1. Do professional sports franchises that have built stadiums using public money have any sort of responsibility to the city in which they’re based to spend enough money to field a competitive team? Why or why not?

The split of financial risk between the stadium authority and the team depends on the conditions of the original stadium lease/funding agreement (15/85 private/public for Pirates).

Unfortunately, when faced with the extortion threat of franchise relocation public stadium authorities usually agree not only to assume a disproportionate share of the upfront venue cost, but almost always agree to assume almost all of the future project risk, including the revenues derived from the uncertain quality and performance of the team on the field.

2. If this happens, do governmental leaders have any obligation to police it?

Short run solution: The perennial failure to perform argument used by the season-ticket base could be adapted to fit the implicit contract between the public authority and the under-performing team. This is especially true during the recent “money-ball” tactical period of quality low-ball teams being rebuilt, and rising from the ashes of self-induced mediocrity and even borderline bankruptcy.  (See the Houston Astros for example).

3. When you look at sports, do you think it’s enough for a fan to see players on the field or court trying? Or should fans expect to see honest effort from those above? If so, to you, what does that look like?

The classic social welfare/economic argument for shifting performance risk to the public authority is that the public authority is better suited to absorb the future venue risk hit because it can be diversified among a myriad of other public projects, rather than being absorbed by the private business (MLB club) alone. As a result of the net risk reduction, the public funding of a private business is (in theory) a positive-sum move for the local economy .