Voter intentions and political implications of legislated stadium subsidies

In the US, decisions to allocate public funding toward professional sports facilities are usually made not by voters via referendum or initiative, but rather by their elected representatives. We examine the attitudes of residents in a region affected by a no-vote stadium subsidy to determine whether policymaking is congruent with public will and to consider the political impact of residents’ support of or opposition to the stadium subsidy. Using survey data from 369 registered voters in Cobb County, Georgia, we found the average voter would have approved of publicly funding a new ballpark, but felt that voters should have had the opportunity to vote via referendum. Additionally, we identified factors contributing to voters’ support of the financing plan, perceptions of support by other residents, and intentions to vote in future elections. Finally, we identify prospective impacts of plan support on voter behaviour in subsequent elections that could have political implications for legislated stadium subsidies.In absence of public vote, it is unclear whether locals support stadium subsidies.Voters affected by US$722-million ballpark subsidy in US were surveyed.Results suggest majority favoured subsidy but were dissatisfied with process.Lack of public vote on stadium subsidy may empower citizens to vote in future.