What is more, this binge does not appear to be over. Instead, the number of new facilities being planned and financed across North America is increasing regularly. Stadium proponents argue that the economic benefits of a new facility will spin-off new enterprises and increase local land values because of increased pedestrian traffic and tourism dollars in the area around the new stadium. Stadium opponents base their argument less on perceived benefits and more upon the various economic studies of sports facilities. Opponents argue that the economic effects of these new stadiums have been shown to be minimal and that public resources would be better spent elsewhere.
Evidence suggests that the economic benefits that do accrue provide only low wage, seasonal jobs.
Further, some studies have concluded that, even given some economic benefits, municipalities that finance new stadiums have trouble capturing these benefits because they spill over to other jurisdictions. In sum, then, almost all evidence suggests that sports facilities do not make economic sense for cities. A recent Urban Policy Forum in the Journal of Urban Affairs came to this conclusion. Despite the conclusion of most studies that public investment into sports facilities yields only minimal economic benefits, officials continue to push for new facilities and public dollars continue to be spent on them. It has been suggested by some that studies of these facilities fall short in identifying the total benefits of new sports stadiums and arenas.