Actually, no I wouldn’t say that. As I mentioned before, spectator sports are not an educational activity. Music and art are typically a part of educational curricula, and the educational value of libraries should be obvious. Sport is included in education only as a participatory activity, not as a spectator activity. Spectator sports are extra-curricular.
Now, I can see where one might argue that music and the arts are less important than libraries to the education of the general public and therefore should be considered as places where funding might be cut. (I happen to disagree, but I can see where the argument would have some merit.) But the proper role of government is not to subsidize sports to create some sort of community spirit.
Unfortunately, ITR Champion is right. The question is generally decided not on the basis of the proper role of government but rather on the financial influence of the team owners/leagues.
I’m kinda split. On one hand, an arena is probably necessary for a medium sized or larger city. Yes, it could host the NBA or NHL, but it also is used for many other events which could never afford to build an arena. The arena hosts the circus, the ice shows, the rodeo, concerts, large conventions. Now, none of these are an absolute necessity to a city. But, the arena isn’t just used for sporting events and I believe most cities need such a place for entertainment events. Also, these tend to seat about 20,000 and are in use about 75% of the year. Thus, this space and parking aren’t sitting idle most of the year.
Football and baseball stadiums, however, are another creature. They’re too large to be of much use except for hosting games and perhaps the very rare stadium rock concert. Also, due to their large size they require much more space as well as lots of parking which may remain unused throughout most of the year.
I’m not opposed to taxpayers supporting the construction of an arena once every 15-20 years or so. I have a more difficult time with huge football stadiums that are in use less than 20 times per year.
As a resident of Pittsburgh I can testify that a professional sports team can benefit the community by encouraging civic pride. The Steelers bring us together. ( Most of us that is. The dark side are the stories about what happens to people caught wearing the other team’s colors at the wrong time. ) But do they need public funding for it? It seems to me that they do not. There is plenty of interest in professional sports teams and they should be weaned from the public trough. People are willing to spend money on them and they should make do with what they earn themselves.
FWIW, I think sports can be valuable for tourism, national pride and national health. The difference is that sports can support themselves, and aren’t providing the poor access to it’s benefits the way libraries do.
I would like to add, though, that my opinion of public money for a stadium is different in exactly one case: the Green Bay Packers. The team is publicly owned, and so any profits from the team benefit the state of Wisconsin and its people. If more teams followed this model (which I’ve heard is now disallowed by the league), I think it would be just fine to spend public money. Public money for public benefit = hunky dory. Public money for private benefit = not so fine.
Montreal (1976) is still paying off its stadium debt after losing the stadium’s primary tenant (the Expos). Lake Placid (1980) was and still is a nice winter tourist area. Yugoslavia and Los Angeles (1984) were both hit by riots 10 years later. When you factor in the increased current security costs the cost-benefit analysis would seem to be against there being a positive impact on the community.
Getting back to the OP, pro team sports make a great contribution to the community, but that does not warrant the current structure which has the community bear all the monetary construction costs and the team players and owners take all the huge amounts of cash generated by ticket sales, merchandise, parking and most importantly, television and radio broadcast rights. So much of the value of the franchises is derived from the fact that they get the free use of tax subsidized state of the art facilities. Ford and GM would be in good shape too if the state built their factories for them for free, as the states do for the NFL, MLB and NBA.