Across the past 15 years, governments have invested more than $10 billion in the playing facilities used by professional sports teams to produce a set of tangible and intangible benefits. Too often, after making substantial commitments, communities receive new demands for increased subsidies. If these increasing demands are not satisfied, teams frequently move to other cities. Taxpayers and sports fans are then left with unused facilities, debt obligations, and a reduced quality of life. If the public sector devotes tax revenues to generate intangible benefits and increased business activity in certain locations, communities are entitled to adequate safeguards to protect their investment. Various governments have attempted to use different leasehold provisions to protect their stake in the partnerships developed with teams. These tools and their inadequacies are reviewed. It is then argued that the use of the power of eminent domain is needed to protect the public’s interests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anthony, T.
(1998, February 1). Eminent domain under the republic: individuals not allowed to stand in the way of progress. Los Angeles Times, p. 1.
2.
Austrian, Z.
, & Rosentraub, M. S. (1997). Cleveland’s gateway to the future. In R. Noll & A. Zimbalist (Eds.), Sports, jobs, and taxes: The economic impact of sports teams and stadiums (pp. 355-384). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
3.
Baade, R.
(1996). Professional sports as catalysts for metropolitan economic development. Journal of Urban Affairs, 18(1), 1-18.
4.
Bartlett, D.
, & Steele, J. (1998). States at war. Time, 152(19), 20-31.
5.
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954).
6.
City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore Football Club, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 278 (1985).
7.
City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 123 Cal. App. 3d, 442 (1981).
8.
City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 174 Cal. App. 414 (1986).
9.
Eagle, S. J.
(1995). Review of William A. Fischel’s Regulatory takings: Law, economics and politics. Cato Institute Journal, I5, 2-3.
10.
Eisinger, P.
(1988). The rise of the entrepreneurial state. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
11.
Friedman, A.
(Ed.). (1999). Inside the ownership of professional sports. Chicago: Team Marketing Report.
12.
Hamilton, B. W.
, & Kahn, P. (1997). Baltimore’s Camden Yards ballparks. In R. G. Noll & A. Zimbalist (Eds.), Sports, jobs, and taxes: The economic impact of sports teams and stadiums (pp. 245-281). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
13.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).
14.
Hegyi, L. J.
(1979). Eminent domain in Indiana: 1816-1865. Indiana Law Journal, 54, 427-442.
15.
Hornack, J. S.
, & Lynd, S. (1987). The Steel Valley Authority. Review of Law and Social Change, 15, 113-125.
16.
Imbroscio, D. L.
(1998). Reformulating urban regime theory: The division of labor between state and market reconsidered. Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(3), 233-248.
17.
Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 624 F. Supp. 278, D.Md. (1985).
18.
Irani, D.
(1997). Public subsidies to stadiums: Do the costs outweigh the benefits?Public Finance Review, 25(2), 238-253.
19.
Lindsey, G.
, Paterson, R., & Luger, M. (1995). Using contingent valuation surveys in environmental planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(2), 252-262.
20.
Lipsyte, R.
(1995, April 2). Why sports doesn’t matter any more. New York Times Magazine, pp. 51-57.
21.
Michener, J.
(1976). Sport in America. New York: Random House.
22.
Morgan, J.
(1997). Glory for sale: Fans, dollars, and the new NFL. Baltimore: Bancroft.
23.
Mullen, L.
(1998). NFL’s next new team may pay lower entry fee. Street and Smith’s Sports Business Journal, 1(20), 7.
24.
NCAA v. Miller, 10 F.3d 633 (1993).
25.
Noll, R.
, & Zimbalist, A. (1997). Build the stadium—Create jobs! In R. Noll & A. Zimbalist (Eds.), Sports, jobs, and taxes: The economic impact of sports teams and stadiums (pp. 1-54). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
26.
Pike v. Bruce Church, 397, U.S. 137 (1970).
27.
Pilon, R.
(1995). Testimony before the Subcommittee on Constitution, Committee on Judiciary, United States House of Representatives [Online]. Available: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pi210.html.
28.
Piraino, T. A., Jr.
(1996). The antitrust rationale for the expansion of professional sports leagues. Ohio State Law Journal, 57(5), 1677-1729.
29.
Rosentraub, M.
(1997). Major league losers: The real costs of sports and who’s paying for it. New York: Basic Books.
30.
Rosentraub, M.
(1998). Why baseball needs New York to just say no. The Nation, 267(5), 20-26.
31.
Rosentraub, M.
(1999). Major league losers: The real costs of sports and who’s paying for it (Rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books.
32.
Smith v. Cleveland CC & LR, 81 N.E. 501 (1907).
33.
Swindell, D.
, & Rosentraub, M. S. (1998). Who benefits from the presence of professional sports teams? The implications for public funding of stadiums and arenas. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 11-20.
34.
Weinberg, R.
(1984). The use of eminent domain to prevent an industrial plant shutdown. Albany Law Review, 49, 95-130.
35.
West’s encyclopedia of American law. (1998). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
36.
Wilson, J.
(1994). Playing by the rules: Sport, society, and the state. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
37.
Zimbalist, A.
(1998). A scary thought: Jones may be right about Browns. Street and Smith’s Sports Business Journal, 1(20), 7.
