Should Government Provide Funds for Sports Leagues?
Chad Jardine

The decision by Sandy City to provide funds for Real Salt Lake (RSL) is a major one. Before that I had never given much attention to the soccer team. After all, soccer was never a sport I enjoyed watching or going to (unless, of course, someone in my family was playing). When word came of a proposal by RSL urging Sandy to channel tax money into building them a soccer stadium, I began thinking about the purpose of government. Then I had questions and concerns. Among them, should government supply public funds for private enterprises like sports teams?
Those who supported the RSL-Sandy deal were of the opinion that the funds acted more as an investment. Besides that, RSL was ready to leave the state for other places of opportunity unless money was supplied for their project. Supporters also agreed with RSL’s proposal because they felt a stadium would bring in more money to the surrounding community than would have to be spent initially. It was also their belief that the stadium would act as a sort of homing beacon for the state much as the Winter Olympics of 2002 had done earlier. In their minds it was a win-win situation. But not everyone agreed. To contrast the view of the supports, those opposed thought it was very irresponsible for government to use their tax dollars to fund a project unclear of its staying power. They asked, why risk the money for an athletic team?
Those against felt it was unfair for government to swap helping its people directly with helping them indirectly. Shouldn’t government provide the services they paid for? Many of the city were frustrated that money was being shifted elsewhere. Isn’t a government “for the people, by the people” supposed to do just that?
Those opposed felt it was so. Several were of the opinion that funds being transferred to a privately owned team for a stadium was wrong because while the stadium would bring in money, it would leave the people of the community to deal with where to find new money to finance things like education and infrastructure. Thus, they would have more problems on their hands due to the inefficiencies of government. A limited government, in their view, was the cheapest to maintain and most resourceful. In other words, more funding of projects could spell higher taxes. Conversely, backers maintained support. They raised the question why should government pass up a potentially good thing?
With both sides’ arguments established, a few solutions I have encountered come to mind. One suggests that government step back and let happen what will happen to sports franchises regardless of their financial situations. This solution sets the expectation that fans and investors put money into those teams they prefer rather than cities and various government bodies. However, might this bring problems such as: less tourism, fewer events in a particular town or area, and less exposure for a team? Still, the other side of the argument would contend that government should set precedence for supporting private businesses so as to add jobs, thereby bringing in more tax dollars for the government which spent it. They feel one of the only solutions is to let government spend as it sees best for the people, presuming more money will eventually be generated for effected taxpayers later on. But can government be trusted to always work for the people? Some say yes others, no.
Is government best when it is restricted? Or does it provide more for its people by investing the money it has into projects the population can use? The different arguments are filled with problems and diverse solutions. Government’s role can either be big or little, but both levels of involvement bring significant change. Maybe it is best to continue wallowing in the topic and find a solution to the query, what is government’s responsibility when it comes to funding business?