ELItorial: Funds for sports are funds for culture

SHAWN CHENG/YH

If Bug Selig held a press conference tomorrow to announce that all Major League Baseball franchises had gone bankrupt, Americans would be dumbfounded. Few of us could imagine life without our national pastime—no ballpark franks, home run races, or World Series. For Canadians, it is similarly inconceivable that hockey could cease to exist. Yet just this past week, the owners of four of Canada's six hockey franchises announced that they were on the verge of financial collapse. Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton are all having difficulty shouldering the heavy income and property taxes imposed by the Canadian government. If the government does not begin to provide subsidies, the owners will have to sell their teams or relocate to the United States.

The issue of government subsidies has been contentious in Canada recently, and it has sparked a significant debate in the U.S. as well. The American government does not funnel money directly to professional teams, as Canada's government soon might, but it annually provides millions of dollars for the construction of new stadiums. Industry experts estimate that U.S. federal and local governments will spend nearly $7 billion on new sporting venues before 2006.

Many sports fans argue that heavy government subsidies are justified because sporting facilities generate economic growth. Indeed, lobbyists for a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers have rallied around the slogan, "Build the Stadium, Create the Jobs!" According to these lobbyists, government funds will not just make sports fans happy but will also generate construction and maintenance jobs and attract tourists to the city.

Various studies have shown, however, that new stadiums do not actually spur significant economic activity. A recent report published by the Brookings Institute points out that sporting events channel consumer spending away from other types of recreation, such as movie-going. The effect of stadiums on the job market is also limited, because, with the exception of coaching and playing positions, they generate mostly low-wage, part-time jobs. In the early '90s, the government invested $200 million to build Oriole Park in Baltimore, but the stadium has only generated $3 million a year in new jobs and tax revenue for the city.

Is it right for the government to invest millions of dollars—which could otherwise be used for education, health care, or other social services—on sporting venues that bring in so little revenue?

The government is justified in pouring public resources into sports programs. Our government subsidizes stadiums for the same reason that it funds the National Endowment for the Arts—not because these investments are profitable, but because they contribute to important elements of American culture.

A society defines itself through its art, its literature, its food—and its sporting events. Canada has hockey. England has cricket. Kenya has track. Brazil has soccer. And, in America, we worship the Holy Trinity of football, baseball, and basketball. Athletics help to define culture in every part of the world, because they have an importance beyond their basic power to entertain—they also serve as a source of national and municipal pride. Every four years, people travel across the world to cheer on their country at the Olympic Games. After the World Series, the Super Bowl, and the National Basketball Association Finals, cities often throw parades if their team brings home a title, and World Cup victories can inspire days of celebration in the streets, as they did in France in 1998. Even Little League matches have the ability to spark local pride. I remember that photos of my town's Little League all-star team appeared in the local paper for weeks after it won a series of state and national tournaments.

Because sports constitute such an integral part of our culture, the government has a responsibility to finance, in part, sporting facilities. According to the Brookings report, most professional franchises cannot afford to finance the construction or maintenance of stadiums from revenue that comes from private sources, such as personal seating licenses and naming rights. Even if they spent less money on players' salaries and more on financing stadiums, they should still be entitled to some government assistance.

In Canada, the government must begin to provide subsidies for the six struggling hockey teams. If the government does not provide financial relief, professional hockey will fade in Canada, and the nation will lose a vital element of its popular culture. The country wouldn't be the same without it.

Back to Sports...