1. CITATION: Marc Edelman, Current Issues InPublic Policy: Article: Sports And The City: How ToCurb Professional Sports Teams Demands For FreePublic Stadiums, 6 Rutgers J.L. & Pub. Poly 35(2008).AUTHOR: Marc Edelman, Assistant, Professor ofLaw, Northwestern University School of Law.

2. The author concludes the governments historic hands-offpolicy regulating the sports industry has allowed Americasfour main professional sports leagues to exploit theirmonopoly power on local government and public. As aresult, professional sports teams have reaped billions ofdollars in local subsidies that governments would spend toimprove public projects, etc. He proposes Congress shouldenact a bill curbing stadium financing and/or breakupmajor ball clubs. 3. 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 asWashington Supreme Court case CLEAN v. State (1996). Healso relies on the Revenue Act of 1913, the Revenue andExpenditure Control Act of 1968, and 1986 Tax Reform Act.He also relied on provisions of Washington Constitution andFlorida law as they relate to stadium financing. 4. Edelman makes a compelling argument based on Floridaand Washington court decisions as well as WashingtonConstitution and Florida law.He also proposes that Congress should enact a bill thatwould deter stadium financing as a possible solution aswell as breakup four major ball clubs monopoly.Further, he firmly believes that the revenues used forstadium financing should be used to benefit the public not the sports teams owners.. 5. CITATION: Brian P. Yates, Whether Building A NewSports Arena Will Revitalize Downtown And Make TheTeam A Winner, 17 U. Miami Bus. L. Rev. 269 (2009)AUTHOR: Brian P. Yates, University of MiamiSchool of Law, J.D. 2009, and associate in the JefferMangles & Butler s Sports Law Group andLitigation Department. 6. The author concludes that stadium financing should stop assubsidized professional sports teams hurt public welfare andencourage the inefficient operation of sports teams. He alsoproposes a bill to prevent sports teams from accepting publicsubsidies and to curb their bargaining power on the public.He also thinks that building an arena is best choice to achieveeconomic revitalization as arenas are less expensive and moreversatile than baseball parks or football stadiums. 7. The author relied on the provisions of the 1986 Tax ReformAct; TIF guidelines and cited Florida Supreme Court casesBrandes v. City of Deerfield Beach (1966) , Poe v. HillsboroughCnty (Fla. 1997), Braman v. Miami-Dade Cnty (2009) as well asWashington Supreme Court case CLEAN v. State (1996). Healso relied on data from studies conducted by aCongressional Research Service, economists Robert Baadeand Allen Sanderson, and the Maryland Department ofBusiness and Economic Development. He further proposesCongress should enact a bill to amend unnecessary stadiumfinancing. 8. The author makes a compelling argument against stadiumfinancing, relying on the provisions of the 1986 Tax ReformAct; TIF guidelines; and citied several Florida andWashington Supreme cases.He also proposes that arenas build in downtown would beless expensive and add economic revitalization ofdowntown areas in cities.Further, he proposes that Congress should enact a bill tomodify or prohibit stadium financing. 9. Citation: Logan E. Gans, Take me out to the ball game,but should the crowds taxes pay for it, Virginia TaxReview. 29.4 (Spring 2010): p751.Author: Logan E. Gans, cum laude, University ofFlorida Fredric G. Levin College of Law (2010); B.A.,summa cum laude, Emory University (2007), and TaxAssociate at McGladrey law firm. 10. The author concludes that stadium financing should bestopped as present federal tax code allows tax-exempt bondsto fund stadiums while local governments repay these bondswith their own local taxes instead of allowing communitiesto spend their taxes on worthwhile public welfare projects.He also proposes that Congress should enact a bill to amendthe federal tax code to disallow the section 103(a) exclusionfor new stadium bonds and to allow tax-exempt renovationsof current stadiums every twenty years... 11. The author relies extensively on the provisions of theRevenue Act of 1913 and 1986 Tax Reform Act, section103(a) as well as the guidelines of the present FederalTax Code, namely section 142(a). He also refers tovarious sections of the Maryland, Washington, andFlorida Constitutions as they relate to stadiumfinancing. 12. Gans make a compelling argument against stadiumfinancing, relying on present Federal Tax Code whichincludes stadium facilities in which an exempt facilitybond" can be made tax-exempt under the section 103exclusion. He also outlines his argument with detailedfacts.He further proposes that such bonds should be used toimprove more necessary infra-structure, such as powerplant upgrades, better roads, or more modern airports.The author proposes a detailed bill that Congress shouldenact to eliminate and/or amend stadium financing.