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

[Ralph]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

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.

The mostly lower income (some elderly) minority folks living in modest homes (by power people standards) living in the downtown area, who were moved out so the new stadium could revitalize their couple square blocks....probably didn't think there was anything wrong with their neighborhood the way it was. They didn't knock down any expensive neighborhoods to build the stadium. Sorry to rant....this is a pet peeve of mine.

[schwa86]

Only catching up with this thread now. For the “show me the studies” folks up above, here’s the classic book:

Sports, Jobs, and Taxes
The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums

Here’s the blurb (noting book specifically addresses some of the anecdotal examples above):

“America is in the midst of a sports building boom. Professional sports teams are demanding and receiving fancy new playing facilities that are heavily subsidized by government. In many cases, the rationale given for these subsidies is that attracting or retaining a professional sports franchise—even a minor league baseball team or a major league pre-season training facility–more than pays for itself in increased tax revenues, local economic development, and job creation.


But are these claims true? To assess the case for subsidies, this book examines the economic impact of new stadiums and the presence of a sports franchise on the local economy. It first explores such general issues as the appropriate method for measuring economic benefits and costs, the source of the bargaining power of teams in obtaining subsidies from local government, the local politics of attracting and retaining teams, the relationship between sports and local employment, and the importance of stadium design in influencing the economic impact of a facility.


The second part of the book contains case studies of major league sports facilities in Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, San Francisco, and the Twin Cities, and of minor league stadiums and spring training facilities in baseball. The primary conclusions are: first, sports teams and facilities are not a source of local economic growth and employment; second, the magnitude of the net subsidy exceeds the financial benefit of a new stadium to a team; and, third, the most plausible reasons that cities are willing to subsidize sports teams are the intense popularity of sports among a substantial proportion of voters and businesses and the leverage that teams enjoy from the monopoly position of professional sports leagues.”

[additional comment from me]

Having read a bunch of this stuff, because I am a Bostonian who followed all the examples accurately cited up above re Pats/Fenway/Olympics, the economic benefit is not simply what the stadium brings in. You have to offset the lost economic activity elsewhere. EG if someone goes to a game rather than out to dinner and a movie, you have to offset the positive impact of the stadium with the lost revenue at the restaurant. Same idea as when big box store moves to town and puts others out of business, it’s not all just “new” $…

[XXtwindad]

Last day for baseball on the sunny side of the Bay.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/579...seum-thompson/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/s...athletics.html



“In the hunt for profits, billionaire sports owners have built a steady stream of palace-like stadiums, with a widening array of over-the-top distractions from the game. The goal — the only goal, it can seem — is to attract casual fans into far pricier seats. It has all added up to a broad commercialization — and sterilization — of the fan experience.”

The Town will always have the World Championship banners. And Rickey. The most exciting player in modern history.

[sfo1]

Rickey don't care.

"I can't be sad, I have too much money, and I did too much here, all these great things here,"

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Last day for baseball on the sunny side of the Bay.


And Rickey. The most exciting player in modern history.

[donevwil]

Nice postgame speech by manager Mark Kotsay, including a subtle jab at POS Fisher.

[bigbill]

Baseball will be 90 minutes away in Las Vegas just in time for us to move to Wyoming. I guess we'll have to follow the pro teams in that state.

[makoti]

They left Philly
They Left KC
They are leaving Oakland
It's what they do

[trener1]

Originally Posted by donevwil

Nice postgame speech by manager Mark Kotsay, including a subtle jab at POS Fisher.

Great speech.

[pdmtong]

In five years the A's Warriors and Raiders all won championships
1972-73-74-75-76

In five years the Warriors, Raiders and A's all left
2019, 2020, 2024

As a life long fan of all three it's been difficult

[cmg]

Originally Posted by makoti

They left Philly
They Left KC
They are leaving Oakland
It's what they do

And when the incentives end they'll leave again. Higher profit when someone else pays for it.

[twolve]

They would be staying in Oakland if the former commissioner, Bud Selig, would have approved the sale to a group that included Reggie Jackson and Bill Gates. Their offer was $25 million more than Lee Wolff and John Fisher. Selig rejected their offer, and approved the sale to Wolff and Fisher. Important to note, Selig was literally a fraternity brother with Wolff.

The Oakland A’s have received revenue sharing for years, despite being in one of the biggest markets. If they had built a stadium in the Bay Area, they would have stopped receiving revenue sharing. If they move to Vegas, and that’s a big if, it’s a smaller market and you guessed it, they will continue to receive revenue sharing.

There’s so many things that make me mad and numb to this, but mostly I’ve just been sad and heartbroken this week.

[cgolvin]

As highlighted in the NYT article, the Raiders do well in LV because fans of the opposing team build a visit around the game. That works when there are 8 or 9 games, hard to see strong attendance from this dynamic when there are 81. No, make that impossible to see.

[Mikej]

Ha ha Green Day telling LV how they feel!

[JedB]

Originally Posted by deluz

It is a private for profit business with billionaire owners.
City should pay zero.
Chargers left San Diego after the city paid the Spanos family millions in subsidies while the the city infrastructure suffered. Good riddins, I could care less about a professional sports team here. Let some other sucker city pay for it.

And **** the Spanos' sideways. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[JedB]

Originally Posted by saab2000

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.

The corporate structure of the Packers won't let them move.
Stock is not publicly sold.
Can only be transferred between family.
No single owner may have more than 4% of the total stock.

Can you imagine trying to get a simple majority of those share-holders to move?