The Real Reason You Pay for NFL Stadiums
Economist J.C. Bradbury breaks down why taxpayer-funded stadiums are a bad idea, how team owners market them to politicians, and why another stadium building boom may be coming.
This week, guest host Eric Boehm is joined by J.C. Bradbury, an economist at Kennesaw State University and one of the leading critics of taxpayer-funded sports stadiums. Bradbury is the author of a forthcoming book, This One Will be Different, on the "false promises and fiscal realities" of stadium subsidies.
Boehm and Bradbury discuss why stadiums rarely deliver on the economic benefits touted by team owners and local politicians, and how public officials, media outlets, and hired consultants help create the illusion that these projects pay for themselves. Bradbury explains why these deals often amount to a reallocation of existing local spending rather than genuine economic growth, and why taxpayers end up footing the bill for facilities that primarily benefit private sports franchises.
The conversation also touches on the Super Bowl, the Olympics, and the surge of new stadium proposals across the country. Bradbury makes the case that America is on the verge of another stadium building boom, driven by political incentives and public enthusiasm rather than sound economics, and argues that cities would be better stewards of tax dollars if they resisted the pressure to subsidize major sports projects.
The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie goes deep with the artists, entrepreneurs, and scholars who are making the world a more libertarian—or at least a more interesting—place by championing free minds and free markets.
0:00—Introduction
0:56—Loving sports without loving subsidies
6:01—Marketing taxpayer-funded stadium projects
16:15—Civic pride and measuring ROI
21:20—What makes sports stadiums unique?
24:18—The upcoming stadium building boom
35:01—Truist Park development
43:03—Examples of fiscal restraint
46:04—The Super Bowl and Olympic Games
51:18—Bradbury's career trajectory
Upcoming Reason Events
- The Reason Roundtable: Live in Washington, D.C.! on February 4
- Producer: Paul Alexander
- Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Yes, it would be better if politicians followed sound economics. But it is a rare one who does on any issue. Fewer still want to risk being the one who "lost" a longtime franchise to relocation, because this is also about regional prestige and honor, not just questions of money.
It is a similar reason why ostensibly libertarian journalists live in politically deep blue cities because the crave the alleged "excitement" of metropolitan urban life.
I do not pay for any NFL stadiums, thankfully. The Rams had to pay us when they left, and the Chiefs are planning a move across the border to the Kansas side of the KC area, because that state wants to pay for a significant portion of their new stadium, whereas Missouri was not as willing.
The reason taxpayers have to pay for stadiums upon extortion demand by the owner is because here in the US we don't have legitimate sports governing bodies for team sports. Golf and tennis do - but not baseball, football, basketball, hockey, or soccer. Those team sports have governing bodies organized and set up exclusively for the benefit of their team owners. Not players, not fans, not cities where games are held, etc.
Libertarians don't understand sports anyway because sports involves rules and managed/artificial competition and a number of other things that just don't fit a standard 'market'. There just isn't such a thing as football with ballerinas jumping to the beat of their own individual bliss and their own marketing plan.
If a legitimate sports governing body were ever to be set up in the US, it would quickly become obvious how corrupted our system is (and how easy it is to see Monopoly/Cartel 101 in action).
Maybe setting the rules of the sport itself wouldn't show that. But the second step of setting up matches/competitions would because it would undermine the first lie of American team sports - that the team owners are the ones who create value. No one gives a shit about the Yankees or Dodgers - until they have a schedule of games to prove they are worth paying attention to.
German municipalities tend to pay for stadiums. But they are not extorted by team owners threatening relocation if taxpayers don't pay for more luxury boxes and sweetheart real estate deals - which means their stadiums last for many decades and are used for muni purposes during the offseason. A legitimate sports governing body - in the German football association case with 8 million members; 2 million active players; 170,000 teams; 25,000 clubs, and thousands of leagues. More than enough opportunities for a stadium to work for the community.
That's work for the Volk, genosse.
Needz moar government!
I fail to see how the PGA is effectively different from the NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL, aside from those being team sports and the PHA being an individual sport.
And what do you get eith a sport run semi-governmental bodie? FIFA, with all the corruption associated with it.
As long as they're there, they might as well serve a purpose. With the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches all agreed that murder and lesser initiations of force are again as patriotic and godly as 2300 years ago, those stadii are perfect venues for gladiator fights between elected politicians of the looter persuasion. I would pay bigly to watch AOC tear the face off Trump's latest harridan (or vice-versa). Picture Bernie and Biden in a fight to the death with real short swords, or even flintlocks. Step aside, Octagon!
Simple question. Say I'm an NFL owner. I want to build a new stadium and finance it my self. Do you really think that politicians are going to let me do that? I don't. Do you really think that politicians are going to give up the power of being a partner in this? Our local venues are run by the Sports and Exhibition Authority. That gives the City and County a say in everything and a piece of the pie. They are not going to give that up.
These deals are a mix of land use and externalities, often externalities demanded by the municipality. Should the city not shoulder their portion from their demands? Now, owners demanding payment for tourism revenue and expected payroll taxes from other business is something I have an issue with.