When we think of sports subsidies, three main ones come to mind: operating subsidies that help pay day-to-day bills, infrastructure subsidies that improve, for example, roads and highway off-ramps near a sports facility, and - the biggie - stadium construction subsidies. But there is another. Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune discusses the often hidden subsidy that comes from the tax-exempt status of interest on municipal bonds. Here's Mr. Sachdev:
Such bonds offer a discounted cost of capital to private individuals in the form of below-market interest rates, paid for through the exemption of the bonds' interest income from federal income taxes.
The exemption can result in a large subsidy. The municipal-bond market has been a mess lately, but let's assume a 2 percentage-point differential between tax-exempt and market interest rates. A $225 million stadium renovation financed 100 percent with 30-year tax-exempt bonds, assuming an equal portion of the principal is retired every year, would result in interest savings of $37.7 million, according to Dennis Zimmerman, a retired economist who studied the economics of stadiums at the Congressional Budget Office.
Considering the lower interest costs, it's easy to understand why sports owners keep eating at the public trough.
Yes it does. Skip Sauer at The Sports Economist found the next few paragraphs about the TaxReform Act of 1986 by Sachdev particularly interesting.
Before 1986, professional teams generally repaid publicly financed stadium debt through revenue generated by the facility, such as tickets, parking and concessions. Such user fees met little resistance from taxpayers because general taxes were not being levied to pay for the stadium, Zimmerman said.
The 1986 Tax Reform Act placed limits on bonds issued for private activities by determining that no more than 10 percent of the debt service can be repaid by revenues from the project itself. Congress also removed sports facilities from the list of projects that remain eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Yet stadiums still manage to qualify for the tax exemption. A loophole allows owners and host cities to push 90 percent of the construction costs onto taxpayers. In other words, public revenues such as sales taxes, lottery proceeds or amusement taxes must be used to repay the bulk of debt. And owners pocket the stadium revenues.
One quick reaction I had to this was that the stadium building boom here in the states began within a few years of the passing on the Tax Reform Act. Is this a coincidence? Possibly.
Considering facilities in use in the 2003-2004 NBA season only 4 of the 28 American facilities were built before 1986. In 2004, 14 of the 32 facilities in the NFL predate the Act. Of the 24 American facilities in use in the 2003-04 NHL season, 6 predate the Act.
The NFL numbers are skewed because 5 of the teams that played in facilities built before the Act was passed have new stadiums now (Arizona, Dallas, the Jets, the Giants, and Indiana) and 5 others saw their facilities get major facelifts (Chicago, Kansas City, San Diego, Oakland, and Buffalo - the Superdome underwent massive renovations after Katrina, so I leave that one out) after the Act was passed. An argument can be made that some of the renovations and new facilities were needed to update old stadiums, but it's hard not to think that the incentives in the Act at least quickened the pace.