Question A: Subsidies for sports stadiums create local economic benefits that outweigh their economic costs.
Question A: Subsidies for sports stadiums create local economic benefits that outweigh their economic costs.
Question A: Subsidies for sports stadiums create local economic benefits that outweigh their economic costs.
Question A: Subsidies for sports stadiums create local economic benefits that outweigh their economic costs.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bizuayehu Bedane | Marietta College | Agree | 8 | |
| Jay Corrigan | Kenyon College | Strongly Disagree | 7 | |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Local economic impact is tiny since if no stadium/team citizens spend elsewhere. More important is that there is MUCH better use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize education, walking paths, expanded public parks, better transportation infrastructure; all local things that actually boost local productivity. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Uncertain | 7 | It is necessary to also examine the potential multiplier effects of other community projects, and consider the timeline of potential benefits before allocating subsidies to a sport stadium. |
| Robert Gitter | Ohio Wesleyan University | Disagree | 7 | In general, they are a losing proposition for the city in economic terms. As to whether it is money well spent for somthing the citizens want, that is another story but there is not a net dollars and cents benefit. |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Uncertain | 6 | |
| Paul Holmes | Ashland University | Disagree | 8 | Generally not, assuming we're meaning American pro-sports-type stadiums. |
| Michael Jones | University of Cincinnati | Strongly Disagree | 9 | The details of the subsidies matter, but the evidence is fairly convincing that the costs exceed the benefits for most projects. |
| Fadhel Kaboub | Denison University | Disagree | 10 | Yes, in the narrow sense, but it's not the case when the State is neglecting other priorities that generate substantial social costs. I'd rather prioritize weatherizing homes, lead remediation, decarbonizing the grid and public transportation, public education and youth programs, re-entry, addiction, and recovery services. The returns on investment are much higher in these areas than subsidizing sports stadia. |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Disagree | 7 | |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Disagree | 7 | It may somewhat depend on the details (how large are the subsidies, is it for a new stadium or an upgrade, size of project, whether it is paired with other development) but the research is pretty clear that stadium investments are not effective economic development tools. Using the same money for other investments would have higher returns. |
| Lewis Sage | Baldwin Wallace University | Disagree | 8 | |
| Thomas Traynor | Wright State University | Uncertain | 6 | The magnitude of the subsidy varies greatly in past cases, and this matters very much. |
| Ejindu Ume | Miami University | Disagree | 5 | |
| Andy Welki | John Carroll University | Disagree | 7 | |
| Kathryn Wilson | Kent State University | Disagree | 6 | It depends on how "local economic benefits" are defined. For example, sports stadiums in Cleveland may provide an economic benefit for businesses near the stadium, but to the detriment of businesses further from the stadium or in the suburbs. Research suggests that stadiums change where the money is spent rather than changing the amount of money spent. |
| Rachel Wilson | Wittenberg University | Strongly Disagree | 7 |