Far into the body of a deep dive by Pittsburgh’s Public Source into how much money is returned to public coffers through the sale of Steelers tickets is a too-often-forgotten economic and public policy truism.
In the wider context of whether the public should subsidize sports stadiums, Geoffrey Propheter, an associate professor in public affairs/sports finance at the University of Colorado Denver, flatly states that using public dollars to keep sports franchises in their “spiritual home” is “not a solution.”
“They’re the problem,” the professor stresses. “Subsidies just drive up the price of things.”
Bingo. Whether it be for sports stadiums or higher education (and everything on either side and in between), taxpayer subsidies give recipients cover to jack up the cost of what’s being subsidized.
That said, there’s so much more that’s so disturbingly revealing in the excellent reportage of Rich Lord in the Public Source piece.
That would include lip-service “answers” to serious questions posed to the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority (the public agency that owns the playgrounds of Pittsburgh’s three leading professional sports teams and the convention center) about new public funding for an upgraded or new Steelers’ home and to the Steelers organization itself.
Equally disturbing is the Steelers’ contention that “the stadium has proven to be a smart investment — delivering on its promise as both an economic generator and a cultural and community asset for the region.”
The shibboleth is not lost on Jake Haulk, president-emeritus of the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.
“Where is all the economic growth in Pittsburgh we were promised in 1999-2000 when Heinz Field [now Acrisure Stadium] was being financed with taxpayer dollars? Ditto the Pirates ballpark,” the Ph.D. economist reminds.
“Pittsburgh has lost nearly 30,000 people, nearly 10 percent, continuing a decades’-long slide and is struggling financially. The county has not flourished either,” Haulk says.
Oh, and there’s this interesting nugget in the Public Source dispatch:
“As a result of the structure of … capped and flat [ticket] surcharges, the nosebleed seats are effectively taxed and surcharged at a higher rate than the premium club seats and luxury boxes.
“Taxes and surcharges account for more than 10 percent of the price of Bud Light Deck or Student Rush tickets and about 8 percent of the cheapest regular seats,” reporter Lord writes. “Buyers of plush club seats, meanwhile, pay between 5 percent and 6 percent of the ticket price to public entities.”
Well isn’t that special.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
