Despite a skepticism based on facts and solid economic principles, we're open to creative solutions that could get Real Salt Lake the soccer stadium it so badly wants and still hold the taxpayers of Utah harmless.

But for that to happen, two conditions should be satisfied. First, taxpayers must truly be protected and repaid within a reasonable period of time. Second, the public officials pushing the deal must present a compelling case that professional soccer is worth the investment.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has decided to buy into the idea that all parties involved should come together to explore ways to build a stadium. He's even enlisted the help of Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, who sponsored a sensible piece of legislation that would forbid the use of municipal redevelopment agency funds to build a stadium or to aid any retail development.

One of the ideas being considered would be to give Real Salt Lake a loan, rather than a handout. This has been described as a version of the Olympic model, in which Utah taxpayers voted to give $59 million in sales tax revenues for the construction of Olympic venues, then were repaid after the Games.

The problem with the Olympic model is that taxpayers were repaid without interest. Such a deal could be justified when the payoff was as large as the Olympics, an event that gave the state around-the-clock television exposure worldwide for more than two weeks. The state enjoyed benefits during that time that outweighed the interest lost.

The same cannot be said for a Major League Soccer team that gets scant national attention. Nor should the state be casual in loaning tax revenue to a venture that may not succeed. The Olympics could demonstrate a reliable income source. Even then, Mitt Romney and his staff had to pinch pennies to turn a profit. But as Major League Soccer's commissioner said in Utah last week, only one team in the league is currently turning a profit.

What if Real Salt Lake can't pay back the loan? What if the worst happens and the team goes out of business, the way two other MLS teams recently did? How would taxpayers be protected?

Despite these difficult questions, the financing may be easier to work out than the much more fundamental question of why this should be a matter of public concern. The two sites under consideration — one in downtown Salt Lake City and the other in Murray near I-15 — are prime real estate. They would be attractive sites for any private, tax-generating business. Why is this the best use for the land?

We're surprised the governor seems to think a soccer stadium can be an economic development tool. That flies in the face of a long list of economic studies.

Still, we're glad to see people at least exploring options that would protect taxpayers. If nothing else, the passage of Bramble's bill has pushed the debate in that direction.