Missouri should be as cognizant of the benefits student-athletes provide public universities as any other state. The University of Missouri athletic department brought in $107.3 million worth of revenue in 2018, and its men’s basketball ticket revenue rose nearly 70 percent after signing highly-touted recruit Michael Porter Jr. in 2017. Although student-athletes do receive a sort of payment in free tuition and room and board, this compensation often pales in comparison to the massive sums of money the players generate. Shouldn’t Missouri allow student-athletes greater opportunities to profit from their position in the market?

Other states are already addressing the question of student-athlete compensation. Both Colorado and California have proposed bills in the past few months granting student-athletes the ability to sign endorsement deals, superseding the authority of the NCAA. Federal legislators have even gotten in on the action, as several members of the House of Representatives have introduced a bill that would alter the tax code definition of an amateur to allow college athletes to profit from public appearances.

Legislation like this provides benefits for all involved parties. It allows student-athletes whose performance merits it to earn money without imposing costs on universities. Since schools no longer use third-party endorsement deals or individualized merchandise, students profiting from such deals wouldn’t interfere with university revenue. Moreover, providing these opportunities to student-athletes may give Missouri schools an edge in recruiting battles. In short, these policies introduce the free market to college athletics, and if Missouri acts it could be a win for the state.

The post Bring the Free Market to College Athletics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are innumerable instances where a city’s expenditures far exceed the tax revenues brought in by a publicly funded stadium (the Edwards Jones Dome in St Louis and Yankee Stadium in New York to name a few). It makes no sense (or cents) to promote the financing of a stadium for tax revenues when spending exceeds income.

Not only does public funding of a stadium severely hamstring city government, but a quick analysis reveals that the gains promised to the city’s economy rarely materialize. According to a 2008 study conducted by professors at Holy Cross, professional sports facilities, and even teams themselves “have little or no significant positive impacts, or even negative impacts on the local economy.” Why? Because the vast majority of fans who attend these stadium events are area residents who would likely be spending their money in the city regardless of the existence or location of the stadium. The same idea holds true for job creation. The thousands of jobs required to build a stadium are only temporary and often just taken from other projects occurring around the city.

This is not to say that professional sports franchises and their stadiums offer no benefit to cities. Sports teams promote civic pride and can unify city residents. If the Royals want to build a downtown stadium with their own resources, that’s fine. But the idea that a publicly-financed stadium will pay for itself by catalyzing economic growth is a tired, disproven argument.

In fact, Kansas City should have already learned this lesson. Almost two years ago, Patrick Tuohey detailed concerns about Wyandotte County funding a similar project for the semi-professional Kansas City T-Bones. Taxpayer subsidies could not overcome a lack of demand. The T-Bones’ failure continued and the owners are looking to sell. When it comes to subsidizing stadiums, policymakers should heed Breaking Bad’s Gustavo Fring and never make the same mistake twice.

The post New Downtown Royals Stadium Would Cost City a King’s Ransom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.