An Auckland central city stadium wouldn't get Government funding, Prime Minister Bill English says.Given that all economic studies on stadiums show that they are white elephant such news will please economists, if not many non-economists. The view of economists is summarised by Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys in their article Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Subsidies for Sports Franchises, Stadiums, and Mega-Events?
A stadium is back on the cards after Auckland Mayor Phil Goff commissioned work on the feasibility of a new central city site costing up to $1 billion.
This morning English said the Government's position remained the same - it would not put up any money towards a stadium.
"Our top priority right now is this billion-dollar housing infrastructure fund, which we're in intense negotiations with the council about right now. That's going to take all our attention and cash for a while," English told The Am Show.
"It hasn't been raised with us. It's not a high priority. We're not aiming to put money into it."
This paper reviews the empirical literature assessing the effects of subsidies for professional sports franchises and facilities. The evidence reveals a great deal of consistency among economists doing research in this area. That evidence is that sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation, those arguments most frequently used by subsidy advocates. The paper also relates survey evidence showing that economists in general oppose sports subsidies. In addition to reviewing the empirical literature, we describe the economic intuition that probably underlies the strong consensus among economists against sports subsidies.Now if we could just encourage the Auckland council to follow central government's lead.