In a survey published by Scioto Analysis this morning, only two of 23 Ohio economist respondents agreed that subsidies for sports stadiums create local economic benefits that outweigh their economic costs.
Among the 18 economists who disagreed with the statement, a number noted that money spent at stadiums would usually be spent elsewhere, so new economic activity is often not being generated by a new stadium. Those who agreed also tended to mention that other uses of public dollars could have larger social returns, offering the examples of education, infrastructure, parks, housing improvements, environmental interventions, youth and re-entry programs, and addition and recovery services as alternate uses of funds.
Among those uncertain about the economic value of stadium subsidies, their comments focused on the details of a given subsidy. These economists mentioned considerations such as the multiplier effects of subsidies, the timing of subsidies, and the magnitude of subsidies as all playing into the size of the benefit.
Of the two economists who agreed subsidies had net benefits, one noted that stadiums can provide national advertising for a city and promote social cohesion.
The Ohio Economic Experts Panel is a panel of over 40 Ohio Economists from over 30 Ohio higher educational institutions conducted by Scioto Analysis. The goal of the Ohio Economic Experts Panel is to promote better policy outcomes by providing policymakers, policy influencers, and the public with the informed opinions of Ohio’s leading economists.