Problem
I. What are the principal arguments and evidence against the use of public subsidy, dollars in short, for the building of stadiums and funding of athletes, whether at the college level or with high-priced professional athletes?
II. Compare and contrast several authors from module 5 who evaluate the economic costs and benefits from sports subsidization. For example, the Economist from Ohio University and the English professor from Indiana University agree that sports are unduly subsidized, but they offer different negative consequences from this due to their theoretical focus. Do you find yourself in agreement with the critics of sports subsidization, or do you find yourself supporting the "public goods" argument that localities and the broader society benefit somehow from sports subsidization?
III. College sports have been changed in this modern era of sporting wealth, but has college as an institution changed as a result? In what ways has the rise of "student-athletes" and the modern sports-centric university affected the institution of higher education? Are "big-time" college sports truly amateur anymore and how does the emphasis upon money affect the nature of the game itself? Cite evidence from the readings and viewings to support your analysis.