2. CITATION: Marc Edelman, Current Issues In
Public Policy: Article: Sports And The City: How To
Curb Professional Sports Teams’ Demands For Free
Public Stadiums, 6 Rutgers J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 35
(2008).
AUTHOR: Marc Edelman, Assistant, Professor of
Law, Northwestern University School of Law.

3. The author concludes the government's historic hands-off
policy regulating the sports industry has allowed America's
four main professional sports leagues to exploit their
monopoly power on local government and public. As a
result, professional sports teams have reaped billions of
dollars in local subsidies that governments would spend to
improve public projects, etc. He proposes Congress should
enact a bill curbing stadium financing and/or breakup
major ball clubs.

4. The author cited to Florida Supreme Court cases Brandes v.
City of Deerfield Beach (1966), Poe v. Hillsborough Cnty (Fla.
1997), Braman v. Miami-Dade Cnty (2009) as well as
Washington Supreme Court case CLEAN v. State (1996). He
also relies on the Revenue Act of 1913, the Revenue and
Expenditure Control Act of 1968, and 1986 Tax Reform Act.
He also relied on provisions of Washington Constitution and
Florida law as they relate to stadium financing.

5. Edelman makes a compelling argument based on Florida
and Washington court decisions as well as Washington
Constitution and Florida law.
He also proposes that Congress should enact a bill that
would deter stadium financing as a possible solution as
well as breakup four major ball clubs’ monopoly.
Further, he firmly believes that the revenues used for
stadium financing should be used to benefit the public –
not the sports teams owners.
.

6. CITATION: Brian P. Yates, Whether Building A New
Sports Arena Will Revitalize Downtown And Make The
Team A Winner, 17 U. Miami Bus. L. Rev. 269 (2009)
AUTHOR: Brian P. Yates, University of Miami
School of Law, J.D. 2009, and associate in the Jeffer
Mangles & Butler ‘s Sports Law Group and
Litigation Department.

7. The author concludes that stadium financing should stop as
subsidized professional sports teams hurt public welfare and
encourage the inefficient operation of sports teams. He also
proposes a bill to prevent sports teams from accepting public
subsidies and to curb their bargaining power on the public.
He also thinks that building an arena is best choice to achieve
economic revitalization as arenas are less expensive and more
versatile than baseball parks or football stadiums.

8. The author relied on the provisions of the 1986 Tax Reform
Act; TIF guidelines and cited Florida Supreme Court cases
Brandes v. City of Deerfield Beach (1966) , Poe v. Hillsborough
Cnty (Fla. 1997), Braman v. Miami-Dade Cnty (2009) as well as
Washington Supreme Court case CLEAN v. State (1996). He
also relied on data from studies conducted by a
Congressional Research Service, economists Robert Baade
and Allen Sanderson, and the Maryland Department of
Business and Economic Development. He further proposes
Congress should enact a bill to amend unnecessary stadium
financing.

9. The author makes a compelling argument against stadium
financing, relying on the provisions of the 1986 Tax Reform
Act; TIF guidelines; and citied several Florida and
Washington Supreme cases.
He also proposes that arenas build in downtown would be
less expensive and add economic revitalization of
downtown areas in cities.
Further, he proposes that Congress should enact a bill to
modify or prohibit stadium financing.

10. Citation: Logan E. Gans, Take me out to the ball game,
but should the crowd's taxes pay for it, Virginia Tax
Review. 29.4 (Spring 2010): p751.
Author: Logan E. Gans, cum laude, University of
Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law (2010); B.A.,
summa cum laude, Emory University (2007), and Tax
Associate at McGladrey law firm.

11. The author concludes that stadium financing should be
stopped as present federal tax code allows tax-exempt bonds
to fund stadiums while local governments repay these bonds
with their own local taxes instead of allowing communities
to spend their taxes on worthwhile public welfare projects.
He also proposes that Congress should enact a bill to amend
the federal tax code to disallow the section 103(a) exclusion
for new stadium bonds and to allow tax-exempt renovations
of current stadiums every twenty years...

12. The author relies extensively on the provisions of the
Revenue Act of 1913 and 1986 Tax Reform Act, section
103(a) as well as the guidelines of the present Federal
Tax Code, namely section 142(a). He also refers to
various sections of the Maryland, Washington, and
Florida Constitutions as they relate to stadium
financing.

13. Gans make a compelling argument against stadium
financing, relying on present Federal Tax Code which
includes stadium facilities in which an “exempt facility
bond" can be made tax-exempt under the section 103
exclusion. He also outlines his argument with detailed
facts.
He further proposes that such bonds should be used to
improve more necessary infra-structure, such as power
plant upgrades, better roads, or more modern airports.
The author proposes a detailed bill that Congress should
enact to eliminate and/or amend stadium financing.