OT: The Economics of Sports Stadiums and bye-bye to the Oakland A’s

[twolve]

I am a huge A's fan since the day I started watching baseball with my dad in the late 90's so it's been a pretty emotional few days for me. I don't think I'll follow much baseball after they leave.

First off, I think owners should have to be fans of their team to own them. John Fisher, born with all the silver spoons, bought the A's with Lew Wolff for about $200 million in 2005. The A's, despite having the roster and farm teams crippled the last few years, have recently been valued at $1.2 billion. He's holding out for the stadium and real estate so he can sell them for more.

Also, it should be noted that former commissioner Bud Selig approved the sales of the A's to Wolff and Fisher for $50 million less than a group featuring Reggie Jackson (one of Oakland's most celebrated players) and Bill Gates, all because Selig and Wolff had been frat brothers together.

But I think my biggest issue has been the corporatization of baseball. The Coliseum is obviously not a nice stadium, with sewage issues and the rally possums, but I always felt like I was a part of something unique when I went to a game there. I grew up going to baseball games at the Metrodome and had similar feelings, now the new Twin's Target Field is beautiful compared to the Metrodome, but the feeling is not, just reeks of consumerism, at least to me. So I guess I would be happy with any solution for the A's, other than go back in time 50 years.

As to the question, I agree cities should not be paying for stadiums.

[bicycletricycle]

Cities should not be out of pocket for sports teams. It is a waste of taxpayers money.

[sfo1]

Ask Santa Clara how their relationship is going with 'Niners (after they 'over-committed' public resources to the franchise).

Dim-wit York is right behind Fisher as worst pro sports owner.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by echappist

Taking pride in an organization with which one has an at best tenuous connection is nothing short of misguided and misplaced sentiments. The team owners or the cartel (in the case of MLS) are very happy to offer ephemeral pride in exchange for cold hard cash. At best, such pride is icing on top; at worst, it’s a misdirection that leads the gaze away from important issues. Functional government, good schools, responsible policing, abundance of well-maintained parks, efficient public transit, well-maintained infrastructure. Those are the actual bread and butter things in which one takes pride.

After a long wait, the Eagles finally won a NFL championship in 2018, but that “pride” is nothing but an ephemeral high. The next year, one of the long-established hospital that served the indigent population closed, all due to some corporate shenanigans (new owner of the hospital was interested in the underlying real estate only). Someone who actually cares about the well-being of one’s city would gladly trade a sport title for a well-functioning hospital, but I guess too many are gaslit by the ephemeral high…

Also, there is no comparison between European football vs American sports. The very point that served as genesis of this thread is almost completely absent. Take the case of Kroenke, who tried to gain whatever subsidies he could find with his NFL franchise (during the team's stay in St. Louis), but footed his own bills when it came to building a new stadium for Arsenal. That there is a contrast shows just how much of a cynical ploy asking for public financing is. And that’s before we get to the cases in Germany, where most teams are ran on the 50+1 model (as in, majority decision making voting shares are in hands of members of the respective clubs). Of the famous teams that aren’t, three had their starts as factory work teams, one is the personal project of an owner who made billions elsewhere and ploughed money into his hometown team, and one is a Redbull team. Unlike the U.S. teams, almost none of the established teams in Europe would dare to blackmail their local cities for handouts at the threat of moving away.



Oakland is the third most important city in the Bay Area. Far from "major", if it finishes on the third step of a three-stepped podium of local cities.

In terms of population, ahead of Oakland are Long Beach (CA), Colorado Springs, Omaha, Mesa (AZ), Tucson, Fresno, Albuquerque, Louisville, El Paso, and Fort Worth, none of which with any team in the big five sport leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS). Austin has only a MLS franchise.

But then again, your posts in this entire thread are argued from an emotional standpoint. Doubtful that any factual evidence will convince you otherwise.

Excellent points and very well-written. I’m in agreement with you.

[RoosterCogset]

Go the Green Bay Packers route. Public ownership. They'll never move

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by RoosterCogset

Go the Green Bay Packers route. Public ownership. They'll never move

If they did move, it would probably only be to Appleton.

[saab2000]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

If they did move, it would probably only be to Appleton.

That’s where I grew up. Could be worse. But I think if they leave Lambeau Field it’s the end of the NFL as we know it.

Honestly, I hope the Bears can find a way to be relevant again (of course with the Packers continuing to own them) and stay at Soldier Field. It’s too iconic for them to leave for the burbs.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Elefantino

You just described the SLOOC and the reason the Games had to bring in Mitt to straighten out the mess. I know. I lived next door to one of the messes.

Wasn't the other issue the matter of the SLOOC members offering bribes to IOC members to get the rights to hold the games? This was a big scandal for the IOC: For the IOC itself, the problem wasn't that IOC members were taking bribes; the problem was that this long running practice was exposed to public scrutiny.

[rogerspam]

It's all business these days and I think it would interesting if US sports ever could be like European soccer where amazingly relegation occurs (even outside of Ted Lasso). That would really make the owners focus on improving the team. As an aside, Ryan Reynolds pet English soccer club just got promoted and that's still only to the 3rd level below the Premier League (top level, really big money).

I suppose these sport teams are not that different from Company X asking for a tax break to move into your state. It's just people not remotely connected to Company X might enjoy/benefit from the sports team.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Cities should not be out of pocket for sports teams. It is a waste of taxpayers money.

It may be a waste, but it's not a given that it is always a waste.
Having firmly planted views on a topic where the result is wide ranging hardly ever looks good.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by echappist

Taking pride in an organization with which one has an at best tenuous connection is nothing short of misguided and misplaced sentiments.

And yet this has been done by billions across the world over the last couple decades.
Thats a lot of misplaced sentiments.

Identity is a fascinating subject because it mixes logic and emotion to varying degrees with all of us.
I can absolutely understand the appeal of being part of a group and celebrating the success while commisersting in the failures of a sports team. The social angle of it is strong and people develop lifelong friendships as a result. Being part of something bigger is a pretty natural draw for many.

I get it, you think that draw should be focused elsewhere. But if the person doesn't feel like their interest and support is misguided, is it? Seems pretty arrogant to claim you know what's best for how they spend their social time.

[echappist]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

And yet this has been done by billions across the world over the last couple decades.
Thats a lot of misplaced sentiments.

Identity is a fascinating subject because it mixes logic and emotion to varying degrees with all of us.
I can absolutely understand the appeal of being part of a group and celebrating the success while commisersting in the failures of a sports team. The social angle of it is strong and people develop lifelong friendships as a result. Being part of something bigger is a pretty natural draw for many.

I get it, you think that draw should be focused elsewhere. But if the person doesn't feel like their interest and support is misguided, is it? Seems pretty arrogant to claim you know what's best for how they spend their social time.

How one choose to spend one’s spare time is the prerogative of that person alone. I am not making any comments on affinities toward a team in general, and commenting only when fans wishes to influence how decisions are made at a local level. Full disclosure, i watch a lot of pro cycling and Euro football. I am a full on plastic, though there are still teams I like. The difference is that i don’t advocate for local government to provide various subsidies to pro teams. The moment someone does that, s/he is fair game for critique (not to mention a pawn for the incredibly rich in their pursuit of gaining leverage over local polities).

It becomes a problem for society at large when an entire cohort demands a local polity to fork out money to a pro team, whether that money is spent on building/ maintaining a stadium or for various tax breaks. See the crazies shown in the John Oliver video upthread (post #5).

For 20 some years, residents in Milwaukee County and a few adjacent counties had to pay an extra 0.5% sales tax to fund the building/maintenance of stadia. That should be objectionable to both small government conservatives and liberals who want funding for expanded social programs. And yet, there was enough consensus that tax was levied. Is this tax at all fair for people who couldn’t give a damn about the local teams? Obviously no. Was the money spent on necessities such as providing for the general welfare (e.g. schools, funding police/ fire dept/ EMT, maintaining roads, etc.)? Also a big no.

The teams/ cartels are all wealthy enough to build and maintain their own stadia. Even Kroenke paid full freight after he left St. Louis (which had up to then funded for the construction of the St. Louis Dome) and resettled in LA. And for that, good on St. Louis telling him to pound sand. And if one thinks providing financial support for private enterprises that do not provide necessary services/good should take precedence over other considerations faced by often cash-strapped polities, then one has said all one needs to say about one’s priorities.

[peanutgallery]

One of the best parts of living in a flyover state is that the economic development junkets are small potatoes in comparison to this kinda stuff. Someone always has their hands on the needle no matter where you live

The rich are always aiming to stay that way...you think private jets, butt lifts, yachts and compounds in the Hamptons grow on trees

As long as they manage to NOT have a bowl cut like Mark Davis...there;'s always some leeway

[bicycletricycle]

Continually saying "it depends" is also just not very helpful even though it does of coarse always depend on the details. In this case the title of the thread is both general and specific. I gave a general answer, although the specific answer having to do with the Oakland A's also seems to be pretty similar.

Stealing taxpayers money to pay for super rich people to have super huge stadiums just doesn't make any sense to me unless the rest of your city / state is pretty well sorted out.

I know people can come up with economic models showing how these expenditures can pay for themselves through increased tourism, jobs, service industry, blah blah blah. People also come up with models showing how these never pay for themselves. It just isn't possible to make a dispassionate analysis of the economic impact of something like this because your political believes will always be incorporated into the analysis through differences in your basic a priori assumptions.

I am interested in a principled approach and my principles tell me that this is an incorrect use of taxpayers money. If the citizens of a city / state love a team enough they should donate directly to keep them.

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

It may be a waste, but it's not a given that it is always a waste.
Having firmly planted views on a topic where the result is wide ranging hardly ever looks good.

[twolve]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

I know people can come up with economic models showing how these expenditures can pay for themselves through increased tourism, jobs, service industry, blah blah blah. People also come up with models showing how these never pay for themselves. It just isn't possible to make a dispassionate analysis of the economic impact of something like this because your political believes will always be incorporated into the analysis through differences in your basic a priori assumptions.

An interesting detail to this case, is that the A's did a "study" they gave to the city of Las Vegas showing how their stadium will bring 400,000 more tourists to Vegas. I find this highly dubious.

On a different note, it's not yet guaranteed that Las Vegas will approve the A's stadium in the legislature, and there are rumors that buying the LV land was a tactic to get leverage on Oakland. If this is the case, it backfired horribly as Oakland has said they will no longer negotiate with current ownership.