ELIZABETH JACKSON: The findings of a new study are contradicting one of the political justifications for spending billions of dollars on sports stadiums in Australia.

The study found that wealthier people attend more live sport.

The researchers say the taxes of poorer people are effectively subsidising more affluent sports fans.

Tom Nightingale reports.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: A new sports stadium is going to be built in Townsville.

Both the Coalition and Labor promised it before the election, hoping to win votes in the still-undecided seat of Herbert.

Economist Dr John Wilson is sceptical:

JOHN WILSON: You basically had an election issue, where both major parties ended up promising $100 million to fund each. And that just shows that politicians at least see this as a very, very strong issue with the electorate and possibly a vote-winner.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: Since the Sydney Olympics, governments across Australia have promised or spent more than $4 billion on sports stadiums.

John Wilson is with the University of South Australia and he's done the first detailed study of who gets the benefits.

JOHN WILSON: What we wanted to do was look at the income levels of those who attend and see whether, indeed, they were the average man-in-the-street football fans or cricket fans or soccer fans that everyone kind of expects, or whether they were actually reasonably wealthy people.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: He says people who attend live sport earn between 30 and 40 per cent more than those who don't.

The study says it means poorer people are effectively paying for something used more often by the wealthier.

John Wilson says it happens again and again, because taxpayers aren't truly aware of it.

JOHN WILSON: A good example is the Adelaide Oval. It cost about $600 million if you include the footbridge that was built, which represents something like about $970 per household in tax.

Now, a lot of households wouldn't agree that being paid, especially if they were presented the data in that form. But it's not in their interests to go and expend a great deal of effort to try and oppose such a development. Whereas those who're going to gain - and the gains are concentrated - are much more likely to spruik the benefits and also argue very strongly for these developments to occur.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: Is there any argument, in your mind, that does stack up to justify building a sports stadium?

JOHN WILSON: Ah, yes, it's possible. I mean, one of the things that's argued - in economics we call it a "public good" - is the civic pride or feeling of wellbeing that citizens might get from the mere existence of a stadium.

So there might be people who associate themselves with a local team.

These are things, though, that are very hard to value, and very difficult to ascertain whether they exist or not. But certainly that's a possibility. To be honest, that's probably about the only thing that stacks up as a possible genuine economic benefit that's outside the normal private market transaction that should occur.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: The study has just been published online in the Journal of Sports Economics.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Tom Nightingale with that report.