If you remember nothing else from this column, remember this: Just because a new soccer team is coming to town doesn't mean the people who live here suddenly will have new money to spend on tickets. If they do go to the games, they will do so with money they otherwise would have spent on other things — a trip to the movies, perhaps, or an afternoon at an amusement park. If any government that taxes these people decides to use public money to build a new soccer stadium, it will be taking some of this money away, and that will be a drag on the economy.

That holds true even for the creative ways teams and politicians these days put together funding proposals, using redevelopment or economic development agencies.

The bottom line is as Raymond J. Keating, an economist who authored a study on the subject for the CATO Institute a few years ago, put it, "Taxpayers — some of whom, oddly enough, are not even sports fans — should not be forced to contribute to a team's payroll."

And yet taxpayers everywhere are doing just that. When Keating wrote his report in 1999, he found that $20 billion in public funds had been spent on stadiums and arenas nationwide during the 20th century. That figure continues to grow.

Most recently, the MetroStars, New York City's entry in MLS, announced it will build a new 25,000-seat stadium financed in part by a $130 million county bond. Dallas, Colorado and Chicago also have plans to build soccer stadiums. Columbus was the first MLS team to play in its own stadium, but that one was built with private money. Columbus taxpayers have made it clear they won't foot the bill to make team owners rich. The city's NHL team also plays in a privately financed arena.

That's the model Utah should follow.

Pro soccer is terrific. A good team would be a source of pride. But if we're smart enough to learn from the past, we won't make the team a burden on the economy.

---

Jay Evensen is editor of the Deseret Morning News editorial page. E-mail: even@desnews.com