Government is Best That Plays Sports Least

Have you bought your season's tickets for the Chicago Bulls? What about your Black Hawks' seats?

As most Chicagoans know by now, the United Center opened this season as the new home of Chicago's basketball and hockey teams.

What fans may not realize is that there are volumes of cases on spectators being injured by the hazards of the game. There's voluminous case law on sports violence - players hurting players in the course of the game.

But there appear to be few lawsuits that deal with spectators who are injured from the structural defects of a stadium. Perhaps it's a testament to the design of the buidings. Perhaps it's a tribute to the concern of the owners and the money they've spent on safety engineering.

But when the stadium owners don't pay attention to matters that, at first blush, may seem mundane, the price may be much higher for everyone involved.

And while local government seems to be investing in sports facilities for increased revenue, they could find it to be far more costly in the long run.

The owners of Soldier Field - the Chicago Park District - found out the hard way. So did Byron Boll.

In Boll v. Chicago Park District, 249 Ill. App. 3d 952, 620 N.E. 2d 1082 (1st Dist. 1991), a spectator at a Chicago Bears game was exiting with the masses when he fell over a low railing. He severed his spinal cord and was rendered a quadriplegic. A jury returned a verdict for $16.5 million against the Park District. The plaintiff was found to be 55 percent at fault and the award was reduced to $7.4 million. A remittitur brought the amount to $6.6 million.

The jury concluded that the football stadium owners owed a reasonable duty of care to invitees, which included the design and management of the concourse. Here, the open-air rail posed a reasonable danger. Evidence existed that with the extreme crowding on the concourse, the patron was forced over the unprotected railing.

It may seem odd that such an accident apparently hadn't occurred previously in a stadium that had been used since it opened on St. Patrick's Day in 1929. But the tragedy is that even one person was so terribly and permanently injured in what was deemed an avoidable accident.

And it is disturbing that the Chicago Park District was involved in such an event that had nothing to do with running the parks for Chicago's children.

It causes one to more closely examine the stadiums recently built in Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas, Anaheim, Cleveland, Portland, San Antonio and St. Petersburg, as well as White Sox Park and United Center in Chicago.

Professional sports is in the midst of a building boom with governments pumping 10s of millions of tax dollars into at least a dozen major arenas being built or planned across the country. Many rely on public help - from loans and grants to free land, bond issues, tax concessions or state lotteries. In exchange, the cities often ask for a piece of the action.

Such public financial input, though, can lead to increased taxes as well as greater potential liability.

Generally, when a governmental body is involved as a defendant, it is immune from tort liability when performing governmental function.

But the Boll court handily dismissed this defense, saying the Bears game had nothing to do with the Park District's functions as a municipal entity. The court found that, "The act of purchasing a ticket to enter the stadium causes the Park District to be engaged in a non-governmental function." Therefore, it was held to the same standard of care as that imposed on a private party.

Just what does this mean for other publicly-financed facilities engaged in running professional athletics?

In the case of the new White Sox Park, taxpayers built the park with bonds that require a $5-million annual contribution to the state. But now a season-ending strike could force state taxpayers to pick up as much as $1.5 million of this year's bond payment. Taxpayers then, in essence, are subsidizing the club's owners.

United Center, on the other hand, is a privately financed venture by the owners of the Bulls and the Black Hawks and includes United Airlines as a major sponsor. The 21,000-seat stadium costs about $175 million. Chicago is involved strictly in improvements to city services leading to the new facility, such as streets, lights, water and sewer lines.

Just why, then, do governmental entities try to get involved in activities that are considered strictly for amusement and entertainment? Aren't the problems of housing and education and health care enough to keep politicians busy?

If stimulating the local economy and job growth are stated as justifications, it is interesting to note that major league baseball is a $1.8 billion business. White Sox Park, obviously, is but a fraction of that. General Motors, by comparison, generates $138 billion in annual revenues.

The 28 National and American Leagues combined were projected this year to have total revenues of about as much as Chicago-based Fruit of the Loom Inc., which employs 35,000 people.

This is not to say that towns that can support major league teams should not enjoy professional sports. But is is to say that, perhaps, government should worry about governing and not playing ball with the big guys, lest they find themselves playing fast-pitch in the courthouses.