As it stands this is a very simply worded proposal that could very easily have far reaching and quite unintended consequences. The real question lies in how one defines "professional" sports activity. The obvious would certainly include any city funding of clearly professional sports like the baseball club that lies at the center of the dispute AND the "professional" soccer club that plays at Legion Stadium, and would probably exclude something like Little League (although an argument could be made there are "professional" aspects even there.) I mention thid just to show you how ambiguous thisd simple language can be. Also, the term "directly or indirectly" could have far reaching implications. Providing funds (i.e. money) clearly is a direct funding. But, giving an organization a tax exemption or similar benefit for being in the City of Wilmington clearly would be an "indirect" funding activity and would also be barred. Other possible "indirect" funding could be to provide police traffic and/or special security control at games, and similar publicly funded activities that the City might provide. Odd as it may sound this is one reason why legislation is typically written in lengthy and apparently convoluted language - so as to avoid ambiguity and unintended consequences. Regardless of which side of the controversy one is on, the language they are proposing is dangerous and will, if enacted as written, have gravely unintended consequences.
More information about formatting options