There have been various controversial issues regarding the sources of funds for stadium development. Researchers have evaluated these structural appearances of the stadiums in economic and political dimension (Gratton, Shibli, & Coleman, 2005). Some researchers argue that stadiums’ developments are private issues and should be constructed as public resources through government funding. However, the proponents indicate that development is rooted in stadium establishment, which provides localized economic benefits to the residents and nearby communities. However, sufficient political influences have been involved in the establishment of stadiums that do not cause significant public benefits. In this regard, the proposed study argues these controversies in order to reveal the economic and political structures depicted by these stadiums as well as how these aspect influence each other.
Introduction
This research will avail fundamental insight regarding the position advantages and disadvantages of the prevailing funding requirement as well as the political implications arising from it. Furthermore, some political issues involved in supporting public funding for community achievements will be evaluated from various academic resources. This area of investigation will inform the scholars about the importance of stadium developments for regional expansion and attraction of foreign income to the country. It will either convince the government, donor, and the private investors to provide funding in order to develop them. Furthermore, the research will pose recommendations for the structure of economy and politics surrounding stadium development, which would be used for other studies. This aspect implies that the study can be used to raise new ideas and suggestions to develop the proposed research study.
Researchers have performed studies addressing the topic of this proposal in varying dimensions, which are fundamental to the proposed study. After Coates (2007) evaluated the literature of other researcher, he retrieved information about the perception of community involvement in public construction concerning them. Coates pointed out that large-scale funding for stadium development was not justified on its returns. The cost of construction and maintenance was too much and its returns could only be realized after long term plans. Moreover, Coates noted various advantages associated with these facilities especially to the people residing near them.
In a similar evaluation to Coates (2007), Murray (2009) boosted the approach of the public funding by evaluating the controversial arguments raised by earlier researchers. The main agenda of the arguments was prevalent in the private ownership of stadiums constructed and maintained publicly. The research found a lot of literature showing that the private organizations holding the sports’ events ought to participate in the constructions and maintenance of the infrastructures. Most literal scholar resources bid against public funding for stadiums used for private interests with no or little gains for the tax payers. However, Murray accepts that that are controversial perspectives that demand attention before making a valid conclusion for the research. In this respect, it was indicated that the research had provided contradictory and mixed outcomes that could not facilities the establishment of a valid conclusion.
Coates and Humphreys (2003) presented a prudent research evaluating the economic relevance of sports’ facilities. The leaders from politics and community argued that the facilities boosted the economic state of a region. The researchers paid attention to the creation of job attributed to the sports’ facilities and net new spending on annual basis prior to the construction of the facilities. However, the researchers found that the economist had no evidence for elevated economic advantages to the urban areas after the constructions. However, they concluded that there was a possibility of positive economic development from these facilities, which could not be aggregated to SMSAs level.
In another research evaluation, Johnson and Whitehead (2000) applied contingent valuation method (CVM) to measure the public goods arising from the 2 projects. The government had indicated that the public goods and positive externalities could not be availed. Although the results of their research could not be generalized, it found that CVM illustrated the feasibility of its application to evaluate subsidized stadiums.
Essentially, these suggestions and investigations provides apparent controversial of ideologies and research findings. The outcomes of the researches are either showing how stadium developments lead to economic growth. In fact, they present issues about how the structures of economy and politics are situated in or against the support of public funding. This attribute implies that the researches are conflicting on these margins of thoughts.
Brief Outline
It is paramount to stipulate the suggested research plan. This section shows how the research will proceed. Each section of this outline has been elaborate depending on its intended content.
- Abstract. This section will contain the shortened format of the research. It is a brief format involving showing what the basics of the research is a summarized form. It will only contain such key issues as significance of the study, hypothesis, methods applied, results and conclusions. The abstract will comprise of the most used word terms as the keywords.
- Introduction. This section will introduce the topic and the reasons that led to the establishment of the research. It will provide reasoning on the establishment of fundamental issues related to the topic including how the research is important to other people as well as how it came to be. This attribute implies that the problem and thesis statements are contained in this section. Furthermore, the section can be partition into the background where the information regarding the prevailing issues triggering the research is developed. The background is supported by resources which provide evidence to the claims presented from the issues happening at the current world.
- Literature Review. In this section, previous empirical researches will be discusses on each paragraph. Each paragraph will contain a discussion of the problem statement, hypothesis, and significance of study, data collection, methodology, results and conclusions. However, all the empirical works considered for this section will be related to the economic and political structure of stadium development. This may involve issues such as public and private funding for stadium development, how politics influences the funding and construction, and the involvement of community in the building.
- Methodology. The methodology will inform how the review will be performed. This section will include the specific number and state of scholarly materials evaluated during the research. It will indicate how the samples of the research were selected.
- Results. This section will show the data collected without laying discussions of its whereabouts. The data will be described without aiming at any conclusion.
- Discussion. This section will make sense of the collected data and information from the sample. Its aim will be to attain a certain ending from the review.
- Conclusion. The conclusion will contain the final remarks of the researcher. It will indicate what the findings of the research supposed.
- References. The citations made within the paper will be availed in a list formatted in APA.
- Appendix. This section will contain the figures and tables to be referenced, especially indicating the identified sample resources and other things.
References
Coates, D. (2007). Stadiums and Arenas: Economic Development or Economic Redistribution? Contemporary Economic Policy, 25(4), 565-577.
Coates, D. & Humphreys, B. (2003). Professional Sports Facilities, Franchises and Urban Economic Development. Public Finance and Management, 3(3), 335-357.
Gratton, C., Shibli, S., & Coleman, R. (2005). Sport and Economic Regeneration in Cities. Urban Studies, 46(6), 985-999.
Johnson, B., & Whitehead, J. (2000). Value of Public Goods from Sports Stadiums: The CVM Approach. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(1), 48-58.
Murray, D. (2009). Reflections on Public Funding for Professional Sports Facilities. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 36(5), 22-39.