Stadiums are bad for economy of a city and tax payers pay the cost (4 Research Paper

Stadiums are bad for saving of a urban center and tax payers pay the cost (4 real life examples, TABLES AND CHARTS) Cost enefit analysi - Research Paper utilizationHowever, the income generated in the pipe bowls does non directly benefit the taxpayers and the residents of the city. The amount that the fans spend when watching a match does not benefit those who work in the stadiums. The amount does not lead to increased growth of the local economy because the amount is not included in the local economy. The employees, who work in the stadiums and other sources of the stadiums like the taxpayers, do not benefit from the money earned. Instead, the biggest plowshare of the amount pays the players. However, most of these players in many cases do not belong to the local company. Therefore, the local community, which pays tax to help in construction of the stadiums, does not benefit too. though the stadiums collect large amounts of money, the money is spent in other locations (Barros et al. 42). Taxpayers who contribute towards the construction of the stadiums do not attend the events that take place in the stadiums yet they pay for the events indirectly through tax. Stadiums fail to meliorate and develop the local economy because it concentrates more on the intensity of tug. In this case, low levels of unskilled subject of labour activities take place within the metropolitan area. The citizenry who benefit from this type of unskilled labour do not hail high wages or salaries. This leads to a fall in the share of the income of the region because those who are highly skilled do not get a chance to get a job in the stadiums. The jobs that the local community gets are either temporary types of jobs or divide time jobs, which are not effective to improve the economy of the local region that has the stadium facility. eddy of a stadium assists a team from the community. However, the players who play for the city do not live in the city. The assumption made by the metropolitan is that even if the players do not contribute much in building of the stadium, maybe they spend their money doing shopping and paying house taxes (Andreff and Szymanski 56). However, most players have houses utmost away from the cities in where they live with their families, do shopping, and spend their leisure time. The space use to construct the stadium is large enough hinder expansion and development of a city. Those people whose land is taken to issue for the area of construction of the stadium get angry and leave the city (Morris 67). However, the people who leave the city may be good businesspeople who can invest and create job opportunities for the local community and by doing so the economy of the city can grow to a higher level. Some of those people could be good investors, and this hinders them from investing in construction of commercial buildings, which would bring more income to the city through tax and to the dwellers of the city. When a city lacks potential investor to invest in the transportation sector and other overbold type of investments, which lead to economic growth, the economy is likely to go downwards. Therefore, construction of the stadium does not backup a citys expansion and development. The cost of operating the stadium is very high. However, this amount used in maintenance and operations in the stadium