Even though taxes are indeed a positive outcome, the picture is more complex. There’s private property opportunity cost (what else would that land generate in taxes if it weren’t being used for a stadium), public service opportunity cost (spending the tax on stadiums instead of primary functions of government), the part-time land use, etc. There are policy studies which go into more detail.

But my primary objection is philosophical, not pragmatic. What is government for? Should government subsidize massage parlors if they bring in tons of tax revenue? How about opium dens? Different people select different leisure activities. Which should be paid for, or subsidized by taxpayers? All of them? None of them? Only those which can bring in big money…like drug consumption?

Many lucrative pastimes do just fine absent tax subsidies. Football would too. And I see it as an abuse of what government exists to provide.

Obviously it is better for the city and the taxpayers if we can have our cake and eat it too with regards to a privately funded stadium, but that isn’t always an option.

Amendment XXXII clearly states:

“The right of the people to make other citizens pay for multimillion-dollar buildings where millionaire professional athletes play some people’s favorite recreational pastimes while other people pay for admission or sit on the couch and watch from home shall not be infringed.”

Yeah. They need my tax money for their building. Even more ethical to extort extra money by threatening to not use the building the already built at gun-point. Lovely sentiment.