The Mills report, the Manley subsidy proposals, and the business of major‐league sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article examines the debates over subsidies to professional sports teams that have been the focus of much attention and passion in Canada over the past several years, debates that led to the report by Dennis Mills, Sport in Canada: Everybody's Business , and to John Manley's ill‐fated proposals to offer subsidies to Canadian professional sports operators. The article reviews the arguments put forward by the sports industry: that major‐league hockey and baseball teams make substantial economic contributions, both directly and indirectly, to the cities in which they are located and that Canadian teams, especially those based in smaller cities, need substantial reductions in their public costs (taxes and/or rents) in order to “level the playing field” with their US. competitors. The authors argue that the commissioned studies on which these claims are based systematically overstate the economic impacts of professional sports and are not supported by independent research. The authors also argue that the difficulties facing Canada's “small market” teams are not primarily the result of higher taxes; rather, they follow from changes in the sports industry over the last decade (notably, much higher player salaries). This means that in order to remain competitive, teams must be able to generate far greater revenues than were needed only a decade ago. When one examines the new economy of professional hockey, in particular, with its heavy reliance on local television and advertising revenues and on the purchase of luxury seating by the local corporate sector, it is hard to avoid concluding that even with public subsidies teams based in provincial Canadian cities may no longer be able to compete in the major leagues. Finally, the authors consider the cultural argument that nhl hockey is a Canadian tradition and warrants support on “heritage,” as opposed to economic, grounds. However, the authors conclude that both professional sports and Canada have changed so much in recent decades that commercial sport is not an appropriate candidate for public subsidy. Sommaire: Dans cet article, on examine la question des subventions aux équipes de sports professionnels qui a fait l'objet d'un vif débat au Canada au cours de ces dern‐ières années. Ce débat avait entraîné le rapport de Dennis Mills, Sport in Canada: Everybody's Business , et les propositions soumises ans succès par John Manley pour offrir des subventions aux exploitants de sports professionnels au Canada. On y présente les arguments du secteur des sports: les équipes de hockey et de baseball des ligues majeures font un apport économique direct et indirect considérable aux villes oú elles se trouvent, et les équipes canadiennes, surtout celles basées dans des villes plus petites, ont besoin d'une réduction substantielle de leurs coûts publics (impôts et/ou loyers) afin d'égaliser le terrain de jeu par rapport à leurs concurrents américains. Selon les auteurs, les études commanditées qui justifient ces prétentions exagèrent systématiquement les retombées économiques des sports professionnels et elles ne sont pas appuyées par des recherche indépendeants. Par ailleurs, les difficultées auxquelles font face les équipes de petit marché au Canada ne découlent pas d'une forte impositoin mais plutôt de l'évolution survenue dans l'industrie du sport au cows de cette dernière décennie (notamment, la forte hausse du salaire des joueurs). Pour rester concurrentielles, les équipes doivent recueillir un revenue très supérieur à celui d'il y a dix ans. Lorsqu'on examine la nouvelle économie du hockey professionnel en particulier, fortement tributaire du revenue prodigué par la télévision et la publicité locales et de l'achat de siges au prix fort par les entreprises de la localité, il est difficile d'éviter la conclusion que, même avec des subventions publiques, les équipes basées dans des villes provinciales au Canada auront du mal à survivre dans les lques majeures. Enfin, les auteurs examinent l'argument culturel voulant que le hockey de la lnh soit une tradition canadienne qui mérite d'être appuyée à titre patrimonial plutôt qu'économique. Leur conclusion: les sports professionnels et le pays lui‐même ont tellement évolué ces dernières décennies que le sport commercial n'est pas un candidat valable pour des subventions publiques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".