[Addick]

The way I look at it is as follows, if the operators of a museum had just enough money to build the facility, maintain it, and break-even, or even have an acceptable loss, they would. On the other hand, if the operators of a sports stadium had just enough money to build the facility, maintain it, and break-even*, or have an acceptable loss*, they probably would not. As such, even though the subsidisation of a professional league sporting facility would benefit the general public, the owner of sports teams would be using subsidies for purely financial reasons (i.e. to make a profit). In contrast, I believe the motives of museum operators are solely in the interests of creating a public good (i.e. something for the enjoyment and enlightenment of others).

Basically, without public money the museum would probably not exist; so we should subsidise it. Without public money a sporting facility can be built, so let's allow the 'more efficient' private sector to find a way to make it work.


* I'm talking about their complete financial situation and not just the books for their stadium.