|
|
The University of Minnesota has recently released the results of a study recommending the construction of a new 50,000 seat, outdoor football stadium near the existing hockey and basketball arenas on campus. The total projected price tag of $222 million is described as “modest” by University president Robert Bruininks. Modest or not, the real decision facing the University is whether this represents an advisable use of increasingly scarce funds for the state’s premier institution of higher learning. First, it should be remembered that with a 12-game college football season, the University (and by association the Minnesota taxpayer) will be paying $222 million for a facility that will be used only six times per year. When individuals spending their own money are faced with the prospect of having to purchase an expensive item that they will only use rarely, they usually decide that the best decision financially is to rent the good even if it would be awfully nice to own the item. Until now, that is exactly what the University has wisely been doing. While athletic boosters will argue that the facility will be frequently used for other events, the presence of the Metrodome and a potential new Vikings stadium makes the Twin cities stadium market pretty crowded and increases competition among the different venues for a limited number of large events. Others may argue that a new stadium would have a strong economic impact on the Twin Cities’ economy. Unfortunately, even if the new stadium does increase attendance at Gophers games, the overwhelming majority of these additional sports fans would be local residents who reduce their spending on other goods and services in the metro area in order to attend the games leaving the local economy different but no better off. Independent academic studies of stadiums, athletic events, and sports franchises have consistently found no positive economic impact from the construction of new sporting facilities in host cities. The final argument made is that the new field would enhance the quality of life for students, alumni, and sports fans. There is no question that an on-campus, open air stadium would dramatically change the experience of attending a Big Ten football game at the U, although many would question whether increasing the prominence of intercollegiate athletics at an institution dedicated to higher education is a change for the positive. Even brushing aside the academics versus athletics debate, the question of whether this is the best use of University funds remain. For roughly the price of the stadium, the University could instead fund 2,000 full scholarships for in-state students in each of the next 20 years. Or the University could endow funds for 100 new professors. Or they could completely eliminate tuition for all enrolled students for one year. Or they could pay for the entire University academic support system for a year. The list goes on and on. While I, myself, would have preferred to spend my Saturday afternoons back in graduate school watching the Maroon and Gold beat up on the Hawkeyes and Badgers under the beautiful blue autumn skies of Minnesota rather than in the dreary confines of the Metrodome, the financial support and the excellent instruction I received from the University was far more important than any football game. The U of M would do better to dedicate funding to maintaining its position as one of the top three public research universities in the country than to chasing glory on the gridiron.
|