This article examines the debates over subsidies to professional sports tea
ms that have been the focus of much attention and passion in Canada over th
e 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 r
eviews the arguments put forward by the sports industry: that major-league
hockey and baseball teams make substantial economic contributions, both dir
ectly and indirectly, to the cities in which they are located and that Cana
dian teams, especially those based in smaller cities, need substantial redu
ctions in their public costs (taxes and/or rents) in order to "level the pl
aying field" with their U.S. competitors. The authors argue that the commis
sioned studies on which these claims are based systematically overstate the
economic impacts of professional sports and are not supported by independe
nt research. The authors also argue that the difficulties facing Canada's "
small market" teams are not primarily the result of higher taxes; rather, t
hey follow from changes in the sports industry over the last decade (notabl
y, much higher player salaries). This means that in order to remain competi
tive, 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 advertisin
g revenues and on the purchase of luxury seating by the local corporate sec
tor, it is hard to avoid concluding that even with public subsidies teams b
ased 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 oppo
sed to economic, grounds. However, the authors conclude that both professio
nal sports and Canada have changed so much in recent decades that commercia
l sport is not an appropriate candidate for public subsidy.