Stadium subsidies don’t help the economy

Besides touchdowns, runs and goals, Pittsburgh’s sports teams contribute to the local economy, according to a recent Post-Gazette story (Oct. 29, “Just How Much do Sports Teams Contribute to Pittsburgh’s economy?”). This study — conspicuously commissioned by the Steelers, Pirates and Penguins — tries to make the case that taxpayers should subsidize their stadiums. But the study doesn’t consider whether taxpayers want to pay billions in sports stadium subsidies — or how the economy would look without this expenditure.

Could these teams survive if taxpayers didn’t subsidize stadiums? Would all sports in Pittsburgh disappear, or would team owners and other private financiers find a way to fund stadiums — and make back the investment on ticket sales?

What if instead of giving out billions to sports teams, the state lowered the tax burden on all business and families? How many jobs would Pennsylvania’s small businesses create in a friendlier tax climate?

Wouldn’t the economy look even better if we used the billions in stadium subsidies to provide scholarships for low-income students to get a better education?

Numerous studies find that sports stadium subsidies don’t help the overall economy, and the vast majority of economists agree. Subsidies just shift resources around without growing the overall pie, and the opportunity costs — i.e., letting taxpayers keep their money, or spending those tax dollars on core government services — outweigh the benefits. NATHAN A. BENEFIELD

Harrisburg