Using taxes to build football stadiums is not justified.

Let's get right to it! ******************************************************************In September 2015, an organization called Taxpayers Protection Alliance released a report titled "Sacking Taxpayers: How NFL Stadium Subsidies Waste Money and Fall Short on Their Promises of Economic Development". This report revealed that since 1995, a staggering 29 of the 31 stadiums that house NFL teams received public subsidies for construction, renovation or both. More importantly, the report shows that between 1995 and today, taxpayers have been forced to spend nearly $7 billion subsidizing NFL stadium construction and renovation projects. [1]"The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA), based in Washington, D. C. , is a non-profit non-partisan organization dedicated to educating the public through the research, analysis and dissemination of information on the government’s effects on the economy. TPA, through its network of taxpayers will hold politicians accountable for the effects of their policies on the size, scope, efficiency and activity of government. " [2] While this information stems from multiple news reports and blogs, they are the organization which published the original study and findings, and, as such, will be my primary source. Lastly, why am I focusing solely on NFL stadiums? A simple google search will reveal that alot of major sports stadiums are now being funded with taxpayers money. [3] The reason is because I want to set a precedent, if I can show that such spending on NFL stadiums are unjustified, I can then apply those same principles to other professional sports. With that said, this report on the spending on NFL stadiums is a great place to start, hence the focused frame pertaining solely to Professional American Football in this debate. Argument(s)I. The Justification of Tax Spending on NFL Stadiums is Unsound. The first thing we need to analyze when proving that the justification falls short, is the justification itself. According to the study, "Government leaders and team officials argue that publicly subsidized stadiums are justified because the projects encourage economic growth by generating wealth and creating jobs. " [1]So the question then is, do these projects actually result in economic growth or a generation of wealth for the public paying the taxes? In an effort to determine the economic impact of taxpayer-financed NFL stadiums, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance compared median household income and poverty rates in counties with NFL stadiums before and after tax dollars were used to subsidize the stadiums. Let's look at the results:Arizona CardinalsIn 2006, the $455 million University of Phoenix Stadium pecked away at $308 million in public funds. In order to pay for the stadium, Phoenix-area tourists were sacked with almost $300 million in hotel taxes and rental car fees. Despite hosting two Super Bowls and many other major events, the stadium has failed to generate the anticipated economic benefit. The median household income in Maricopa County, where the stadium is located, has fallen nearly 10 percent since the stadium opened, and the county’s poverty rate has climbed sharply. [1]Poverty Rate before Stadium: 13.8% Poverty Rate after Stadium: 17.6% Median Income before New Stadium: $57,502 Median Income after New Stadium: $52,066 Cost to Taxpayers: $308 millionChicago BearsThe Bears’ effort to modernize the stadium without tearing it down led to a $587 million facelift on a stadium that was originally constructed for $13 million. At the time the project was completed in 2003, the Soldier Field renovation was the most expensive NFL stadium ever. [1]Poverty Rate before Stadium Renovation: 14.7% Poverty Rate after Stadium Renovation: 17.8% Median Income before Stadium Renovation: $57,871 Median Income after Stadium Renovation: $53,795 Cost to Taxpayers: $387 millionCincinnati BengalsUsing a 0.5% county sales tax hike, a handout from the state of Ohio and hazy accounting to finance 94 percent – or almost $425 million – of the Bengals stadium wrecked Hamilton County. The stadium devoured more than 16 percent of the county’s general fund budget, created a budget shortfall and caused a property tax hike. [1]Poverty Rate before Stadium: 11.7% Poverty Rate after Stadium: 18.7% Median Income before Stadium: $52,055 Median Income after Stadium: $47,123 Cost to Taxpayers: $424.8 millionCleveland BrownsCity officials passed a set of funding strategies to underwrite the $200 million in public funding going towards the Browns’ new $271 million stadium. [1]Poverty Rate before Stadium: 14.3% Poverty Rate after Stadium: 19.2% Median Income before Stadium: $51,634 Median Income after Stadium: $43,653 Cost to Taxpayers: $200 millionDallas CowboysJerry Jones claimed the facility would require minimal tax dollars to build. However, when the actual costs of building the new Cowboys stadium exceeded initial estimates by more than $500 million, Jones convinced lawmakers to slap a bevy of new taxes on Arlington, Texas, residents, including a citywide half-cent sales tax increase to fund most of the cost overruns. [1]Poverty Rate before New Stadium: 12.3% Poverty Rate after New Stadium: 15.2% Median Income before Stadium: $62,735 Median Income after Stadium: $56,906 Cost to Taxpayers: $444 millionDetroit LionsRather than inspiring the Lions to finally win a Super Bowl, Ford Field played a role in causing the Motor City to become the largest city in American history to declare bankruptcy. [1]Poverty Rate before New Stadium: 20.6% Poverty Rate after New Stadium: 25.1% Median Income before Stadium: $49,544 Median Income after Stadium: $40,485 Cost to Taxpayers: $110 millionGreen Bay PackersThe number of people living in poverty in Green Bay has nearly doubled since taxpayers were burdened with the stadium rehab costs. The median income in Brown County plummeted from over $65,000 in 1995 to less than $52,000 in 2013. [1]Poverty Rate before Stadium Renovation: 6.8% Poverty Rate after Stadium Renovation: 12.1% Median Income before Stadium Renovation: $65,126 Median Income after Stadium Renovation: $51,956 Cost to Taxpayers: $169.1 million**********Let's cut to the chase and do the math, because this study includes the economic impact for a total of 31 stadiums. How many benefited economically? 5How many were moot reads due to a lack of data or non-funding? 5How many were impacted negatively? 2168% of these stadiums funded by tax-payers actually hurt the local economy of the surrounding area, while only 16% actually led to economic growth. This data shows that the current justification that such funding, "encourage economic growth by generating wealth and creating jobs" is unsound. It clearly does not encourage economic growth for the majority, rather only a slight minority has ever had any sort of economic benefit from such spending. Because of this, there is clearly no valid justification for spending our tax dollars on the construction/renovations of professional football stadium when the data reflects the opposite effect of said justification as a majority result. Sources[1] . http://protectingtaxpayers.org...[2] . http://protectingtaxpayers.org...[3] . http://crooksandliars.com...