User:Sydneycampbell724/sandbox

Sydney Campbell, ENGW3304 Spring 2018, Prof. Carleton

Week 2: Article Evaluation

Stadium Subsidy

I chose to review the article Stadium subsidy for my evaluation. Overall, the article felt unbiased, clear, and concise; the topic was explained, and benefits and drawbacks were clearly outlined. The drawback section was much larger than the benefits, making it appear as though the viewpoints aren't equally represented. However, because the benefits are much more qualitative whereas the drawbacks are more quantitative, it actually is pretty accurate and not favoring one argument over the other. The article does not address any examples outside of the United States, and so perhaps either more information should be added or the title at least updated to reflect that.

While there isn't an enormous number of source used, the article itself is relatively small and so I think it is appropriate. The sources used are professional in nature, are accurate/live links, and contain the information used in the reference. One particular piece towards the end of the article suggests that NASCAR stadiums are almost entirely privately funded in contrast to major leagues, but that they are so profitable that investors often build several; there is no source/cite to back this information up.

This article is a part of two projects within Wikipedia; WikiProject Sports and WikiProject Finance. Both are rated in the "start" scale category, which is in the lower half of quality rankings. The talk page addresses the lack of world view coverage as well as how public subsidies for major league teams is not limited to stadiums, but can also include arenas.

Week 4: Reviewing Potential Articles

1. Stadium subsidy: as reviewed above, the article is rated as middling due to a need for more complete citations, the lack of information not regarding the United States, and generally being pretty basic.
2. professional sports: the article has received criticism for being biased/presenting an opinion, being too Eurocentric, and not being particularly well-organized (somewhat lost in terms of what the article should contain and what should be split off into separate articles)

Week 5: Contribution to Selected Article

I will be updating the Stadium subsidy article for a number of reasons, but primarily because I believe I have the most to contribute. I am hoping to find citations where needed, or remove that information if necessary, add more information from other countries, expand on the size of stadium subsidies (the current subsection is a mere two sentences), and look to add more history.

Potential sources to add:

• Fort, Rodney D. Sports Economics. Prentice Hall, 2011.
• Kishner, Irwin A., and Hoffman, David R. “Fields of Dreams: the Benefits of Public and Private Cooperation in Financing Professional Sports Stadiums.” The Entertainment and Sports       Lawyer, vol. 28, no. 3, 2010, p. 20.
• Middleton Jr., John R., et al.  "Stadia Mania: The Business, Civic, And Legal Issues Of New Stadium Construction.(New Economics Of Sports And The Boom Of New Sports Facilities)." Mondaq Business Briefing 03 Apr. 2008: Mondaq Business Briefing, April 3, 2008. Web.
• Gans, Logan E. “Take Me out to the Ball Game, but Should the Crowd's Taxes Pay for It?” Virginia Tax Review, vol. 29, no. 4, 2010, pp. 751–786.

Week 6: Article Improvement Working Draft

Background

In the United States

Eighty years ago, stadium subsidies were essentially unheard of, with funding for professional sports stadiums coming from private sources. In 1951, MLB commissioner Ford Frick decided that league teams were bringing large amounts of revenue to their host cities from which owners weren't able to profit. He announced that cities would need to start supporting their teams by building and maintaining venues through public subsidy. Today, most new or renovated professional sports stadiums are financed at least partly through stadium subsidies. While Frick may have been a catalyst, this change has been primarily caused by the increase in bargaining power of professional sports teams at the expense of their host cities. As the years have passed, municipalities have come to love their local professional sports teams.  (added information about Ford Frick getting the ball rolling, reorganized paragraph to fit this new info)

Recently there have been many studies that have suggested that there are a number of direct and indirect economic benefits associated with hosting a professional sports team, although each city experiences this to a different degree. Even still, a survey conducted in 2017 found that "83% of economists polled believed that a subsidy's cost to the public outweighed the economic benefits". The economics behind issuing billions of dollars to professional athletic organizations are still unclear, but cities have clearly showed that they are willing to assume the best, as recent years have seen an increase in the number of subsidies issues and the amount of money issued per subsidy.

(Removing above paragraph as 1.) it's not relevant to the background section, 2.) it's redundant within the benefits section, and 3.) seems to present a bias towards government subsidy for stadiums rather than staying neutral. I have not made this edit to the actual Wikipedia page as I don't want the author to lose their citations should they come back to improve and re-add this information, but I did make a note on the talk page explaining my concerns.)

Twenty-seven of the 30 stadiums built between 1953 and 1970 received more than $450 million in total public funding for construction. During this period, publicly funding a stadium grew in popularity as an effective incentive to attract professional sports teams to up and coming cities. Noteworthy examples include the Brooklyn Dodgers leaving New York in exchange for 300 acres in Chavez Ravine and the New York Giants moving to San Francisco for what would eventually become Candlestick Park. Between 1991 and 2004, $26 billion dollars of public money were used to build or renovate 78 stadiums. The Los Angeles Coliseum became the first fully publicly funded stadium in 2018. (added citations, reorganized structure, added more information)

Sports teams have realized their ability to relocate at lower and lower costs. Because local governments feel that keeping their sports teams around is critical to the success of their cities, they comply and grant the stadium subsidies. This process is what has led to the large number of stadiums financed through subsidies that we have today. As the years have passed, municipalities have built strong relationships with their local professional sports teams. Citizens feel a special bond with their teams and share in a sense of civic pride when they are successful.

In Europe

Public subsidies for major league sports stadiums and arenas are far less common in Europe than in the United States. The relationship between the local clubs and the cities that host them is typically much stronger than in the United States, with the team being more intrinsic to the cities' identity. Cities would be significantly more upset at the departure of their beloved local teams, and viable alternative cities already have their own clubs to whom their residents are loyal. As a result, the leagues have significantly less bargaining power. They will not threaten to relocate to another city if not provided with a subsidy, or at the very least the threat would not be credible. It is also worth noting that the NFL, the league in the United States whose stadiums have the highest percentage of public financing of the four major leagues, does not have an equivalent in Europe; American football is relatively unpopular. (added this entire section about Europe)

Types of Subsidies

In the USA, the annual subsidies provided by the state for the construction of stadiums are in the range of billions of dollars. A 2005 study of all sports stadiums and facilities in use by the four major leagues from 1990 to 2001 calculated a total public subsidy of approximately $17 billion, or approx. $24 billion in 2018 dollars. The average annual subsidy during that period was $1.6 billion ($2.2 billion in 2018) for all 99 facilities included in the study, with an average of $16.2 million ($22.8 million in 2018) per facility annually. A 2012 Bloomberg analysis estimates that tax exemptions annually cost the U.S. Treasury $146 million. (added more information on average subsidy size, comes directly after outlining different types of subsidies so providing information on the size helps to contextualize the aggregate effect of the different forms)

Was planning to significantly beef up the benefits and criticisms sections with more information and citations but another editor beat me to it and did a great job, even adding graphs and tables. I did make several edits for grammar, flow, and organizational clarity however, and added missing citations where possible.

A review of the empirical literature assessing the effects of subsidies for professional sports franchises and facilities reveals that most evidence goes against sports subsidies. Specifically, subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation. (Want to remove this section from the page as it seems biased and not neutral like a good page should be. It does not add additional information and instead just takes a stance. Again though, don't want original contributor to lose their sources/citations so it is currently only noted in the talk page.)

Criticisms

NASCAR stands in opposition to the "common man" logic that stadiums need public money. NASCAR tracks are owned and operated by private businesses and are profitable enough that some owners built and own several tracks.^{[citation needed]}

(Removed this section; citation not found and not relevant to the the article/specific subsection.)

Peer Reviews

Dear Sydneycampbell724, your draft on stadium subsidies is a good start. However, some parts seem opinionated and expressive of emotion, like "municipalities have come to love" their teams. Although you may not have written it, perhaps it can be altered to "municipalities accepted their teams" and would improve if there is a proof or example citation as some citizens may be angry at the money waste or apathetic to sports. Another item that can be changed to be more objective is, "Cities would be outraged...". Your new citations are authoritative.

Other minor suggestions: "but, in 1951..." "over 60 percent." "at the expense of" sounds adversarial, maybe can be changed to "over." "Famous examples" to just "Examples" or "Noteworthy examples" to be more formal.

Otherwise, your new material should be helpful to Wikipedia! - Bandit039 (Dickson He)