It is extremely rare for socialists and capitalists to agree on an issue. After all, socialists believe that the state should control the economy while capitalists advocate for a complete separation of state and economics. However, on the issue of publicly funded sports stadiums, socialists and capitalists seem to agree, but that agreement is an illusion.
In November, voters in Albuquerque rejected a $50 million bond proposal for a new sports stadium. The anti-bond effort was promoted by a socialist news site—Liberation. Socialists opposed the bond proposal because it would be “a massive force for gentrification and displacement” and would benefit millionaires. Socialists support welfare for the needy, but not for corporations.
In contrast, capitalists oppose publicly funded sports stadiums because they force individuals to pay for something that they may not value. Capitalists believe that sports stadiums should be built entirely with private funds. Capitalists are opposed to government welfare programs in any form.
Publicly funded means coercively funded. It means forcing individuals and businesses to financially support a project or program regardless of their own choices and desires. In a truly capitalist society, coercively funding anything, including sports stadiums, is forbidden.
Socialists are not opposed to coercion. They support coercive taxation to fund their welfare schemes. They support controls and restrictions on whatever private property is allowed to exist. They just want that coercion to be used for purposes that they approve of.
The why determines the what. Why a position is taken determines what it actually means. In regard to publicly funded stadiums, socialists and capitalists have very different “whys.” They may agree that publicly funded stadiums are inappropriate, but what that means is very different.