People’s prayers have been answered, hockey
is back on and we Canadians couldn’t be more thrilled. One aspect of our
national culture that tends to bring people together in mutual understanding is
hockey. It is after all one of the defining parts of Canadian society.
Not all Canadians are interested in hockey,
though. There are all types of sports that unite people in good-natured
frivolity. Sports play a big part in people’s lives. They can serve as a sort
of refuge for people after a tiresome day at the office; they can be scenes for
first dates, birthdays, anniversaries; they can even be a source of one’s
paycheck.
The point is people tend to spend a lot of
time and money watching sports and supporting the various teams they have
affiliation with. Apparently certain Canadian municipalities have noticed this
too, as one of the areas of major developments in cities across Canada is that
of sports stadiums and arenas.
Edmonton and Markham are only two of the
cities involved in the current trend of mobilising the movement for local
sporting centers. The justification for these developments goes beyond that of
promoting a passion for hockey or basketball; its appeal, as you can imagine, revolves
around money.
Cites involved in the building of new
sporting arenas are concerned with the profits that they believe will
inevitably follow after creating more job opportunities and attracting foreign
visitors.
While the idea of creating a sanctuary
where passionate sports lovers can drain their income on countless events seems
logical, it is sadly misinformed. The profits that these cities have anticipated
to produce are greatly exaggerated. While it is possible that these sports
arenas would create more job opportunities for local people, the assumption
that its revenue would come from outsider ticket sales is exceptionally flawed.
The first point to mention is that most of
the ticket sales of these sports arenas are from the local community. Generally
it is about 80% of the purchases coming from community members themselves. This
just goes to show that the goal of attracting fans outside of the local constituency
is not likely to be met. Now call me old fashion, but I don’t think it’s right
to mislead the public into funding a project under false pretenses. While the
arenas may generate revenue, I wouldn’t call it a profit for the citizens.
Furthermore, the indicated funds for these
projects are only conservative estimates. Markham is already at an estimate of
325 million and Edmonton at 480 million, both of which have a large portion
provided by the public. How much further are they willing to go in their dire
necessity of having their own sports arenas? If today they’ve demanded 1
million from the public, are their costs still fair if they require 10 million
tomorrow? The bottom line is that while everyone is supposed to benefit from
these arenas, it is the municipality footing the bill.
As if that weren’t bad enough, there’s
more. One’s understanding of the costs of these projects would not be complete
without acknowledging the hidden expenses. Asides from costs of labour and raw
materials, there are also those of subsidies and concessions given to team
owners that have been conveniently left out of the equation. By this I mean the
lack of property taxes that will be collected from the site. Not only does the
city miss an opportunity to collect taxes, but the sporting arena projects
could potentially leach public funds from other beneficial projects that could
have been provided to the community.
While the idea of a city having its own
sports arena does seem to have a certain appeal; providing the community
members a haven in which to cheer on their local team, thereby boosting
people’s pride in their cities, it comes at a price. I don’t think these
benefits even begin to outweigh the costs the projects pose for the public. Don’t
get me wrong, I myself enjoy watching live sports and would like having a
sports arena in my city. The matter becomes more complicated, though. How fair
is it for the government to demand public funds for a project when those
members of the public have been so misinformed about its true profitable
potential? Shouldn’t the city ensure that the public know all of the facts
about a development before asking them to delve into their personal savings to
pay for it? I certainly think so, but apparently my opinion differs from that
of the municipalities’.
