Public money always seems to make its way into sports venues.
The story is always the same. This field will be good for the community. It will generate income. It will provide value.
As with so many other cities, the Pittsburgh landscape is defined by these venues. One also could argue the area is defined by their cost.
In 1999, the state put $150 million into plans for Heinz Field (now Acrisure Stadium) and PNC Park. They were part of a broader package that included the David L. Lawrence Convention Center and North Shore development. The total funding also included $54 million in federal funds as well as $358 million in tax bonds. The Steelers contributed just $70 million. The Pirates kicked in $61 million. The end cost topped $1 billion.
In 2008, the budget was set for the new Penguins hockey venue, now known as PPG Paints Arena. The $321 million came from a mix of money including $290 million in revenue bonds, $10 million in state money, $7.5 million from the Pennsylvania Economic Development and Tourist Fund, and $15.5 million (and $4.1 million annual rent) from the NHL team.
This isn’t just a Pittsburgh thing. The San Francisco 49ers, the Dallas Cowboys, the New York Yankees and the Atlanta Falcons all play in venues that cost over $1 billion and relied on varying amounts of taxpayer funds. Only two NFL stadiums have no taxpayer investment.
That doesn’t mean it’s popular. Even the most die-hard fans can bristle at the idea of taxpayer funds going into buildings to support private companies with billionaires at the top and millionaires on the roster.
The justification is economic development. But does that mean every sports project should get public money? Where is the line drawn?
Robert Morris University has applied for a $10 million state Department of Community and Economic Development grant to build a hockey arena to open in 2027. The proposed building would double the capacity of the school’s Clearview Arena on Neville Island. The grant would provide 35% of the $28 million cost.
Is that a good investment of state money? The program in question is for development of a regional asset. The project is noted as offering facilities for youth and amateur players in the area, so on paper it might clear that bar.
But the timing of the investment is odd at best. It was less than three years ago that RMU killed off its men’s and women’s hockey programs. Both were reinstated for 2023-24 — and both had losing seasons.
The ricochet from discontinuation to restoration to major building project seeking a considerable investment from the state is peculiar. It’s like asking a bank to give you a mortgage based on your job application rather than a pay stub for proof of income.
However, that is what building a sports venue has become. There is rarely expectation that the cost will be assumed by the entity that will control and predominantly use it. Stadiums, ballparks, ice rinks, etc., are proposed with an expectation that public money will be available — because it usually is.