New ballparks mean more revenues to either pad the owners' bottom line or subsidize player salaries.
The debate over public subsidies for sports stadiums intensified during a forum Monday at the Cato Institute in Washington, timed for the opening of the Major League Baseball season. Opponents of public stadium financing argue that new arenas simply change the location of where entertainment dollars are spent, but rarely generate new revenues. Studies, including one by the Congressional Research Service, found no discernible economic impact and some negative impact because money was diverted from other projects. Economist Dennis Coates of the University of Maryland said the costs associated with building a new stadium usually outweigh the benefits. Impact studies never look at the benefits of using the same government funds for mass transit or other projects, he said.