Talk:Stadium subsidy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydneycampbell724. Peer reviewers: Bandit039, Danielazea.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Subsidies aren't limited to just stadiums
Subsidies such as these can also go towards other sports venues, such as arenas. I would rename/move the article but am unsure as to what more inclusive term would be appropriate. --RDavi404 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section seems to be biased
Final section of criticism section sums up the paragraphs by saying that "a review of all evidence says subsidies are mostly negative" which seems biased to me and doesn't add anything to what should just be a list of criticisms, not overall thoughts on which side holds more weight. Sydneycampbell724 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential wrong spot for information in background section
"Recently there have been many studies that have suggested that there are a number of direct and indirect economic benefits associated with hosting a professional sports team, although each city experiences this to a different degree.[4][5] Even still, a survey conducted in 2017 found that "83% of economists polled believed that a subsidy's cost to the public outweighed the economic benefits".[6] The economics behind issuing billions of dollars to professional athletic organizations are still unclear, but cities have clearly showed that they are willing to assume the best, as recent years have seen an increase in the number of subsidies issues and the amount of money issued per subsidy.[7][8][9]"

This section is not really about the background of stadium subsidies and should be moved to the benefits section if it isn't redundant there. Placing this in the background section comes off as biased as it seems to take a stance on subsidies being a good thing when it is subjective. Also unsure on the protocol for citing the study in the 2nd sentence of this paragraph-- I think it should paraphrase instead of directly quoting and name the organization that performed the study within the article (i.e. a ____ survey conducted...) Sydneycampbell724 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Article mostly pertains to the USA
This article almost always discusses publicly funding sports venues in the United States. Editors should make an effort to discuss stadium subsidies around the world, as well as in the US, per WP:Globalize. I will attempt to rectify this.--RDavi404 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, another area to expand upon could be public European soccer teams that are traded on certain stock exchanges. If this comes to the USA, it would allow people who are interested in the team to help fund it. That could be a way the article expands to an area outside of the USA.Jghusky88 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unit 2 Peer Review
Overall I think the information added for improvement is clear and neutral but maybe you can expand more on it. I think you should provide more examples for the background in Europe, maybe mention some stadiums or arenas like you did in the USA section. Also, you should work more on balancing the coverage of the article by continuing to develop more on the size of subsidies section and the benefits section, as the length of these two is short in comparison to the other sections. Good use of neutral language, the article is unbiased. The sources provided look reliable. I agree with you in removing the NASCAR sentence from criticism as it is off-topic and has no source to support it.Danielazea (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Stadium Subsidy Article peer review
The information in the article is actually very informative and from reading this article I learned how stadiums and venue are maintained. Honestly, until this article I had never given it much thought of where did the funding come from to contract and remodel sports venue. The order of the article seems appropriate although the perspective during the history appears biased. Its interesting how you listed the benefit encountered by subsidies and the criticism right in the article to demonstrate what economist and municipalities debate is about. I also really appreciate how you integrate it to the economy side and how it affects the economy for that host city. I would like to see more information in relation to the rest of the world not just Europe.--Bernice Matos (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am proposing that Stadium diplomacy be merged here
One is Government of ABC gives money to Government DEF to build a stadium or just builds the stadium. But that's not much more different between that and Government of XYZ gives money to ACME T.U.V.W. Company to build a stadium instead. One is just Gov - to Gov the other is Gov - to Biz. In both cases tax dollars are being used as a subsidy for the stadium. I proposed Stadium diplomacy be merge into subsidy since they're practically the same. CaribDigita (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think this is a completely different thing since the subsidy is meant for professional sports franchises. Griff88 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The two phenomena are too distinct to be merged. While they are both forms of public funding, the purpose and significance of each varies. Thenightaway (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Its a kind of stadium subsidy and I dont see a conflict in the two pages Softlemonades (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a government subsidizing the building of stadiums in its own country (Stadium subsidy) is very different from the aid/diplomacy action of another nation funding a stadium (Stadium diplomacy). The two article are sufficiently well-developed to maintain separate pages. Klbrain (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)