Should Public Funds ever be used on a stadium?

[Timmy City]

In the US, for the last twenty years, there has been a trend in stadiums that have used public funds. Owners claim they help preserve the team and contribute to the economy. Others say your better off just dropping the money the public contributed from a plane since it will stimulate the economy better.
Do you think public funds should ever be used for stadiums or should stadiums be built without public funds?

[The Black Forrest]

No

[United Muscovite Nations]

Depends how much public desire there is for the stadium. There's no reason the government shouldn't spend money on entertainment for the public.

[Risottia]

No.
Funding sport activity is a thing - and quite often a good idea, if it improves public health and thus it can be deserving of public funding.
Funding sport-based showbiz is another.

[Rezmaeristan]

It all depends how much of a demand for it there is.

[Thermodolia]

No

I say yes. Stadiums draw in a lot of revenue and also instill the idea of sport to the people

[Great Mojave]

No. They draw revenue, but they are not a bueno allocation of tax shekels.

[Aclion]

Yay I have an excuse to post this. https://youtu.be/fb3HcuFyDFQ

Also no. Billionaires can pay for their own projects, and the promise that the stadiums will pay for themselves via positive externalizes on local business growth doesn't manifest. Instead these stadiums impose a cost on the public by straining public infrastructure and diverting funds from public services. If there were enough demand the owner is perfectly capable of building it with private investment and it is not the job of the government to cover the costs of private ventures by taking money from the public.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Sure, so long as those public funds are represented as a share of ownership. If every ticket sold refills the coffers to pay for the infrastructure than I'm ok with it. Otherwise hell no. Traffic is bad enough and taxes are already mired with pointless spending.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

No, let the private market provide the funds for that.

[Highever]

I think team owners have enough money to use their own funds for such things.

[Purpelia]

That depends on who owns the team and the resulting stadium. If it is privately owned and run than no public money would be spent. But a good case can be made for publicly building stadiums that are to be publicly owned and than leased to a team or something similar.

[Nakena]

Depends how much public desire there is for the stadium. There's no reason the government shouldn't spend money on entertainment for the public.

Precisely. It is also required to keep the plebs entertained and amused.

[Aclion]

That depends on who owns the team and the resulting stadium. If it is privately owned and run than no public money would be spent. But a good case can be made for publicly building stadiums that are to be publicly owned and than leased to a team or something similar.

That arrangement is basically taking the risk in investing in a stadium and transferring it from the person who wants the stadium to the public, with the addional risk that the owner of the team can decide to move to some other town when the lease is up. What will you do with the stadium then? It's not like someone else can start a team to fill the stadium, the leagues are monopolies, and they have a fixed number of teams.

[Wohlstantia]

Definitely Hail Hydra
I don't see a problem with having privately owned stadii tooled to their respective leagues, or having 'publicly owned' olympic class facilities (as is the case where I live, there are quite a few sporting venues owned by the government as a leftover from the Olympics).

[Tokora]

No. Just, no.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Yes, building stadiums provide jobs related to construction and tourism.

Obviously, a lot of thought needs to be put into building them. Nothing sadder than a perpetually empty stadium.

[Farnhamia]

In the US, for the last twenty years, there has been a trend in stadiums that have used public funds. Owners claim they help preserve the team and contribute to the economy. Others say your better off just dropping the money the public contributed from a plane since it will stimulate the economy better.
Do you think public funds should ever be used for stadiums or should stadiums be built without public funds?

And what's your opinion, Timmy? Seriously, I want to know. Three pages, typed, single-spaced, footnotes at the bottom, not at the end.

[Tetradimensional Overworld]

As long as the public supports it AND it doesn't cut from necessary services OR just more important stuff it's a-okay.

[Cetacea]

when I was at school one of our PE teachers was also a member of the Provincial Basketball team and it came to a point that both the city Basketball team and the School both needed a new gym/stadium-

Opportunity happened negotiations were initiated and the Education Department agreed to set aside the lower school fields for a newBasketball Stadium paid for by a public-private partnership between the City, Ministry of Ed and the Basketball Association - the result is my old school gym is also one of the premiere Basketball stadiums in the country and open to use by the community - everyone benefits.

[Bear Stearns]

Only if the government intends on using the stadium.

[Costa Fierro]

If it's just for one specific purpose then no. If it can hold multiple events, including different types of sports, then yes, it'd be worth the investment.

[Inkopolitia]

Nein, unless it includes taking taxes from somewhere else, in which case, i'm indifferent

[Hammer Britannia]

Eh, I'm honestly kinda iffy on that one. One one hand, sports can bring revenue and entertainment to a city.

On the other hand, that's my money that could be going to anime tiddies feeding poor African children, yeah totally. So, to me, it's totally situational.

[Kowani]

Eh. There are times when a stadium may be beneficial. There are others where it would not.