Who Should Pay For The Ballparks? People flock to see baseball, football, and hockey at their local sports stadiums, and there is no sign that this trend will slow. I have lived in Seattle my whole life and have seen the debate about public money being spent on ballparks. I feel that taxpayers should pay for part of the cost of new parks built in their town because the taxpayers reap the benefits of revenues created by the ballparks. Although many people disagree, I feel that the ballparks create more tourism, more tax money, and memories that are priceless.
Speaking to this issue, Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist explain that "People will come out yearly in the millions and they should feel some of the economic burden of keeping their teams, as should the cities"Ã¯Â¿Â½ (Noll & Zimbalist, pg 55). Even people who do not attend sporting events benefit from revenue brought in by sports.
The city collects taxes that are mostly spent on roads or community projects. Advertisers throw money at the sports teams, as do television and radio markets. ESPN, which broadcasts baseball nationally, often displays the host city before the game, including sights and sounds that attracts people to come and spend their money. There are the All-Star events, the World Series, the Final Fours, the Super Bowl, and many more events that bring people in from other states; they sleep in that city's hotels, spend money in the local restaurants, rent cars, and consequently, buy merchandise.
However, should non-sports fans be forced to accept the financial burden of new stadiums for private businesses? Some people do not think they should, as is the case with Guy Lewis and Herb Appenzeller, who think that, "spending more money on education and local problems is more important than spending...