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

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I am confused why you think this? The particular paper linked in this thread is a literature review. Do you think that is biased? Are they ignoring studies that show the benefits of public investment in stadiums? Do you think each of the studies they cite has its own biases and all those biases collectively push in the same direction.

If anything, I would think there would be incentives for an academic to find economic benefits to stadium construction, because that would set the person up for lucrative consulting opportunities.

To the best of my knowledge, most of the economists who do sports economics are pretty big sports fans themselves. It would be an unusual field for someone to pick out of spite.

If you have specific critiques of any of the studies, I would be happy to hear them. Has someone in the business of reading, writing, and critiquing economic papers, I am absolutely not naive enough to think that everything that's written in an economic paper must be true. There are a lot of bad papers out there. But also, in my professional judgment, the collective body of work on stadium subsidies is strong, and if you disagree, I would be very interested to hear more specifically where you think the authors of those studies have erred.

I forgot to add, and this is probably most important, follow the money. Who funded the study?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

I forgot to add, and this is probably most important, follow the money. Who funded the study?

The particular paper that's been linked in this thread is authored by three tenured professors. They received salaries from their respective universities, but there was no indication they received any special funding for this particular paper. Some of the papers they cite may have received special funding, you are welcome to look into that.

In general, most of the people being paid specifically to write about the economic benefits of stadium subsidies are being hired by the teams or developers, and they have an obvious incentive to report positive economic benefits to stadium construction. The other people who write on this topic are academics who have no financial incentive associated with a particular conclusion. That doesn't mean that they can't bring their own biases or make mistakes, but if you have any actual reason to believe that any particular studies by academics is flawed, I would love to hear it.

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you have prejudged the research without taking the time to engage with any of it. It's difficult to further these discussions without more detail on your part about why you think the things you do. I am an an economist by profession, and have experience in an academic environment, a consulting environment, and a government environment. They all have their own different incentives, and by no means do I think any economic studies are above criticism, but there is a large body of literature from academics on the questions of subsidies for professional sports stadiums, and they're findings all point in the same direction: that the benefits to stadium subsidies are narrow, and typically quite small and magnitude compared to the level of public investment.

Now, as a matter of public policy, it's up to each and every one of us to decide how we would like to spend our money, and to vote and communicate to our representatives accordingly. If you look at the evidence on the economic benefits of stadiums and think it's worth public investment, that's fine. Everybody has different values, but I would argue it's better to look at the evidence and base your judgment on that then too come up with a judgment and presume that evidence that does not support your judgment must be biased and flawed.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by prototoast

The particular paper that's been linked in this thread is authored by three tenured professors. They received salaries from their respective universities, but there was no indication they received any special funding for this particular paper. Some of the papers they cite may have received special funding, you are welcome to look into that.

In general, most of the people being paid specifically to write about the economic benefits of stadium subsidies are being hired by the teams or developers, and they have an obvious incentive to report positive economic benefits to stadium construction. The other people who write on this topic are academics who have no financial incentive associated with a particular conclusion. That doesn't mean that they can't bring their own biases or make mistakes, but if you have any actual reason to believe that any particular studies by academics is flawed, I would love to hear it.

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you have prejudged the research without taking the time to engage with any of it. It's difficult to further these discussions without more detail on your part about why you think the things you do. I am an an economist by profession, and have experience in an academic environment, a consulting environment, and a government environment. They all have their own different incentives, and by no means do I think any economic studies are above criticism, but there is a large body of literature from academics on the questions of subsidies for professional sports stadiums, and they're findings all point in the same direction: that the benefits to stadium subsidies are narrow, and typically quite small and magnitude compared to the level of public investment.

Now, as a matter of public policy, it's up to each and every one of us to decide how we would like to spend our money, and to vote and communicate to our representatives accordingly. If you look at the evidence on the economic benefits of stadiums and think it's worth public investment, that's fine. Everybody has different values, but I would argue it's better to look at the evidence and base your judgment on that then too come up with a judgment and presume that evidence that does not support your judgment must be biased and flawed.

So you're implying that this research was not somehow funded either fully or partly by the billions and billions of dollars of either government, institutional, or corporate grant money? They did this on a salary?

C'mon. Everybody has a price.

[KonaSS]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

So you're implying that this research was not somehow funded either fully or partly by the billions and billions of dollars of either government, institutional, or corporate grant money? They did this on a salary?

C'mon. Everybody has a price.

I am not really following. Are you claiming that the government, "institutions" and Corporations are giving out "billions and billions" in a campaign aligned against major league sports?

[Mr. Pink]

Good lord, it's so hard to have a reasoned argument these days.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Good lord, it's so hard to have a reasoned argument these days.

Physician, heal thyself ...

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by prototoast

The particular paper that's been linked in this thread is authored by three tenured professors. They received salaries from their respective universities, but there was no indication they received any special funding for this particular paper. Some of the papers they cite may have received special funding, you are welcome to look into that.

In general, most of the people being paid specifically to write about the economic benefits of stadium subsidies are being hired by the teams or developers, and they have an obvious incentive to report positive economic benefits to stadium construction. The other people who write on this topic are academics who have no financial incentive associated with a particular conclusion. That doesn't mean that they can't bring their own biases or make mistakes, but if you have any actual reason to believe that any particular studies by academics is flawed, I would love to hear it.

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you have prejudged the research without taking the time to engage with any of it. It's difficult to further these discussions without more detail on your part about why you think the things you do. I am an an economist by profession, and have experience in an academic environment, a consulting environment, and a government environment. They all have their own different incentives, and by no means do I think any economic studies are above criticism, but there is a large body of literature from academics on the questions of subsidies for professional sports stadiums, and they're findings all point in the same direction: that the benefits to stadium subsidies are narrow, and typically quite small and magnitude compared to the level of public investment.

Now, as a matter of public policy, it's up to each and every one of us to decide how we would like to spend our money, and to vote and communicate to our representatives accordingly. If you look at the evidence on the economic benefits of stadiums and think it's worth public investment, that's fine. Everybody has different values, but I would argue it's better to look at the evidence and base your judgment on that then too come up with a judgment and presume that evidence that does not support your judgment must be biased and flawed.

You should really teach a Master Class on being civil on Internet forums.

Plus, you have one of the all-time best Paceline one-liners: https://forums.thepaceline.net/showt...+Brady&page=14

Quote # 201. Still laughing and still disagree.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

So you're implying that this research was not somehow funded either fully or partly by the billions and billions of dollars of either government, institutional, or corporate grant money? They did this on a salary?

C'mon. Everybody has a price.

If you’re going to go out on a limb, make it long and visible. Kudos.

[MikeD]

Apparently the A's moving to LV is not a done deal according to the news this morning. The mayor of LV is balking at the taxpayer's cost.

[Mike V]

Originally Posted by MikeD

Apparently the A's moving to LV is not a done deal according to the news this morning. The mayor of LV is balking at the taxpayer's cost.

It’s been that way the whole time. That’s why I said the are trying to drive the price up.

[XXtwindad]

Interesting article that came out the other day addressing this very subject:

https://www.sacbee.com/sports/nba/sa...274721376.html

“For many here, that beam — and their team’s improbable rise to prominence — is a beacon of hope. And a unifying force that creates a perhaps subtle, but also feel-good national narrative about our community. Sports can do that. The Kings are doing that. Patrick Rishe, a sports economist and Director of the Olin’s Sports Business Program at Washington University in St. Louis, sums it up this way: “There has been a lot of dark years in Sacramento,” he said. “The Kings franchise has gone through a lot. Light the beam has become a rallying cry, a unifying cry in the community. Around the nation people know what it means.”

THE SKEPTIC TURNED FAN Paul is a housing activist who has led rent control campaigns in Sacramento. He said he opposed the $223 million bond the city floated to help pay for the arena to keep the Kings from fleeing a decade ago. Still, Paul acknowledged that he has been swept up by the beam spirit, attending downtown watch parties and cheering along with thousands of others. “The beam won’t house us,” Paul said. ”It won’t help feed us. But the beam is for everyone. It’s lifting our spirits.”

Steinberg believes that indirectly the beam can help address social needs. In his annual State of Downtown address in February, he mentioned the purple laser 25 times.”

I’m a Kings fan. I’m happy for fans of the team and for Sacramento. But the article cited seems like total civic boosterism. No facts provided. Just feelings.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by MikeD

Apparently the A's moving to LV is not a done deal according to the news this morning. The mayor of LV is balking at the taxpayer's cost.

I hope the Fishers get royally screwed. They’re the worst.

[pdmtong]

I joined the 28,000 other folks last night at the reverse boycott.
Sea of green and gold.
Loud from start to finish.
The silence to start the 5th was stunning.
Two-out double to take the lead was poetic.
Bittersweet experience.

[Ralph]

When a new stadium is built down town with some combination of public and private money, it's usually said it will revitalize the area. What exactly does that mean? When you get new very nice parking garages, hi end restaurants, hotels, etc....how does that benefit the average resident of that city? Assuming it breaks even financially. That's my question.

Orlando built a new stadium for the Orlando Magic basketball team, and a few other lessor know sport teams. it's also used for other purposes, performing acts, etc. And has a complicated package of financing mainly backed up by the local resort tax income. Most of the decent seats for home games for the magic were sold to corporations, for their corporate use. I know very few residents who can afford to go to the games with a couple kids, eat, pay for parking, etc.

it was said it was necessary to build, so Orlando could come closer to being in the "big league" of sports. I have met very few residents who give a toot about that. We need more mass transit, and other public facilities. Figure out the homeless situation. Stuff like that.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Ralph

When a new stadium is built down town with some combination of public and private money, it's usually said it will revitalize the area. What exactly does that mean? When you get new very nice parking garages, hi end restaurants, hotels, etc....how does that benefit the average resident of that city? Assuming it breaks even financially. That's my question.

The sales pitch generally isn't about creating spectating opportunities for the residents; instead, "revitalize" usually means creating jobs and business opportunities, fill vacant lots and empty store fronts, increase traffic of paying customers, and reduce crime. But studies show that stadiums often don't do that very well, and there are more cost effective ways to revitalize neighborhoods.