part iv case study financing a college football stadium

Dollars - ESPN Playbook

Multiple ways to finance college stadiums.

ESPN.com college football writers and bloggers are writing about escalating facilities costs in college football and ranking school facilities .

As they note, building, renovating and expanding stadiums can cost tens of millions of dollars. So how does all of that get paid for, given how few athletic departments are financially self-sustaining?

The answer is not as exciting as watching De'Anthony Thomas of Oregon score a touchdown. But how costs are covered certainly can be more important to the program in the long run.

The most common way to pay for stadium improvements is the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. A bond isn’t all that different from a loan in the sense that it is, in its most basic form, a contract to repay borrowed money with interest at fixed intervals. Municipalities, counties and state governments generally can issue bonds, which are governed by federal and state law. The purchase of a bond by an investor provides the money needed for a stadium project, with the investor gaining tax-free interest payments in return.

Public and private universities and their various related entities -- sometimes including the athletic department or athletic department foundations -- often issue bonds because it is cheaper to do so than paying higher interest rates on a conventional loan. The National Association of College and University Business Officers estimates the interest savings over a 30-year period can be $415,000 per $1 million borrowed.

Credit rating agencies rate bonds based on an entity’s creditworthiness, which can be affected by the amount of outstanding debt, endowment and other factors. The bond rating directly influences the interest rate for new debt. So a university may reach a point where issuing any new debt would lower its credit rating so much that it no longer makes sense to use bond financing, meaning the athletic department would have to turn to other fundraising methods for new facilities.

The Tiger Athletic Foundation, which supports LSU and its athletic department, uses a couple of financing methods. In 1999, the foundation issued $43.6 million in bonds for renovations and improvements to the east-side upper deck of Tiger Stadium. And the foundation issued $90 million more in bonds in 2004 to finance the renovation of the west-side upper deck.

A provision of the bond agreements for both issuances requires the athletic department to pay rent of a combined $4.5 million per year, which is the second example of athletic facility finance.

Some universities will pay for construction projects, then rent the facilities to the athletic departments. At Ohio State, the athletic department paid more than $2 million to rent the Jerome Schottenstein Center for the 2011-12 school year for men’s and women’s basketball and men’s ice hockey. It paid another $1.2 million for its share of operational expenses for the McCorkle Aquatic Pavilion. In addition, the athletic department paid rent for two buildings used for academic services for athletes: the Younkin Success Center at a cost of $501,338 and the Fawcett Center at $76,613. The athletic department also paid $986,000 for use of the Fawcett Center for athletic offices.

A city, county or other outside entity sometimes also acts as landlord, as is the case with county-owned Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, where South Florida plays its home games. In 2011, the agreement called for $145,000 per game in licensing fees for use of the lower bowl and two club lounges. In addition, an 8 percent surcharge was added to the sale of each ticket and remitted to the stadium authority.

Selling corporate naming rights is also used. Louisville has sold naming rights for its football stadium and basketball arena -- to competitors, no less. KFC Yum!, which owns Pizza Hut, bought the naming rights to the basketball arena for 10 years at $13.5 million. Papa John’s got the naming rights to the football stadium for the bargain price of $5 million through 2040, but the company has donated more $22 million toward the stadium overall.

Fundraising campaigns also can be used to get money from donors. In rare instances, a single donor can fund a building or renovation. Such is the case at Oregon, where Nike founder Phil Knight is expanding the Casanova Center. The university is leasing the land to a company owned by Knight that is constructing the building and will then donate it back to the university as a gift.

Given the various funding options, most athletic departments will use a combination of them.

Lisa Rudd, assistant director of athletics for financial affairs at Virginia Tech, said her department considers a variety of financing options for each project.

“We always look at a variety of options for funding major projects, and they include resources from our internal budget such as cash reserves and current revenue flows, as well as fundraising and debt components,” Rudd said. “How we fund each specific project depends on the cost and cash flow timing of that specific project, whether or not we have resources available internally … whether a fundraising effort would be successful, [what] current debt rates [are], and the university debt load as a whole.”

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Public funding for sports stadiums: A primer and research roundup

Team owners looking to build or revamp big league sports stadiums often seek public funds in the hundreds of millions of dollars. But research conducted over decades indicates these investments almost never lead to massive economic gains for host cities.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Clark Merrefield, The Journalist's Resource April 10, 2024

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/economics/sports-stadium-public-financing/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

In June 2023, Nevada legislators approved $380 million in public funding for a 30,000-seat ballpark for the Oakland A’s, who are expected to throw their first pitch in Las Vegas in 2028 after Major League Baseball owners approved the franchise move in November.

It’s the latest public commitment of hundreds of millions of dollars for a professional sports stadium. In the U.S., most franchises in the four major sports leagues — MLB, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League — are valued at over $1 billion.

Across those leagues there have been eight new stadiums or arenas built since 2020, at a total construction cost of roughly $3.3 billion, according to a September 2023 paper in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. About $750 million in public funds went toward those construction projects, the paper finds.

When government dollars are allocated it’s usually through a legislature passing a law, or by public vote. Voters in Kansas City, for example, in April 2024 widely rejected a sales tax bump to pay for a new downtown stadium for MLB’s Royals.

“I like to say that you can fit a majority of the city council in the owner’s box but you can’t fit a majority of the electorate,” says Kennesaw State University economist John Charles Bradbury .

The approved public funding in Las Vegas represents about one quarter of the total cost of the planned stadium, pegged at $1.5 billion. Proponents estimate the A’s stadium in Las Vegas will create thousands of jobs and have an annual economic impact of $1.3 billion, news outlets have reported.

Economic research for decades has found that, by and large, the fiscal returns for residents — in the form of increased economic activity and job growth — are far smaller than public expenditures, which have recently approached or exceeded half a billion dollars per stadium.

This primer will help journalists understand the history of public financing for stadium construction and empower them to use academic research to interrogate claims that these projects mean big bucks for communities.

The research also finds:

• Journalists often report figures from press releases and economic impact statements without questioning the assumptions of those analyses.
• Of the dozens of stadiums built in the past two decades for the four largest American sports leagues, about 4 in 10 were financed at least in part with municipal bonds exempt from federal taxes — which places part of the financial burden of stadium financing on residents nationwide.
• Football and baseball stadiums may increase foot traffic to nearby businesses, but basketball and hockey arenas do not.
• Overall, stadiums tend to shift economic activity, not create new spending.
• Expansion teams are likely to favor markets that already have strong employment and business growth.

A coming stadium construction boom?

Las Vegas is hardly alone. Economists have found that every 30 years or so there’s a wave of public financing for building stadiums or revamping existing ones.

A construction boom may already be under way in the U.S.

For example, Wisconsin will provide $500 million to renovate the Milwaukee Brewers ballpark, and more than $1 billion in public bonds will go toward a new stadium for the NFL’s Tennessee Titans. And the MLB’s Tampa Bay Rays have asked St. Petersburg city councilors to approve more than $400 million for a new ballpark along with nearby infrastructure improvements.

If you’re covering public financing for sports franchises, you’ll want to know what the research says about this topic. This is critical to providing thorough coverage to audiences.

A brief history of public financing for sports stadiums

Modern stadiums were first constructed during the early and mid-1900s, around the two world wars.

“Sports venues were almost exclusively privately financed until the 1930s, when they became largely public ventures,” write the authors of a recent paper in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, featured in the research roundup below.

More stadiums were built as leagues expanded and teams moved cities throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

Another construction boom came in the 1990s, with many new stadiums replacing older ones, along with new venues for expansion franchises.

“The median public share of venue construction costs declined from 70% in the 1990s and 2000s to approximately half of construction costs in the 2010s,” write the authors of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management paper. “Newly opened and planned venues in the 2020s have received roughly 40% of funding from taxpayers.”

While the share of public financing has fallen, the authors find that the amount of public money has risen, from a median of $168 million in public funds per stadium in the 1990s, to $350 million in the 2010s, to $500 million in the 2020s across the four major U.S. sports leagues.  

Even stadiums ostensibly built with private funds can come with public costs.

For example, the New England Patriots built Gillette Stadium in 2002 without direct public dollars, but the franchise benefitted from at least $70 million in state money for nearby road, sewer and other infrastructure improvements, according to the Boston Globe, which the paper authors cite.

Economic activity and stadiums: ‘A transfer of wealth’

While Fenway Park in Boston and Wrigley Field and Soldier Field in Chicago have stood for around 100 years, many stadiums built in the past 50 years have already been replaced for a variety of reasons, despite better construction materials and methods.

For example, the Texas Rangers’ ballparks have been replaced every 27.5 years, on average, while Atlanta Braves’ ballparks have been replaced after 26 years, on average. Among the major sports leagues, 31 stadiums and 31 arenas will be 30 years old or more by 2030, according to Bradbury and co-authors in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management paper.

Journalists covering asks of public money for private sports projects should be aware of the large body of research on these public investments.

Despite perennial claims from team owners that building new stadiums or revamping existing ones will result in a fiscal and jobs boom for a city or region, research consistently shows that the hundreds of millions of public dollars that are often outlaid are not typically a sound investment.

“You might see a little bit of a resurgence in the area right around the stadium, but it comes at a cost to less commerce in the outlying area, which is exactly what we’d expect,” says Bradbury, who is the current president of the North American Association of Sports Economists . “This is just a transfer of wealth within the community.”

This transfer of wealth may indeed be the point for some city officials, as College of the Holy Cross economist Victor Matheson explains in an October 2018 essay , also in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.

For example, when the taxpayers of Arlington, Texas, finance local stadiums, such as for the Dallas Cowboys and the Rangers, the games those teams play move consumer dollars from other parts of the state to Arlington.

“While, again, regional economic activity is unchanged, Arlington’s economy benefits at the expense of other cities and towns in the area,” Matheson writes. He also notes that fiscal reports produced by sports franchises “have been shown to suffer from significant theoretical flaws that make their conclusions suspect at best, and simply false at worst.”

But Matheson argues that while the current level of public spending on sports stadiums is out of balance with the returns on those investment, in certain circumstances some level of public funding may be appropriate.

He points to the 2004 Athens Olympics as a catalyst for infrastructure development there, and a minor league baseball stadium in Worcester, Massachusetts, as providing the political impetus for $35 million in transportation funding from the state, including to make a particularly dangerous intersection near the ballpark safer.

“Obviously, it would be better for local taxpayers to get the needed infrastructure improvements without the wasteful expense of hosting the Olympics or building a baseball stadium, but government activities are not always without friction, and using a stadium project to spur other more useful infrastructure projects may be a second-best solution,” Matheson writes.

The cost-per-taxpayer of a stadium partially financed through public funds may be small in some cases, but it can also be relatively large. Oklahoma City Thunder ownership, for example, is contributing $50 million to build their new arena, compared with the public outlay of $900 million, which comes out to thousands of dollars per adult in the city.  

“People often ask me, they’ll say, ‘Well, you’re always against stadiums.’ And I’ll say, ‘Well, yeah, my guess is most pulmonologists are against smoking,’” says Bradbury. “I mean, the evidence is clear. And I think that journalists feel a need to cover all sides of an issue, and I totally understand that. But it’s about accurate coverage, not equal-balance coverage.”

Research roundup

Public Policy Toward Professional Sports Stadiums: A Review John Charles Bradbury, Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, September 2023.

The study: The authors break down a range of policy considerations for public funding of stadiums. They provide a history of stadium funding since the 1900s, examine research efforts to quantify intangible social benefits of sports teams, describe prominent public funding mechanisms and cast a critical eye toward news reporting.

The findings: With many large U.S. cities facing fiscal crises in the 1980s, government officials began to push the narrative of sports stadiums as economic drivers, “where each dollar spent generates more than one dollar of economic activity as it is recirculated within the community — thereby growing employment income, property values and tax revenues,” the authors write.

Economists began to study the issue around this time. By the turn of the century, “economists were largely in agreement that stadiums were poor public investments,” in terms of tangible benefits, like jobs and spending, “and more recent studies continue to confirm these findings.” Economists then began to explore whether there were intangible benefits to residents of a city with a professional sports franchise — the cultural pride from living in a “big league” city, for example.

One way economists do this is through something called the contingent valuation method , which surveys residents on what they would personally pay for their city to host a sports team. These individual values are then extrapolated to a wider population to put a dollar value on the intangible factors residents enjoy from simply having a professional franchise, whether they go to games or not. Based on results from seven studies conducted in the 2000s and 2010s, “non-use values” amount to “13% of total capital construction costs and 16% of public contributions,” suggesting that “intangible social benefits of hosting professional sports teams are well below levels needed to justify typical subsidies.”

In looking at news coverage of public subsidy proposals for sports franchises, the authors note that “economic impact estimates from advocacy reports may be repeated without external validation of credibility, and press release statements from stadium boosters are quoted in stories without critical assessment.”

The authors write: “As a potential institutional reform, communities should assess all stadium proposals through referendums and initiatives, a once-common practice which has declined over the last few decades. Public votes ensure that subsidies are congruent with voter preferences and allow time for careful consideration of all relevant costs and benefits, so that voters can make informed decisions.”

Growth Effects of Sports Franchises, Stadiums and Arena: 15 Years Later Dennis Coates. Chapter from The Economic Impact of Sports Facilities, Franchises, and Events, October 2023.

The study: The author, who conducted foundational research with Brad Humphreys starting in the mid-1990s into how sports stadiums affect per capita income, returns to this question with another 17 years of data, from 1969 to 2011. This analysis adds hockey and soccer franchises in addition to MLB, NFL and NBA — along with the American Basketball Association, which merged with the NBA in 1976 — and covers all urban areas in the U.S., including those without a professional team.

The findings: Average personal income grew about 1.4% per year over the period studied, regardless of whether there was a sports stadium in the area. The economic effects of sports franchises account for less than 1.5% of local economic activity, measured by personal income, wages and salaries, and wages per job.

The author writes: “The results of this exercise are largely consistent with the findings of Coates and Humphreys and of numerous other studies that have found that the effect of sports franchises and stadium and arena construction on local economies is weak or nonexistent. Indeed, franchises, stadiums, and arenas may be harmful rather than beneficial to the local community.”

Do Local Businesses Benefit from Sports Facilities? The Case of Major League Sports Stadiums and Arenas Timur Abbiasov and Dmitry Sedov. Regional Science and Urban Economics, January 2023.

The study: The authors explore a single economic consequence of sports stadiums — foot traffic to nearby retail and food establishments — in a single year, 2018, for MLB NBA, NFL and NHL franchises. Precise foot traffic for 92 sports facilities and surrounding businesses is from SafeGraph, a company that tracks “location data of mobile devices with installed participating applications,” the authors write.

They acknowledge that “the grounds for subsidizing professional sports are weak,” based on past research, but also cite news reports suggesting businesses near sports stadiums suffered curtailed revenue during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The findings: Every 100 visits to a baseball stadium generates 29 visits to nearby restaurants and similar establishments, and six visits to retail stores. The authors find similar results for football stadiums, but little business sale spillover for basketball and hockey arenas. The authors note that professional football and baseball games typically draw much larger crowds than basketball and hockey games.

Basketball and hockey games have a slight negative effect on foot traffic to health, finance and education-related businesses. The authors note that these sports often have arenas located in central business districts, which may lead people who are not going to a game to avoid those areas during game time.

The authors “find that a median sports facility generates approximately $11.3 million of annual additional spending for food and accommodation and retail businesses, with the aggregate spillovers varying substantially across facilities and sports.”

They do not account for negative effects of sports stadiums — such as increased crime, as explained in the next paper — or the revenue of nearby businesses compared with the public costs of building a stadium or improving an existing one.

The authors write: “Our results indicate that the chances of a community economically benefitting from a sports facility via the spillover channel are higher if the facility hosts a popular team and is visited frequently.”

The Impact of Professional Sports Franchises and Venues on Local Economies: A Comprehensive Survey John Charles Bradbury, Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys. Journal of Economic Surveys, September 2022.

The study: The authors review the findings of more than 130 studies on economic outcomes of sports stadiums published between 1974 and 2022, the bulk of them published since 2000.

The findings: Local economic activity is by and large unaffected by sports stadiums, “and the level of venue subsidies typically provided far exceeds any observed economic benefits,” the authors write. There is “deep agreement in research findings” that “sports venues are not an appropriate channel for local development policy,” they add.

Sports stadiums can lead to positive effects for communities, such as improved amenities, like pedestrian-friendly zones. But they also come with negative effects. For example, research links sports events with crime. The “positive association between crime and sporting events is perhaps the most robust empirical finding in the economic effects of sports literature,” the authors write.

Why do sports stadiums continue to garner public subsidies? Among other reasons, such as team owners threatening to relocate, the authors note that the benefits of sports stadium subsidies are concentrated in a few hands — namely and primarily the owners.

Costs, meanwhile, are spread across taxpayers. The public cost of Camden Yards in Baltimore came to $15 per local household per year, according to research from the Brookings Institution that the authors cite. They suggest this creates a situation in which wealthy beneficiaries have great incentive to lobby politicians and advertise in favor of subsidies, with little incentive to mobilize opposition because each taxpayer’s individual cost may be low.

The authors write: “Though findings have become more nuanced, recent analyses continue to confirm the decades-old consensus of very limited economic impacts of professional sports teams and stadiums. Even with added nonpecuniary social benefits from quality-of-life externalities and civic pride, welfare improvements from hosting teams tend to fall well short of covering public outlays.”

Tax-Exempt Municipal Bonds and the Financing of Professional Sports Stadiums Austin Drukker, Ted Gayer and Alexander Gold. National Tax Journal, March 2020.

The study: Of the 57 stadiums built in the past two decades for the four largest American sports leagues, about 4 in 10 were financed at least in part with municipal bonds exempt from federal taxes. State or local governments issue the bonds, then the interest bond buyers earn is exempt from federal taxes, meaning “tax-exempt municipal bonds confer an indirect federal subsidy to the issuers,” the authors write. Bond buyers accept lower interest rates — saving interest payment dollars for states and localities — because they know they will get a tax break on their investment return.

NFL stadiums are the most expensive, with an average cost of $1 billion. But baseball stadiums are most heavily financed through tax-exempt bonds. On average, $466 million of baseball stadium costs are financed through such bonds. The authors examine the estimated value of those bonds issued since 2000.

The findings: The value of the federal tax exemption is $3.6 billion across the $16.7 billion worth of bonds issued to finance stadium construction, the authors estimate. But the estimated loss in federal tax revenue is considerably higher: $4.3 billion. The authors explain that the reason for the difference is that a portion of bond buyers would still buy those bonds at a lower return rate than the subsidy offers.

The authors write: “ Most residents of, say, New York, Massachusetts, or California — unless they are avid fans — gain nothing from the Washington-area football team’s decision to locate in Virginia, Maryland, or the District of Columbia. Yet, under current federal law, taxpayers throughout the country ultimately subsidize the stadium, wherever it is located … Ultimately, the problem is one of rent seeking, since professional sports leagues are able to extract local and federal subsidies by exerting concentrated power while the costs of the subsidies are diffuse.”

Economic Development Effects of Major and Minor League Teams and Stadiums Nola Agha and Daniel Rascher. Journal of Sports Economics, November 2020.

The study: The authors explore whether new stadiums for major and minor league teams affect economic development, measured by employment and business growth. They use Census Bureau data from 2004 to 2012 covering 871 markets. There were 65 new teams, 67 teams that departed a city and 68 new stadiums built during the period studied. The included top-tier professional leagues and their development affiliates are MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, Major League Soccer, and the Women’s National Basketball Association. The WNBA saw three teams join and five leave the league but was the only professional league without a new arena during the period studied.

The findings: The authors note that much research has focused on the economic effects of major league venues. Stadiums and arenas built between 2000 and 2018 cost more than $40 billion total. Spending on minor league venues account for a sizeable chunk over that time — $9.6 billion, according to the authors, and many of those developmental team venues are in the same market as major league teams.

On the whole, new major league teams and new stadiums do not affect economic development, and the findings suggest teams tend to enter markets with strong employment and business growth. New minor league sports teams also do not tend to affect employment, but for markets between 100,000 and 499,000 people , the findings suggest that new minor league sports stadiums can lead to a slight uptick in new businesses.

The authors write: “Overall, we find no substantial evidence that entry of a new team or stadium is associated with any net gains related to economic development, other than for minor league team entry in smaller markets and employment effects limited to the period of construction.”

About The Author

Clark Merrefield

Financing Professional Sports Facilities: An Update

• First Online: 11 October 2023

Cite this chapter

• Victor A. Matheson 4  

Part of the book series: Sports Economics, Management and Policy ((SEMP,volume 23))

200 Accesses

1 Altmetric

This paper provides the total costs and public contributions for every stadium constructed in the NFL, MLB, MLS, NBA, and NHL between 1990 and 2023. The data show that $75 billion (in 2023 dollars) has been spent on stadium construction in that time period with taxpayers contributing $34 billion of this amount. Following the Great Recession, the average taxpayer contribution for a stadium project fell from 60% of total costs to 30% of total costs, but skyrocketing construction costs often led to total taxpayer subsidies rising.

Note: Tables 2 – 6 in this paper first appeared in Baade and Matheson ( 2012 ). They have been updated to reflect new stadium construction over the past 15 years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Sportsfare—Welfare for Professional Sports

Diversifying Sources of Sports Financing for Premier League Clubs and Ways for Developing Them

San Francisco Giants

R.A. Baade, R.F. Dye, An analysis of the economic rationale for public subsidization of sports stadiums. Ann. Reg. Sci. 22 , 37–47 (1988a)

Article   Google Scholar  

R.A. Baade, R.F. Dye, Sports stadiums and area development: A critical review. Econ. Dev. Q. 2 (3), 265–275 (1988b)

R.A. Baade, V.A. Matheson, Financing professional sports facilities, in Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century , ed. by Z. Kotval, S. White, 2nd edn., (M.E. Sharpe publishers, New York, 2012), pp. 323–342

Google Scholar  

R.A. Baade, V.A. Matheson, Going for the gold: The economics of the Olympics. J. Econ. Perspect. 30 (2), 201–218 (2016)

R. Baumann, V. Matheson, D. O’Connor, Hidden subsidies and the public ownership of sports facilities: The case of Levi’s stadium in Santa Clara. Int. J. Sports Manag. Mark. 20 (3–4), 181–192 (2020)

D. Berri, Y. Kelly, V. Matheson, The Economics of the Super Bowl: Players, Performers, and Cities (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020)

A. Drukker, T. Gayer, A.K. Gold, Tax-exempt municipal bonds and the financing of professional sports stadiums. Natl. Tax J. 73 (1), 157–196 (2020)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics and Accounting, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, USA

Victor A. Matheson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor A. Matheson .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Economics and Accounting, College of Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, USA

Robert Baumann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Matheson, V.A. (2023). Financing Professional Sports Facilities: An Update. In: Matheson, V.A., Baumann, R. (eds) The Economic Impact of Sports Facilities, Franchises, and Events. Sports Economics, Management and Policy, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39248-1_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39248-1_16

Published : 11 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-39247-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-39248-1

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Human Kinetics is moving to summer hours. Starting May 31 – August 2, our hours will be Mon – Thurs, 7am – 5pm CDT. Orders placed on Friday with digital products/online courses will be processed immediately. Orders with physical products will be processed on the next business day.

800.747.4457

Mon-Thurs 7am - 5pm CST

Get in touch with our team

Frequently asked questions

Sport Finance 5th Edition With HKPropel Access

Author: Gil B. Fried, Timothy D. DeSchriver, Michael Mondello

Purchase in CAD  

Request a Review Copy

ISBN: 9781718217409

Page Count: 376

• Description
• Table of Contents
• Ancillaries

All ancillaries are free to adopting instructors through HK Propel .

Instructor guide. Includes a sample syllabus, chapter summaries, assignments, answers to the class discussion topics in the book, suggested essay topics, and tips for presenting the chapter content. A total of 10 case studies are available (5 from the text plus an additional 5), along with study questions for the 5 cases found in the book. Also included are instructional materials for the four class projects featured in the online resources for students.

Test package. Contains 30 questions per chapter in true-false, fill-in-the-blank, essay and short-answer, and multiple-choice formats. Also included are 44 multiple-choice and true-false financial literacy questions to assess students’ current understanding of finance. The files may be downloaded for integration with a learning management system or printed for use as paper-based tests. Instructors may also create their own customized quizzes or tests from the test bank questions to assign to students directly through HK Propel . Multiple-choice and true-false questions are automatically graded, and instructors can review student scores in the platform.

Chapter quizzes. Contains ready-made quizzes (10 questions each) to assess student comprehension of the most important concepts in each chapter. Each quiz may be downloaded or assigned to students directly through HK Propel . The chapter assessments are automatically graded, and instructors can review student scores in the platform.

Presentation package. Features approximately 20 PowerPoint slides per chapter of text, artwork, and tables from the book that can be used for class discussion and presentation. The slides in the presentation package can be used directly within PowerPoint or printed to make handouts for students. Instructors can easily add, modify, and rearrange the order of the slides.

Instructors also receive access to all student materials in HK Propel . For Sport Finance , this includes four class projects that are assignable as trackable activities:

• Two-Dollar Team Game
• Personal Finance Budget
• Personal Finance Expenses
• Stock Market Game

These projects include downloadable files for the students in Word and Excel formats.

Another valuable resource in HK Propel is “Two-Dollar Team,” an Excel-based simulation that introduces students to assets and liabilities, revenue and expenses, budgeting, cash management, and borrowing and reveals how these specialties work together in developing financial strategies. Three other assignable class projects involve personal budgeting, expenditures, and a stock market game.

Related Products

Customer reviews.

• Book with online resource

• College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management
• Location Location
• Contact Contact
• Colleges and Schools
• 2024 News Archive

Preserving paradise: USC students learn about sustainable hospitality in the Galápagos

The Galápagos Islands: the name alone conjures images of tropical beauty and natural treasures. Spanish Captain Diego de Rivadeneira called them "Las Islas Encantadas" on his first visit in 1546, and that nickname lingers still. Charles Darwin's studies there in 1835 played a big part in the development of his theory of evolution. Now, University of South Carolina students follow in his scholarly footsteps.

Through a partnership with USC's Education Abroad Office and the Universidad San Francisco de Quito, College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management students have a variety of opportunities to live and learn in one of the most exclusive tourism and natural heritage destinations in the world. Semester-long experiences are available as well as three-week Maymester excursions.

This May, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management Instructor Kevin Ayres led an Economically Sustainable Hospitality Operations class, exploring the challenges of keeping hospitality and tourism businesses sustainable while remaining profitable.

Ayres and USFQ Professor Paola Torres led the students on visits to three businesses on the trip, beginning with Hotel Indigo, an IHG property on San Cristóbal Island. The class met with the hotel management team and took a full tour of the operation. Each student then wrote a paper with recommendations for possible improvements in hotel operations with a focus on sustainability.

The second visit was to the Metropolitan Cruise Lines expedition ship La Pinta. There too, the students observed and asked questions while touring and meeting with the crew. They also wrote papers with operations suggestions.

"We learned about sustainability and the huge difference between learning about sustainability in Columbia, South Carolina, versus learning about sustainability in the Galápagos," said Ava Jackson, a retailing student who took the class to conclude her freshman year.

The last business visit was to Ranti Coffee. "It’s a Galápagos-only company. They have their own tree, roasting room and showroom, all on San Cristóbal," Ayres says. The students took a close look at every part of the operation, again discussing and questioning and offering their suggestions for operational improvements.

The hospitality and tourism industry is by far the largest economic driver in the Galápagos, employing 40 percent of residents. With 97 percent of the islands set aside as a national park, it is an ideal setting for studying sustainable hospitality and tourism, a topic of critical importance in South Carolina. USC’s School of Hospitality and Tourism Management has produced many of the current leaders of those industries, and the next generation is learning through experiences like these.

Study abroad experiences are not all work, of course. Students also have a chance to explore new cultures, meet new people, and have a lot of fun.

"My favorite part of the trip was getting to stay with my host family," Jackson says, adding that she joined the family in attending a soccer game while there. "Being able to stay with them gave me the opportunity to see San Cristóbal through the eyes of locals. This is something I wouldn’t have gotten to experience if I wasn’t able to stay with a host family. I appreciate USC setting me up with such a caring family."

As all USC trips do, the most recent Maymester excursion offered many chances for students to explore, including nature hikes, snorkeling at spots including the world-famous Kicker Rock, scuba diving (students can earn certification through USC, and College of HRSM professor and certified instructor Richard Southall teaches a class on sustainability, eco-tourism, and the diving industry in the Galápagos) and of course plenty of time to enjoy some of the world’s most beautiful beaches.

Asked what will stick with her in the future, Jackson says, "How amazing our world is. We had opportunities to see such a variety of animals (marine iguanas, Galápagos tortoises, blue footed boobies) that only exist in the Galápagos. I also learned from the other classes, it was truly a multidisciplinary program."

For those unsure whether to study abroad, Jackson's advice is simple and emphatic: "Do it, take in every experience you can. It’s something you’ll look back on the rest of your life and be so grateful that you did. You get to meet so many people that you wouldn’t have without studying abroad and seeing the world. Totally immerse yourself, go on all of the excursions. You will have experiences and memories that you will treasure. I learned so much and had a blast!"

Challenge the conventional. Create the exceptional. No Limits.