In a very general sense, the question of tax breaks for sports teams falls under the category of whether or not subsidies are desirable. From an economic perspective on subsidies, some could say that almost all of them create suboptimal outcomes. This is because under normal market conditions market forces move automatically towards allocative efficiency. Subsidies distort the ability of markets to correctly allocate resources because they provide an incentive to continue the subsidized behavior, even when it is not profitable or productive to do so.

Why Subsidies Are Useful
The counterargument is that subsidies are useful for this very reason. They allow government to shape economic outcomes toward desired policy objectives. For example, the money used to fund alternative energy sources. So although the subsidy is creating a less than optimal use of resources, people believe that is balanced by the development of technology that might not have otherwise been built until much later, if at all. Another reason people champion subsidies is to protect jobs or create growth. However, the job market is subject to the same economic forces as any other. By creating subsidies in unproductive industries people remain in jobs that are also unproductive; this makes society worse off. In the case of sports teams, the most commonly cited reason for subsidies is that it creates jobs and improves revenues. Yet there have been studies that conclude that this is not always the case.

Not All Need Tax Breaks
Most sports teams are actually quite profitable and do not actually require tax breaks to remain competitive. Examples of the types of subsidies sports teams regularly enjoy include: tax-deductible ticket sales (including on luxury suites), reduction of taxes on revenue via direct tax credits and sweet-heart deals on new facilities. What this means is that corporations, and even individuals, can deduct a portion of what they spend on tickets in a similar manner as donating to a charity. In the case of new stadiums, the burden of building and operating arenas gets pushed onto the taxpayer while owners reap the related revenues. Unfortunately, due to the secretive nature of professional teams, most financial information is inaccessible thus preventing the public from accurately gauging the level of financial support these franchises receive.

However, let us be fair and consider the case where sports teams are legitimately struggling and only government aid can keep them afloat. This hearkens back to the beginning of this piece and the discussion on whether or not it is believed that subsidies are useful. Insofar as civic pride is concerned, maybe it is considered appropriate to prop up a flailing team. People have an emotional connection to their sports teams. They buy tickets to games, purchase merchandise and follow every story about their chosen champions. Despite this, only a very small portion of the population (20%) thinks that tax breaks for sports teams is good policy.

The intuition for this is that if a sports team is failing it is because it is poorly run and is spending itself into a hole, or the fans do not support it with enough revenue to continue. Either way, this is not an enterprise that should be having public money thrown at it. Perhaps the largest segment of government support goes toward the construction of stadiums. Fancy new stadiums attract fans and sports teams alike.

Cities often will use the promise of a new stadium to entice teams to relocate. Is this a good investment on behalf of the public? Almost all economists and independent development specialists conclude that the rate of return on these projects is less than what could be had on alternative projects, with some sports contracts failing significantly. Further, those cities that invested heavily in sports stadiums have experienced, on average, slower income growth compared to their peers who chose otherwise.

The Bottom Line
There is no silver lining. The public does not support deluxe treatments for sports teams in the form of tax breaks, the data does not support tax breaks for sports teams and commonly accepted economic theory does not support tax breaks for sports teams either. This leaves fans and citizens paying double as both their taxes and discretionary income go towards profitable franchises instead of schools and roads. The only people who benefit from such activity are those who own, operate and work for sports franchises. As Norman Braman, former owner of the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles, put it: "the taxpayers are a bunch of suckers."

Related Articles
  1. Investing News

    Learn from These Big CEO Blunders

    A ceo can seem to have it all: power, influence and gravitas. But it can all erode — along with a company’s share price — in the wake of a scandal.
  2. Personal Finance

    Who Is Next in the Athleisure Trend?

    Which companies are jumping on the growing athleisure wear trend and how can investors start getting in on this?
  3. Personal Finance

    Top 10 Most Valuable Sports Teams in 2015

    Cleats, pads and profits: we take a look at the top 10 most valuable sports teams in the world.
  4. Personal Finance

    The Future Outlook of the Golf Industry

    The popularity of golf peaked in 2003. To regain popularity and survive, the industry is adapting to appeal to a younger generation of players.
  5. Entrepreneurship

    Nike and the NBA, a Perfect Duo?

    What does Nike's recent eight-year contract partnership with the NBA entail for its largest competitor Under Armor?
  6. Economics

    The NBA’s Business Model

    Drawing interest domestically and abroad, the NBA has seen its popularity and revenue streams rapidly increase over the past few years.
  7. Personal Finance

    Is ESPN a Sport Monopoly?

    With such a dominant presence in sports as demonstrated through substantial ratings and a firm online presence, some may consider ESPN a sports monopoly.
  8. Economics

    3 Main Reasons Las Vegas Sports Teams Keep Folding

    Learn why a unique labor force, competition for entertainment dollars and the stigma of gambling have kept professional sports out of Las Vegas.
  9. Investing News

    Why FIFA Can't Give the 2022 World Cup to Qatar

    Learn about the high price tag for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, along with allegations of human rights abuses and bribery scandals in the bidding process.
  10. Entrepreneurship

    How Did Mark Cuban Get Rich?

    From his first business to today, here’s how Mark Cuban got rich.
  1. Why is Manchester United (MANU) carrying so much debt?

    The takeover of Manchester United by the Glazer family beginning in 2005 saddled the historic club with substantial amounts ... Read Full Answer >>
  2. What are Manchester United's (MANU) largest revenue sources?

    Manchester United is one of the most popular U.K. soccer teams. Its principal stadium is Old Trafford, located in the heart ... Read Full Answer >>
  3. Does Manchester United (MANU) own Old Trafford stadium?

    Old Trafford Stadium was built for and is currently still owned by Manchester United Football Club (Man Utd.). This means ... Read Full Answer >>
  4. What's the biggest sports endorsement deal ever signed?

    According to Forbes, basketball player Derrick Rose holds the largest endorsement deal as of 2014; the deal is for more than ... Read Full Answer >>
  5. What are the biggest stadium naming rights deals of all time?

    The top three stadium naming rights deals of all time were all for stadiums hosting New York City teams. The largest was ... Read Full Answer >>
  6. What is the difference between a mutual fund and money market fund?

    The Herfindahl-Hirschman index can be used to determine competitive balance in sports. Competitive balance is desired in ... Read Full Answer >>

You May Also Like

Trading Center