Baseball season is here again. That means the sight of a spectacular play, the taste of that first cold beer, and of course the sound of the freshly-cut taxpayer check to fund new stadiums.

Major League Baseball franchises have been busy holding out their mitts to federal, state and local and governments to fund everything from 40,000-seat major league stadiums to 5,000-seat minor league stadiums. Since 2000, MLB franchises have received $1.41 billion dollars in federal subsidies on bonds alone, with more than $430 million going to the new Yankee Stadium. While the old Yankee Stadium might have been the house that Ruth built, the new one was certainly built by taxpayers.

The tactics used to squeeze taxpayer handouts usually come in two forms. The first, friendlier approach to secure a new stadium is the myth that a new stadium will leadoff to an economic boom. For cities that already have stadiums, the hardball approach of threatening to move to a new city works wonders.

If any organization has mastered the fundamentals of this hit and run approach, it's the Atlanta Braves. The franchise has not only convinced taxpayers to pick up not only their tab, but also those of their minor-league affiliates throughout the south. They started small with a base-hit single when they convinced Rome, Ga., to fund a new stadium for their Class A affiliate.

They knocked a double off the wall when the Class AA team moved to Pearl, Miss., and the town sold bonds to cover $28 million of the new stadium costs. Pearl even pledged to cover the shortfalls of the stadium. This pledge has led to Pearl spending 5 percent of the town's general fund revenue to cover the stadium, and caused the town's bond status to move to junk status.

The Braves' triple-A affiliate – which moved from Richmond, Va., to Gwinnett, Ga. – has fared little better. The promise of a shopping center around the stadium never materialized, and their attendance is second to last in the league.

Finishing their cycle of screwing taxpayers, the Braves hit a home run for themselves when they convinced Cobb Country to kick in almost $400 million for a new $722 million stadium to replace Turner Field in Atlanta. Why the Braves needed a publicly-funded stadium to replace one less than 20 years old is anyone's guess. This money was handed out without taxpayer approval and has already caused the county such financial stress that they were unable to purchase park land – a move that actually was approved by the residents of Cobb Country.

Compared to the Texas Rangers' organization, the Braves' shakedown of taxpayers is bush league. The Rangers hit a grand slam when they convinced the city of Arlington to pick up "half" the tab for a new billion-dollar stadium, again to replace a current stadium less than 20 years old. "Half" is a generous assertion, because while the city is issuing $500 million in bonds to cover their portion, the new taxes the city is imposing will cover an additional $300 million in costs from the Rangers portion.

For those keeping score at home, taxpayers are actually picking up 80 percent of the tab – talk about a rounding error.

The deal gets even uglier because the interest and fees on the $500 million in bonds will probably cause costs to balloon to above $1 billion. What have the taxpayers bought for their billion dollars? Although the city will technically "own" the stadium, the Rangers will receive the revenue from the stadium, naming rights, as well as any other profits from the stadium itself. Yet another swing and a miss for taxpayers.

Study after study has shown that taxpayer-funded sports stadiums do little to boost the local economy and instead simply move other entertainment dollars to sports. So while the love of the game might keep voters and politicians giving green monster giveaways at a fever pitch, that money would be better spent buying all their fans a new baseball hat instead.

Eric Peterson (@IllinoisEric89) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a policy analyst at Americans for Prosperity.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.