when a stadium is built, the residents will be forced to move because property taxes will increase in areas surrounding the stadium, and the wealthier middle-class will be able to afford their homes, unlike them.

Robert Baumann// "Carlino and Coulsen (2004) address whether sporting events indirectly impact the local community by examining rental housing prices in NFL cities. They find them to be 8% higher than in non-NFL cities. While their methodology has been questioned (e.g. Coates, Humphreys, and Zimbalist, 2006), the basic finding would support the hypothesis that professional sports make cities more attractive places to live. because renters are willing to pay a premium to live in NFL cities. Numerous other studies have also studied the connection between housing prices and sports (Tu, 2005; Feng and Humphreys, 2008; Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2007; Dehring, Depken and Ward, 2008; Coates and Matheson, 2009; Kiel, Matheson, and Sullivan, 2009) with distinctly mixed results.

Robert states that the cost of living in just a rental house to be 8% higher than in other cities without NFL stadiums. This means that the cost for other housing would also increase, and their housing costs would increase and eventually force people to leave their neighborhood, creating a ghetto.

Subpoint B: Eminent Domain
Eminent Domain is when the government buys the homes and properties of people for very low prices to build the stadium. The residents will lose a lot of money and will be forced to move to a poor area, also creating a ghetto.

Contention 3: Death Increases as a result of stadiums.

Subpoint A: Pollution Increase
The American Chemical Society writes// In 2011 of the air polluting effect of sports stadiums. Brightly-lit Cowboys Stadium during Sunday"s Super Bowl XLV may symbolize one of the hottest new pieces of scientific intelligence about air pollution: Researchers have discovered " in a classic case of scientific serendipity " that the bright light from sports stadiums and urban street lights may boost daytime levels of ozone, a key air pollutant in many heavily populated areas."
Ozone is one of the most prevalent and difficult-to-control air pollutants in urban areas.

Subpoint B: Close Contact, Maine"s local government states from
[Transmission of airborne diseases can be greatly reduced by practicing social and respiratory etiquette. Staying home when ill, keeping close contact with an ill person to a minimum, allowing a few feet distance from others while ill, and wearing a mask, covering coughs and sneezes with elbow or tissue can greatly reduce transmission.] Good hand washing can decrease spread of germ-containing droplets that could be picked up on hands from surfaces or hand contact with secretions. Environme"ntal controls and engineering alternatives help reduce transmission of water droplet aerosolized pathogens.

Because stadiums contain a lot of people in one area and, on average, over 60,000 people attend a football game.

Subpoint C: More deaths because of tax relocation
Since local taxes are taken away from other city services, public subsidies are given to sports instead of law enforcement and fire department. Therefore there will be less policemen and less firefighters. Because of the decrease in firefighters, there will be more deaths in fires. Due to less police officers, there will be more deaths and crimes in general. Except it goes beyond that.
"The problem arises when our children become undereducated, our police forces understaffed, and our firehouses emptied while stadiums are built with those same dollars. The problem becomes an epidemic when it"s $31 billion-with-a-B spent by American taxpayers subsidizing privately-owned stadiums, and a merely 20-year-old stadium is being replaced months after the city is threatened to raise taxes or shrink the budget by $20 million. The problem becomes unsolvable when voters rarely get to actually vote on the issue, and when they vote "no," the stadiums get built anyway."

For all these reasons I strongly urge a con ballot.


I apologize for accepting this debate. A sudden personal problem came up and I can not dedicate the time needed for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Variable_X forfeited this round.


mmurph123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Variable_X forfeited this round.


mmurph123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.