Do sports stadiums create jobs, prosperity?

[HBS Guy]

Sports Stadiums Are Monuments to the Poverty of Our Ambitions
. . .
Football stadiums, in particular, are rarely used. The Commanders’ current home hosts about 10 games and a similar number of other events, like concerts, each year. That’s it. Really. An economy is money in motion; a stadium is a big cement bowl where most days, nothing happens.

Academic studies have repeatedly concluded that public spending on stadiums is a bad investment. Indeed, one of the leading authorities on the subject has memorably described that conclusion as one of the rare subjects on which economists have approached unanimity.

Better investments would yield bigger returns. One can only imagine a world in which the mayors of American cities were equally motivated by the economic benefits of public transit. But it’s much less expensive, much easier and much more fun to build a gussied-up grandstand than to invest in faster commutes or high-quality public education. The $3.8 billion price for the Commanders stadium is a lot of money, but it is a small fraction of what it would cost to build a neighborhood on the same land.

Our stadiums are monuments to the poverty of our civic ambitions and our inability to summon the collective will to use the land we have for the things we need. They are distractions from our inability to build anything else.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/28/opinion/stadiums-sports-nfl-commanders.html

LOL—Tassie state government wants to build a stadium in Hobart, just $750,000,000. Waste of money that should be spent on roads (or whatever other needs there are.)

 

[Squire]

Give them bread and circuses to pacify them.

It is a proven strategy by emperors and oligarchs:

"By fulfilling the basic needs and desires of the people, the emperors aimed to prevent uprisings and maintain social stability. The spectacles diverted the attention of the poor and unemployed from their hardships and grievances, making them less likely to challenge the emperor's authority."

AI Overview
Learn more
The Roman emperors did not literally say "Give them circuses," but the concept of "bread and circuses" is a well-known strategy they used to maintain social order and control the populace. This involved providing free food and entertainment to prevent unrest and allow them to rule effectively.

Elaboration:
Bread and Circuses:
The phrase "bread and circuses" (Latin: panem et circenses) refers to a political tactic used by Roman emperors to pacify the populace. This involved providing free grain (or bread) and staging public spectacles like gladiatorial contests, chariot races, and wild animal hunts.

Purpose:
By fulfilling the basic needs and desires of the people, the emperors aimed to prevent uprisings and maintain social stability. The spectacles diverted the attention of the poor and unemployed from their hardships and grievances, making them less likely to challenge the emperor's authority.

 

[HBS Guy]

Do they generate jobs?

 

[Squire]

Do they generate jobs?

Only in construction. Ten uses per year won't even support one job.

 

[HBS Guy]

Yeah, exactly.

 

[HBS Guy]

Get on the Bass Hway, likely get stuck behind a truck (lots head to Devonport) and no overtaking lane for many weary kilometres!

 

[Squire]

Perhaps trucks should be fitted with screens:

 

[HBS Guy]

Useful when passing!

 

[johnsmith]

Only in construction. Ten uses per year won't even support one job.

They employ grounds keepers, and admin to oversee bookings and events during quiet times and cleaners, support staff , security etc during events.

 

[Squire]

Here you go:

Do sports stadiums justify their cost of construction?

Chat GPT:

The question of whether sports stadiums justify their construction costs is highly debated, and the answer depends on how value is measured—financial return, social benefit, or urban development. Here’s a balanced overview:

1. Economic Justification (Often Weak)
Most studies show stadiums rarely pay for themselves:

• Academic consensus (e.g., from economists like Andrew Zimbalist and Roger Noll) finds that stadiums often don’t generate enough direct economic benefit to justify the public investment.
• Jobs created are mostly temporary or low-wage (construction, part-time concessions).
• Promised boosts to local business often fail to materialize, as spending is usually redistributed rather than new.

Example figures:

• NFL stadiums can cost $1 billion+, with many funded through public subsidies or tax breaks.
• Returns in direct revenue (ticket sales, concessions, naming rights) often benefit team owners more than the public.

2. Urban Development and Indirect Benefits (Mixed Evidence)
Sometimes stadiums act as a catalyst:

• In some cases (e.g., Nationals Park in Washington, DC or Petco Park in San Diego), stadiums have helped revitalize neighborhoods.
• Indirect benefits may include:
  • Increased tourism
  • Urban infrastructure improvements
  • Boost in property values

But not always:

• In cities with poor planning or already saturated development, stadiums can sit underused or create traffic, noise, and economic displacement.

3. Intangible Benefits (Difficult to Quantify)
Emotional and cultural value:

• Community pride, shared identity, and legacy (especially during major events like the Olympics or World Cup).
• May boost civic morale and promote youth participation in sports.

These are subjective:

• Hard to monetize or justify to taxpayers, especially when social needs (schools, hospitals, transport) are underfunded.

Bottom Line: Do They Justify the Cost?

Metric	Justified?	Notes
Direct financial return	Usually not	Rarely generate enough revenue for taxpayers
Urban revitalization	Sometimes	Dependent on broader development plan
Intangible/social value	Possibly	Civic pride, global image, community cohesion

 

[HBS Guy]

Yeah. Have to be very very carefully sited and designed and more money should go to the govt or quasi govt body that built it (not to the teams.)