Stadium Cash Grab

Why Are Tasmanians Paying for a Stadium the AFL Can Afford?

The debate over the proposed $750 million Macquarie Point stadium in Hobart is about more than just sport. It’s about priorities, fairness, and whether Tasmania is getting a good deal.

Across the world, stadium funding models vary. In the United States, it’s common for taxpayers to foot the bill for major sports stadiums, a model driven by leagues leveraging their power over local governments. In contrast, in the UK, stadiums are typically funded by clubs themselves—there isn’t a single publicly funded Premier League stadium. So why is Tasmania being asked to subsidise a billion-dollar industry like the AFL?

AFL’s Leverage Over Tasmania

The AFL made it clear that Tasmania would only get its long-awaited team if the state agreed to build a new stadium. This was a non-negotiable condition (ABC News), despite the league’s massive TV rights deals and the fact that other clubs and stadiums are largely funded through corporate and private investment. Instead of putting up their own money, the AFL has convinced Tasmania’s government to commit hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the project.

To make matters worse, the federal government is contributing $240 million, meaning that state and federal taxpayers are picking up most of the cost, while the AFL gets a brand-new stadium without financial responsibility. The question Tasmanians should be asking is: why is a profitable sports league getting public money that could be spent on health, education, or housing? (Tammy Tyrrell has questioned this on the Senate)

Economic Justifications and the Reality

Proponents argue that the stadium will bring economic benefits, create jobs, and drive tourism. While there’s some truth to this, global studies have shown that publicly funded stadiums rarely deliver the promised economic returns (such as from the Tax Foundation and the Cato Institute).

The jobs they create are mostly short-term construction roles, and any tourism benefits are hard to quantify—especially in a state already facing accommodation shortages. Robert Reich has commented on similar issues in the U.S. A 2017 Brookings Institution report also found that public subsidies for stadiums rarely result in significant economic benefits.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has also voiced concerns about the federal contribution, questioning whether public funds should be used to subsidise professional sports leagues instead of pressing social needs.

Tasmania has real and urgent problems: an overstretched healthcare system, housing shortages, and lower-than-average incomes. Yet, instead of investing in these priorities, the state is committing hundreds of millions to a stadium that primarily benefits a private sporting organisation.

A Better Deal for Tasmania?

If the AFL truly believed in Tasmania’s viability as a football market, it would co-invest in the stadium rather than relying on government funding. The lack of private investment is telling. When businesses see a strong return on investment, they put their own money in. But in this case, the AFL has expertly shifted the financial risk onto taxpayers, while reaping the rewards of expanding into a new market.

Time to Push Back

The AFL, like the NRL and Cricket Australia, is a billion-dollar entity that can afford to invest in its own infrastructure. Tasmanians deserve better than to be strong-armed into subsidising a private sports empire.

If public funds are to be spent, they should be directed towards projects that provide tangible and widespread benefits—schools, hospitals, public transport—not a stadium that primarily benefits the AFL’s bottom line.

It’s time for the state government to demand a better deal.

Or walk away from the table.