Siegfried and Zimbalist (2012) evaluated the renovations and constructions of 46 major league stadiums as well as arenas within the United States from the year 1990 to 1998. In addition, there were forty-nine sporting facilities preparing for or undergoing construction. This increasing number of sporting facilities was coherent with the 115 teams competing within and outside the nation in 2000. These teams were from the hockey, basketball, football, and baseball groups. The facilities required about $21.7 billion to meet their maintenance and construction needs. This amount of money comprised of two-thirds arising from the public funding. Surprisingly, the stadia were used by the private institutions mainly and benefited the community in rare occasions. This consent was implemented even when the main target of the constructions was to boost the economic development of the region. The institutions owning these sporting facilities anticipated that the constructions were to benefit the local people. In fact, there were monopolistic charges retrieved from events being held within these stadia, which were implemented without public consent and approval. The researchers recommended that these facilities should be reformed to prevent the monopolistic approaches of operating the stadiums and involving the residents in approvals and ideas. The researchers reviewed various sources of literal work in order to investigate their hypothesis. In this regard, they hypothesized that the cities performed these constructions to attract the few teams available in the nations and to facilitate economic development around them. While proving this attribute, various resources were used to support claims in respect to public provisions, economic impacts, budgets, public funding, redevelopment, and leakages among others.
Reliable sources of information must use empirical research studies to approve the validity of claims and suppositions. Essentially, this article has bided fairly to the requirements. However, most information evaluated from the discussion has not been cited. There are fundamental sections involving tallies and secondary data that are not referred to their rightful authors. Substantially, it is apparent that the abstract to present the main ideas of the discussion is not availed. The connection of points is not clear especially in respect to the idea where each point leads to the other and resolutions are retrieved from the research work. In fact, the usual presentation of empirical work through such standard title as the literature review, methods, discussion, and conclusions is not present. The researchers do not elaborate on the number of sources reviewed while arriving at a final conclusion. These attributes do not imply that the article is not relevant in any way. There is fundamental information regarding the use of public funding to support private interests. The sporting facilities must be maintained as public organizations and should be used for public meetings while assembling the sports’ requirements.
This article presents fundamental reforms and recommendations that are prudent in my future research topic. Although a lot of information is barely reliable, there are ideas that have been availed in regard to the economic development funded by the public. In fact, the researchers have made recommendations that can be used for future investigations. The ideas and instincts developed by the article are potential sources of topics in my area of investigation. Moreover, it is apparent that the management of sporting facilities and their public use can facilitate apparentness in the management and make the residents near the facilities fans within the sports industry.
Reference
Siegfried J. & Zimbalist A. (2012). The Economics of Sports Facilities and Their Communities. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 95-114.