D-Backs want out....

[TooLiveBrew]

You know it is easy to call a bluff until the team gets together relocation proposals and plans. If you are the city are you really going to say "Try Me" is they threaten to leave and say no? These sports teams are huge to local communities bringing in a lot of money and many great jobs.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking for money to build a stadium. This isn't different from bringing in other businesses. You always see cities help businesses out to come to their city. However I have a hard time with what the D Backs are trying to do. They have a perfectly good stadium and are trying to get over $100mil? That I just can't agree with.

 

Yes these owners are swimming in money, but this is exactly how businesses work. These teams can leave and go to another city if they want. If you want them you have to pay up to keep them around.

Many great jobs? How many everyday taxpayers funding hundreds of millions in tax dollars land a great job at a stadium or basketball arena?

 

This isn't some auto or whatever plant with say 500 to 1000 people or more getting good pay and benefits on a full time job. Most people working inside a stadium or basketball arena are selling concessions, collecting money in the parking lot, scanning tickets, an usher, etc at relatively low pay. They are also even less than a typical part time job. Outside of extra playoff games, it's only 81 games in baseball, 41 in basketball, and 10 in football including two preseason games.

 

Plus, most of the time when states or cities try to lure away a business, it's via some tax breaks, not spending 500 million dollars building them a state of the art new facility, and better jobs come with it than seasonal part time jobs pouring beer and scanning tickets.

 

I fully get that there is also some emotional aspect to sports teams and the sports fans in those cities/states which gets factored in. It just really bothers me at the gall of so many of these very rich sports owners today and their swimming in billions leagues when they ask for new stadiums or arenas, especially given the financial times which so many citizens and cities face. So incredibly tone deaf. Even worse when they try holding a city hostage over a building which isn't falling apart, it's just not making them enough millions compared to fellow owners who more recently blackmailed the city they play in.

 

Jealousy sets in and they think, i want my new free toy also. Out comes the blackmail gun. Rinse and repeat.

 

I won't speak for him, but he may have meant many great jobs during construction.

 

I agree in general though, that taxpayers should not pay for ballparks/stadiums. At least not completely.

I can't cite any specific report, but whenever I've seen a stadium economic impact type of study is done (meaning, impact in the community & not just the jobs within the stadium), the finding is that stadia & pro sports franchises do not make a large -- or even positive, relative to the taxpayer expense -- economic impact. It's a bit of a smokescreen imo -- something that sounds like it's probably true, & it's used as an argument literally every time a franchise wants a new stadium. There's definitely an intangible or pride-related value to having a pro sports franchise in your city, but that too often is conflated with economic value when there's debate over a new sports stadium.

[nate82]

I can't cite any specific report, but whenever I've seen a stadium economic impact type of study is done (meaning, impact in the community & not just the jobs within the stadium), the finding is that stadia & pro sports franchises do not make a large -- or even positive, relative to the taxpayer expense -- economic impact. It's a bit of a smokescreen imo -- something that sounds like it's probably true, & it's used as an argument literally every time a franchise wants a new stadium. There's definitely an intangible or pride-related value to having a pro sports franchise in your city, but that too often is conflated with economic value when there's debate over a new sports stadium.

 

You are correct this is an old research paper but it is still very true today.

 

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.14.3.95

[DHonks]

one flaw these studies fail to analyze...the economic impact, or even the utility derived from being a major league city. If Phoenix wants to let the Dbacks leave, Economists (like myself) may celebrate, but the city would take quite a hit. Yes, replacing a functioning stadium with another--both publicly financed--seems foolish. But dropping to AAA city is quite embarrassing.

[homer]

one flaw these studies fail to analyze...the economic impact, or even the utility derived from being a major league city. If Phoenix wants to let the Dbacks leave, Economists (like myself) may celebrate, but the city would take quite a hit. Yes, replacing a functioning stadium with another--both publicly financed--seems foolish. But dropping to AAA city is quite embarrassing.

 

 

At the rate Phoenix is growing, I don't think it would matter much if they lost the D-Backs.

[TooLiveBrew]

one flaw these studies fail to analyze...the economic impact, or even the utility derived from being a major league city. If Phoenix wants to let the Dbacks leave, Economists (like myself) may celebrate, but the city would take quite a hit. Yes, replacing a functioning stadium with another--both publicly financed--seems foolish. But dropping to AAA city is quite embarrassing.

Curious to know how you mean the studies don't factor in the economic impact of being a big-league city. Genuinely asking, not looking to bait you -- what you note at the end is about pride, not economics. Seattle is a perfect example of a city not losing any luster through losing a pro sports franchise. Has your opinion of Seattle actually been impacted by the Sonics leaving? It wouldn't impact my decision to travel & spend money there, nor would it impact me considering a potential job there.

 

You are correct this is an old research paper but it is still very true today.

 

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.14.3.95

Thanks for doing some digging.

[MadScientist]

A big league city does get free country-wide advertising for the city. Without broadcasters showing and talking about the Pittsburgh area, I might still have a 70's era impression of a smog-filled city.

 

A curious thing about the economics is that only large cities can afford a major league team, but those are the ones that least benefit from them. Phoenix may have no net gain from having the D-backs, but small city like Green Bay would be nothing without the Packers.

[lcbj68c]

You know it is easy to call a bluff until the team gets together relocation proposals and plans. If you are the city are you really going to say "Try Me" is they threaten to leave and say no? These sports teams are huge to local communities bringing in a lot of money and many great jobs.

 

I agree. To pretend that these sports franchises don't bring anything to the cities they are in is complete folly. There is a reason that these businesses (sports franchises) are asking for help with their largest expense from the organizations (government) that are their largest benefactor.

[DHonks]

homer, Phoenix was much smaller back in the 80s. Not the 5th biggest metro-area in the country like today. Yet they didn't have pro football, baseball, or hockey. This town has grown tremendously....people aren't diehards, but they are proud to be a major league city in multiple sports. What I mentioned, TooLiveBrew, is definitely about pride. It's the economic concept of utility--very hard to measure though. I'd love to see wealthy owners kick in more for sports stadiums, but the community, fans, and businesses also get a lot out of being a big league town. The real value is felt when a team leaves.

[jerichoholicninja]

homer, Phoenix was much smaller back in the 80s. Not the 5th biggest metro-area in the country like today. Yet they didn't have pro football, baseball, or hockey. This town has grown tremendously....people aren't diehards, but they are proud to be a major league city in multiple sports. What I mentioned, TooLiveBrew, is definitely about pride. It's the economic concept of utility--very hard to measure though. I'd love to see wealthy owners kick in more for sports stadiums, but the community, fans, and businesses also get a lot out of being a big league town. The real value is felt when a team leaves.

 

Does it though? Seattle is doing fine without the SuperSonics. LA has survived multiple NFL teams leaving. Haven't heard about anything bad happening to Montreal since they lost the Expos. And although I wouldn't mind seeing the city of St. Louis crater, I doubt they will without the Rams.

[StearnsFTW]

I can't cite any specific report, but whenever I've seen a stadium economic impact type of study is done (meaning, impact in the community & not just the jobs within the stadium), the finding is that stadia & pro sports franchises do not make a large -- or even positive, relative to the taxpayer expense -- economic impact. It's a bit of a smokescreen imo -- something that sounds like it's probably true, & it's used as an argument literally every time a franchise wants a new stadium. There's definitely an intangible or pride-related value to having a pro sports franchise in your city, but that too often is conflated with economic value when there's debate over a new sports stadium.

Yeah, I'm on this side of the argument as well. I think there are specific instances where I think it makes sense for taxpayers to HELP foot the bill. I'm never in favor of taxpayers footing the whole bill. Except for the Brewers.

[MrTPlush]

I think what a lot fail to realize is the revenue generated by these extremely rich athletes playing in Wisconsin. The numbers I saw had Wisconsin Taxpayers footing $400mil in the Bucks deal(includes interest). The state revenue off the Bucks state income tax will pay out $300mil just in the next 20years. Mind you that doesn't account for any yearly increases to what they collect so that number will likely end up higher.

 

That is before any other benefit is considered. These franchises do bring in many nice jobs. Not only that, but think of all the other businesses benefitting from the Brewers. Hotels, bars, food establishments, Milwaukee tourism etc. etc. etc. Then let's think of who provides all their concession items. That must be a pretty big get for that company. There are tons of other local companies that get to provide something to Miller Park/the Brewers. Running a stadium takes a whole lot of man power and money.

 

So yes to an extent using taxpayer money makes a lot of sense. These franchises bring in a lot of tax money so they are essentially paying for themselves. Assuming you do similar to what the Bucks did. If you do a Miller Park type funding you kind of screw 5 counties into paying for it. The state is probably already turning a healthy profit on Miller Park from all the income tax because that money doesn't have to go to the stadium.

[kalle8]

i spent 4 hours of my life in Phoenix, 2 hours in an empty Chase Field, then i flew from PHO to MIL, and spent eight more days (and some dollars as well) all because Milwaukee had a pro sport.

 

the pro team puts the city in the map (and thoughts and talks) of many tourist (not only sport fanatics like me).

 

i don't know if this is worth zillions or cents, but something for sure.

[TooLiveBrew]

i spent 4 hours of my life in Phoenix, 2 hours in an empty Chase Field, then i flew from PHO to MIL, and spent eight more days (and some dollars as well) all because Milwaukee had a pro sport.

 

the pro team puts the city in the map (and thoughts and talks) of many tourist (not only sport fanatics like me).

 

i don't know if this is worth zillions or cents, but something for sure.

Funny -- I actually went to Genoa just to watch a Sampdoria match!

[1992casey]

Kinda hard to justify spending all that money for a team that consistently averages under 25k in attendance. During the 2011 NLDS there were billboards around town advertising the "cheapest playoff tickets in MLB" (some as low as $7)

It seems that the team has made it known that they'd prefer a smaller facility. Only one stadium built since Chase (Yankee Stadium) has a larger seating capacity. And eight facilities built or renovated since the turn of the millennium (including two that fake it by covering seats with tarps) have capacities under 40,000. Smaller facilities may be part of the current "state of the art."

 

A big league city does get free country-wide advertising for the city.

It's actually worldwide. There's a huge fan base in Japan, for instance. And kalle8 gives a great example. He never would have made it to Milwaukee (or this board ) had it not been for the Brewers. As a kid, my first awareness of US cities came from following sports.

 

As far as economic impact goes, I don't think it benefits the D'Backs to try to argue it. There's enough evidence to the contrary that people are going to believe what they want to, and it's not an argument that the team is likely to "win." They're probably better off sticking to the idea that the community is committed to spending $187 million that it doesn't have and that maybe there's a better alternative.

[Ennder]

The only reason my wife and I went to St. Louis last year was to take in a Brewers game. We ended up visiting at least 12 different establishments because of it. We were going to go to San Francisco this year for the same reason but plans fell through. The stadium definitely does something for the city.

[logan82]

So a team will create a lot of crappy service industry jobs and taxes.

[Thurston Fluff]

We should keep in mind if the city can pay for a stadium they can also use that money for other things that also attract tourists. While there are a lot of sports fans who will go to cities for the teams in those cities there are a lot more non-sport people that might prefer a museum, parks, zoos and what not. I think a city could build several of those things for the same money. But that still is investing in tourism which tends to be low paying jobs for the locals.

Building things that boost an industrial based economy tends to provide better jobs. While that might not provide the tourist dollars of being a widely recognized city I think a lot of residents would prefer to have the extra income in an unknown city than living in a well known city with less income. What having a sports franchise does is give people in the city a quality of life boost that might not be financial in nature. Granted so would parks zoos and other things but sports tends to be an ever evolving thing where a park, zoo or museum is more or less static in nature. You may go once or twice but how many times are you going to look at the same exhibit? If I was to argue for a stadium I would talk about quality of life for the residents more than the economic benefits.

[Quevedo_Qurve]

Interesting. I went to a game at Chase Field last April and thought it was a nice place to watch a game and structurally seemed pretty solid. Obviously that was a very limited experience though and sure after 20 years things need to be replaced/upgraded. I agree they aren't going to get much help/sympathy from taxpayers. Although Downtown may not want to play hardball too much b/c I believe the hockey team left downtown already and this would be another blow.