A research study conducted by Murray (2009) addressed the controversial arguments about the appropriateness of using public funds to finance arenas, stadiums, and other additional amenities for sporting activities. In the United States of America and Canada, it was claimed that the franchising activities were owned privately by profit-making businesses. Primarily, the parties involved in stadium activities had requested these teams to participate in supporting its maintenance. In fact, the stakeholders argued that the public should not provide financial support to facilitate the interests of private institutions. However, the institutions dictated that the sporting activities boosted the economic prowess of the surrounding communities and therefore recommended public funding to retain the stadiums which the institution could not manage financially.
In this regard, Murray examined this controversy from a liberal egalitarian manner. In a bid to accomplish this task, the researcher held the position against public funding for nonessential expenses except for extremely idealized conditions. The argument was supported through the increased frequency of debate on the prevailing funding and lack of satisfaction from the parties involved where Murray evaluated the history of the financing in USA and Canada. Also, the argument was supported by the liberal egalitarianism against the funding, economic arguments in relation to Rawls’ theories of justice, and compliance to the national conditions for legitimate public financing. However, the researcher concluded that the findings of the research might provide mixed outcomes. Therefore, the state should make legitimate conclusions regarding the public funding within these amenities.
This article provides essential counsel on the use and funding of stadiums. It has been presented through arguments and critical support of the ideas regarding funding. The researcher not only applies prevailing activities and demonstrates the roots of the problem, but also cultivates his position in a liberal position. However, it is much easier to criticize this article from a negative perspective. For instance, the researcher argues from a personal perspective using the first person singular. He presents his feelings and thoughts through the article. This attribute lowers the reliability of the article. Furthermore, the article is availed as a debate or an argument to support personal claim. Similarly, an argument can be presented against the claims of the researcher. In fact, the debate does not have any solid outcomes. The final outcomes show uncertainty and lack of confidence in the debate. The article presents high levels of unreliability and personal-centered claims without solid justifications. Finally, it is not an empirical study that can be used to justify claims since the procedures for testing claims are not availed.
The ideas from the article enlighten about the background of my future research topic on sporting. Essentially, the presence of a well-maintained and funded stadium is fundamental to the sporting practices. In fact, failure to meet the funding processes of a stadium may arrest the final outcomes of a sporting activity. For instance, the fans may be restricted to enter into the stadium due to its state where it is not maintained properly. The understanding of the real functioning of the stadium financing processes and the prevailing problems in this area is vital for future studies. They can assist to develop new ideas and identify new areas of future research. In this way, the sporting practices and their development can be realized and made prevalent for community-based benefits.
Reference
Murray, D. (2009). Reflections on Public Funding for Professional Sports Facilities. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 36(5), 22-39.