Publicly Funded Sports Facilities
Paper Proposal:
My interest in the topic of publicly funded stadiums and arenas for private sports franchises has been fueled by the situation in my hometown of Sacramento, and the building of a new downtown arena for our beloved Sacramento Kings. The city is going to be picking up most of the tab for the new arena, and the deal comes after years and years of other failed attempts to publicly fund a much needed modern arena. The Kings arena saga also includes many attempts to relocate the team to other cities willing to hand out public funds and build a new stadium for the privately owned franchise. All of this public money being thrown around raises controversy on whether or not public funds should be spent to help fund private arenas for rich owners. The threat of relocating a pro sports franchise is a way for leagues to hold cities hostage and demand public money or else they'll go to a city willing to pay. This is exactly the situation Sacramento found itself in this year with the Kings threatening to move to Seattle. In the end, Sacramento responded by giving out more public funds then Seattle and saved its team from moving. But is it worth it? Examining this situation will highlight both the negative and positive impact of publicly funded sports facilities. I am focusing mainly on the Kings situation specifically because it provides a case study on publicly funded stadiums that is current, and also because I have been following this ongoing saga for years now ever since Sacramento voters voted down Measures Q and R that would have funded a new stadium by raising sales tax way back in 2006. Since that failed attempt to gain access to public funds, the owners of the Kings sough to relocate numerous times to cities that were more willing to give them a hand out. It started with Anaheim, then came Virginia Beach, and then the biggest and most realistic threat to take the Kings away from Sacramento came from billionaire investors in Seattle. These
My interest in the topic of publicly funded stadiums and arenas for private sports franchises has been fueled by the situation in my hometown of Sacramento, and the building of a new downtown arena for our beloved Sacramento Kings. The city is going to be picking up most of the tab for the new arena, and the deal comes after years and years of other failed attempts to publicly fund a much needed modern arena. The Kings arena saga also includes many attempts to relocate the team to other cities willing to hand out public funds and build a new stadium for the privately owned franchise. All of this public money being thrown around raises controversy on whether or not public funds should be spent to help fund private arenas for rich owners. The threat of relocating a pro sports franchise is a way for leagues to hold cities hostage and demand public money or else they'll go to a city willing to pay. This is exactly the situation Sacramento found itself in this year with the Kings threatening to move to Seattle. In the end, Sacramento responded by giving out more public funds then Seattle and saved its team from moving. But is it worth it? Examining this situation will highlight both the negative and positive impact of publicly funded sports facilities. I am focusing mainly on the Kings situation specifically because it provides a case study on publicly funded stadiums that is current, and also because I have been following this ongoing saga for years now ever since Sacramento voters voted down Measures Q and R that would have funded a new stadium by raising sales tax way back in 2006. Since that failed attempt to gain access to public funds, the owners of the Kings sough to relocate numerous times to cities that were more willing to give them a hand out. It started with Anaheim, then came Virginia Beach, and then the biggest and most realistic threat to take the Kings away from Sacramento came from billionaire investors in Seattle. These