In the modernizing world of sports, big time owners are looking for money any way possible. Owners, plain and simply want to spend less and make more. The conventional way of that is pay players less, win more games, sell more tickets and merchandise, etc. However, owners now have tried a different way of keeping money in their pocket. Owners are now building new, state-of-the-art stadiums for their teams to play in. The only catch is that they are not paying for it. Sports teams of late have had big businesses or even taxpayers fund their new arenas. Owners pressure cities to fund stadiums by threatening to move the team. Is it fair that sports are powerful enough and have enough leverage to do this? What are the benefits and costs of cities building new stadiums? Stadium subsidies are a hot topic and a controversial issue not just in sports but also in society.
             The cost of building new stadiums is astounding and continues to rise. According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, in 2006 dollars, a stadium built between 1990 and 1992 cost on average, $240.6 million. In stadiums completed during 2002-2004 the average cost was a whopping $383.64 million, more than a 50% increase from 1992. For those stadiums built in 2002-2004, about $280 million was paid for by taxpayers, or roughly 63%. Since 2004, costs are still on the upswing. The price of the MLB's Nationals in Washington, DC new stadium is an estimated $700 million. Although privately funded, the new Giant and Jets arena called MetLife stadium will cost almost $1 billion. These are only two stadiums of the many built: "Over the last twenty years there have been more than sixty publicly financed stadiums and arenas built in the United States at a cost of more than $20 billion." (Szymanski p. 173) To compound that money, sports stadiums are not built because they are needed, but because they are wanted. The "old" facilities function properly and hol...