As a big fan of football, I not only have interest in watching the game but issues surrounding the league itself.  Since last year, I have been pretty critical and up-to-date on what goes on within the NFL, especially since I am a Patriots fan and had to live through the Deflategate "scandal" being in the media constantly.  The subject matter of the NFL making taxpayers pay for new stadiums is something I am very aware of and, seeing as there are good arguments on both sides, feel like I can make a great argumentative/research essay out of it.  It does not necessarily affect my personal values, but it could possibly affect where my personal tax dollars go in the future.  I would rather the money be spent on important things such as education, road work, police, etc.  This topic is especially relevant at the moment because the St. Louis Rams have just relocated to Los Angeles, leaving the taxpayers of St. Louis to pay off the rest of the Rams' stadium.  Another problem is that Los Angeles plans to build a $2.66 billion stadium for the Rams, and while the owner, Stan Kroenke, will likely put some money into it, the people of LA will likely be paying for the majority of it.

Source 1:  In the Al Jazeera article, the author uses sourced data to not only show that taxpayers pay for on average 57% of construction costs for new stadiums, but that the NFL's revenue stream is so high that this is pretty much inexcusable.  He quotes multiple economists who say that the costs outweigh the economic benefits of publicly funded sports stadiums, and even quotes former Governor Jesse Ventura, who has some political insight into what is going on.  When the Minnesota Vikings talked to him about getting public funding for a new stadium, Ventura asked why they cannot just charge more for tickets.  The owner stated that he did not want the loyal fans to bear the burden of the new stadium's cost.  Ventura pointed out that by getting public funding, the Vikings are essentially reaching into the pockets of the people of Minnesota, whether they care about the Vikings or not.  This is a very important part of my argument, as it shows the standpoint of a well-known, credible politician.

Source 2:  Another issue of this whole debate is that even if you argue economic benefits could be greater than the cost of the stadium, teams can move if they want to.  For example, the city of St. Louis is not done paying off the Rams' stadium, who have just relocated to Los Angeles.  This article focuses on this angle, stating that as of the beginning of 2015, St. Louis still owes $129 million on their stadium, despite not hosting a pro football team.  I would also like to make a point that this case is not at the fault of the NFL as much as it is the city of St. Louis for signing such a deal.  While the author of the article states that he thinks the NFL should pay the remaining bill, and I would commend them if they did, I honestly do not think they have any obligation to.  The point I plan to make is that the system itself is at fault and needs to be fixed.

Source 3:  The main thing that stands out about this article is that it talks about how the NFL is considered a not-for-profit organization because it distributes almost all of its profits to the teams.  Similarly to the first article, it goes over how the NFL as a whole profits an absurd amount, around $1 billion per year, and still gets cities to pay for them.  The author uses Rick Eckstein, a professor from Villanova and an expert on stadium finance, to give the article and data even more credibility. 

One of the main things I do not have in this analysis is that in the actual essay, I will dive into whether or not having an NFL team in a city provides real, positive economic impact.  After I show that it does, I will go into how much that could be using more sources, showing that the impact likely will not be enough to make up for the cost of the stadium.  Regarding the feasibility of my research question, I feel like it is valid and has multiple different stances.  I can take a stance fairly easily and have lots of support with not only data but opinions of people with credibility.  The main thing I agree with in the articles is that the taxpayers have no business financing sports stadiums.  What I disagree with, however, is that it is all the NFL's fault; the cities, after all, sign these deals.  The perspectives of the articles, from blaming the NFL, to just calling out the issue in general, gives a bit of variety that will fare well in a longer, more fleshed out essay.  Some differences include the Al Jazeera article being much less opinionated than the other two, as well as including political quotes along with expert ones rather than just expert ones.  They all, however, have an overtone that something needs to change.

