The Jaguars - How Jacksonville Became an NFL City

[ac]

Regardless of whether you care about football at all, rooting for the Jaguars to move, or being apathetic about the idea, on the grounds that it wouldn't hurt the city or would actually benefit the city (there's a certain element that seem to think the Jaguars' existence somehow holds back education or arts funding), is senseless.

Don't forget those who claim we had no crime in this city prior to the Jaguars moving in.  That's my favorite.

[Shwaz]

I don't think wanting to know the facts about something demonstates that one is set in their ways.

While we’re waiting for the T-U reporter to get back to us, let me offer the following for your reading pleasure:

“Unlike manufacturing plants or warehouses, professional sports teams generate non-financial benefits like civic pride and world-class city status for their host communities. Yet these benefits don't seem to justify the public spending needed to build a 21st century stadium. Instead, proponents justify those subsidies with claims of economic benefits the surrounding community will collect. According to these claims, a new facility will create thousands of new jobs, generate millions of dollars of new income for residents and add additional millions of dollars to state and local coffers.

The decision facing local officials appears to be a "no-brainer:" For the bargain price of $500 million to $2 billion, the city keeps its beloved sports franchise, gets a shiny new facility and a powerhouse engine of local economic development.

Unfortunately, economic research consistently finds no evidence supporting these claims.? My own research, published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and based on past economic performance of all U.S. cities with a professional football, basketball or baseball franchise since 1969, concludes that professional sports teams and facilities increased employment and earnings in only one small sector of the economy -- the recreation and amusement industry. It actually reduced earnings and employment in related industries like hotels, bars and restaurants.

Overall, professional sports reduced real per-capita income in their metropolitan areas by about $40 per year.”


http://www.businessjournalism.org/pages/biz/2005/06/finding_the_bottom_line_for_sp/

The large and growing peer-reviewed economics literature on the economic impacts of stadiums, arenas, sports franchises, and sport megaevents has consistently found no substantial evidence of increased jobs, incomes, or tax revenues for a community associated with any of these things.

http://www.aier.org/ejw/archive/doc_view/3626-ejw-200809?tmpl=component&format=raw

“…statistical analyses of the impacts of sports teams on urban economies. A study by Hudson (1999) investigated the impact of sports teams on employment growth and found that the presence of professional sports teams had no statistically significant effect. A similarly detailed study of 37 metropolitan areas by Coates and Humphries (1999) concluded that there is no evidence that sports facilities and sports teams increase the rate of real per capita income and, in fact, may actually generate a negative impact on real income per capita.”

http://www.arroyoseco.org/671_chapin-web.pdf

First of all show me data proving the city paid $500  million - $2 billion to acquire the team.

Total construction time was under 20 months and total cost was $134 million â€" $60 million of which was provided by the city of Jacksonville.

Second there is no data or evidence proving a major sports team has a negative economic local impact in the articles you posted.

Saying statistical evidence was compiled through studies is just the same as the mayor claiming the figure he came up with through local studies lol

[jandar]

Its funny, everyone talks about the city, but NFL teams are a metro/regional interest.

Green Bay is all of Wisconsin.
The Jets/Giants are NYC and New Jersey.
Tennessee is all of Tennessee, same with Carolina being both North and South Carolina.

The Jags have had terrible marketing, even the NFL has finally sent marketing people to help Wayne and company.
Do you see any ads in Orlando? Daytona? Gainesville? Lake City? Tallahassee? Valdosta? Savannah?

[stjr]

So I'm curious, what is it that you don't like about the Jaguars that makes you less likely to give them slack then, say, the Suns, the more-empty-than-not Arena, the Symphony, or other entertainment entities that receive or benefit from public dollars?

First, I am a fan of the Jags and what Wayne Weaver has done for the community.  That said, the NFL is business-like and we should be too. We've discussed this before.  This comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.

The reason the Jags get more scrutiny is because the Jags "cost" more to the community with their stadium and game day subsidies and needed revenue than all the other items mentioned (not that they shouldn't be scrutinized continuously as well) combined.  As such, they get a bigger share of the limelight.

It's well established that based on tangible benefits (such as economic impact) alone, sports teams rarely, if ever, pay back on taxpayer investments.  

Sports teams are not a panacea for the ills of our society.  Their biggest benefit is the intangible factors regarding psyche, pride, promotional value, etc.  It comes down to how much to pay for the intangibles?  Is it like the Mastercard commercial, "priceless", or is there a community investment limit, and what should that limit be?

Honest people can disagree.  "Talk amongst yourselves"!

[77danj7]

Its funny, everyone talks about the city, but NFL teams are a metro/regional interest.

Green Bay is all of Wisconsin.
The Jets/Giants are NYC and New Jersey.
Tennessee is all of Tennessee, same with Carolina being both North and South Carolina.

The Jags have had terrible marketing, even the NFL has finally sent marketing people to help Wayne and company.
Do you see any ads in Orlando? Daytona? Gainesville? Lake City? Tallahassee? Valdosta? Savannah?

The only advertising you see in these markets is for the Bucs and Dolphins!!!!

[jandar]

The only advertising you see in these markets is for the Bucs and Dolphins!!!!

Yet these cities are considered secondary markets to Jacksonville.

[finehoe]

So I'm curious, what is it that you don't like about the Jaguars that makes you less likely to give them slack then, say, the Suns, the more-empty-than-not Arena, the Symphony, or other entertainment entities that receive or benefit from public dollars?

It's not specific to the Jaguars, but that is the subject of this thread.  None of the other things you mention are more deserving, but I suspect the amount that any of them receives pales in comparison to the amount of time and effort devoted to the NFL.  I can't imagine a thirty-plus year campaign to, say, bring an Opera company to Jacksonville.

And "ac" I apologize if you thought I was calling you a redneck.  That wasn't my intention, although in re-reading my post, it does sort of come across that way.

Let me clarify something:  I am neither for nor against the Jaguars.  If the people of this city want to support an NFL team, more power to them.  What I take issue with is the reckless recitation of the "fact" that they are some mighty development engine that has somehow elevated Jacksonville to a level just below New York, London, or Paris (hyperbole on my part, please no posts saying "no one mentioned those cities").  They are nothing of the kind.  No football team is.  I think it is quite telling that no one has been able to provide hard data on the true economic impact of having the team, yet everyone "knows" they contribute oh so much.  "ac" comes closest to the truth when he says "It makes me feel like I live in a real city".  If that is a good enough reason for you, I think that is great.  But to have the mayor say (and the news media repeat without checking, and the posters on this forum believe) they have a $200 million dollar impact (a year? since they've been here? what?) without any hard evidence is not the way concerned citizens should make economic development decisions.

[ac]

So I'm curious, what is it that you don't like about the Jaguars that makes you less likely to give them slack then, say, the Suns, the more-empty-than-not Arena, the Symphony, or other entertainment entities that receive or benefit from public dollars?

First, I am a fan of the Jags and what Wayne Weaver has done for the community.  That said, the NFL is business-like and we should be too. We've discussed this before.  This comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.

The reason the Jags get more scrutiny is because the Jags "cost" more to the community with their stadium and game day subsidies and needed revenue than all the other items mentioned (not that they shouldn't be scrutinized continuously as well) combined.  As such, they get a bigger share of the limelight.

It's well established that based on tangible benefits (such as economic impact) alone, sports teams rarely, if ever, pay back on taxpayer investments.  

Sports teams are not a panacea for the ills of our society.  Their biggest benefit is the intangible factors regarding psyche, pride, promotional value, etc.  It comes down to how much to pay for the intangibles?  Is it like the Mastercard commercial, "priceless", or is there a community investment limit, and what should that limit be?

Honest people can disagree.  "Talk amongst yourselves"!

I can understand that perspective, but the horse is already out of the barn.  If we run them off, we still have a stadium to pay off and maintain, and without a year-round tenant.  We still have to keep it up to current standards in order to keep the remaining 2-3 events hosted there viable.

If we're going to make unemotional, cost-benefit analysis of one thing our city pays for, then we have to do it for all.  Many things nearer and dearer to the majority of us would have to go by the wayside as well.  Many things we still need would have even less of a snowball's chance of getting off the ground. Would we as readily accept elimination of those things?  I wouldn't.

Personally, I am willing to keep them all as long as we can.  I've stated repeatedly my opinion, which is that if our peer cities in the league can do it without detriment to city services and quality of life, so can we.   To do that, it might require a little more than squealing like stuck pigs when the city finally has no choice but to bring us out of the bargain basement in taxes.

Are the Jaguars a cure for the ills of Jacksonville?  Of course not.  But they're a far cry from being the cause.  The issues we have now are the same we had before they were here, and they would still be here if the team were not.

[Wacca Pilatka]

It's not specific to the Jaguars, but that is the subject of this thread.  None of the other things you mention are more deserving, but I suspect the amount that any of them receives pales in comparison to the amount of time and effort devoted to the NFL.  I can't imagine a thirty-plus year campaign to, say, bring an Opera company to Jacksonville.

And "ac" I apologize if you thought I was calling you a redneck.  That wasn't my intention, although in re-reading my post, it does sort of come across that way.

Let me clarify something:  I am neither for nor against the Jaguars.  If the people of this city want to support an NFL team, more power to them.  What I take issue with is the reckless recitation of the "fact" that they are some mighty development engine that has somehow elevated Jacksonville to a level just below New York, London, or Paris (hyperbole on my part, please no posts saying "no one mentioned those cities").  They are nothing of the kind.  No football team is.  I think it is quite telling that no one has been able to provide hard data on the true economic impact of having the team, yet everyone "knows" they contribute oh so much.  "ac" comes closest to the truth when he says "It makes me feel like I live in a real city".  If that is a good enough reason for you, I think that is great.  But to have the mayor say (and the news media repeat without checking, and the posters on this forum believe) they have a $200 million dollar impact (a year? since they've been here? what?) without any hard evidence is not the way concerned citizens should make economic development decisions.

Finehoe, I understand what you are saying, but I think it's indisputable that the Jaguars' existence vastly elevated Jacksonville's national image, and that their departure would be severely detrimental.  I hate to argue from the negative rather than the positive, but the image blow from losing the Jaguars would have ramifications on Jacksonville's ability to attract and retain talented individuals as well as businesses.  Losing the team creates a national perception of the city as being unable to compete, just as gaining the team enhanced its reputation as a city on the rise. 

Yes, there are many other factors that contribute to a city's quality of life that are more important (and I say this as someone who loves football), but professional sports has a major impact on how a city is perceived, particularly a smaller-market one.  I'm an outsider; I live in Virginia, have never lived in Jacksonville, but have always loved Jacksonville.  When someone finds out about my love for Jacksonville who has never been there, they know the city first and foremost as the home of the Jaguars.  Scarcely anyone knows about the city's history or culture or architecture (though they'll find out quickly when hanging around me for a while); many don't know where it's situated within Florida or even that it has beaches.  Sometimes there's awareness that it's on a river.  My point is, the Jaguars are more strongly identified with Jacksonville than anything else about the city is.  And if we lose the Jaguars, the city becomes known more than anything as the place that tried to be major league and couldn't succeed.

I think most of us Jaguar fans here are sensitive to some of the implications in your comments, hence the references to agendas et al., because there are a number of people in Jacksonville who think the city subsidizes the team at the expense of other essential services or quality of life improvements.  I don't think that's accurate, and I don't think the city's investment in the team is anywhere near as much as many other cities have invested or will invest in maintaining or attracting their own teams. 

That, and your use of the term redneck, regardless of whether it is in reference to a specific poster, has obvious connotations that people who stand up for the football team are somehow intellectually inferior or ignorant.  You reinforce that with the reference to the opera.  Since when does supporting the Jaguars and believing fervently in their importance to the city constitute a lack of intellectual capacity or a redneck mindset?  Why does patronizing sports and the arts have to be mutually exclusive?  The Weavers, for one, are enormous supporters of culture and education and historic preservation in Jacksonville.  So are many Jaguar fans.  I'm a Jaguar fan and season ticket holder, but I'm a member of the Jacksonville Historical Society and Friends of the Florida Theatre too.  Throw "redneck" or the opera comment out there and you come off as looking down your nose at football fans and painting them all with the same brush.  (Presumably a red one.)

[ac]

Wakka- To be fair to finehoe, I referenced the Symphony in relation to city expenditures that outweigh the economic return.  The response was that finehoe felt the city wouldn't chase an opera company, for example, as ardently as the Jaguars.  I don't necessarily agree with that, but I understand the sentiment.

Personally, I think the real issue in the Opera example is that there's not a private group motivated enough to lobby for and chase it, while there was one for pro football.  The city is somehow expected to chase the Opera spontaneously; while the groups that pursued the NFL, while working with and receiving blessing and a facilities commitment from the City, were groups of private businesspeople.  Find a group dedicated and well-heeled enough to start up an Opera company in JAX, and it can be done.

Neither reference (Symphony/Opera) was intended to be derogatory.  finehoe is on his/her own with the redneck thing, though.

[finehoe]

First of all show me data proving the city paid $500 million - $2 billion to acquire the team.

First, don’t be an idiot.  No one said, or implied, that those numbers specifically referred to Jacksonville or the Jaguars. 

Second there is no data or evidence proving a major sports team has a negative economic local impact in the articles you posted.

Oh no?  What do you think “Overall, professional sports reduced real per-capita income in their metropolitan areas by about $40 per year.” or “concluded that there is no evidence that sports facilities and sports teams increase the rate of real per capita income and, in fact, may actually generate a negative impact on real income per capita” means?  If you think a reduction in income doesn’t have a negative economic impact, I suggest Monday morning you go ask your boss to reduce yours.  Besides, having a negative economic impact isn’t the same as not have a positive economic impact.

Saying statistical evidence was compiled through studies is just the same as the mayor claiming the figure he came up with through local studies

I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here, but the point is, the mayor didn’t cite any “local studies”.  He just threw that number out.  And that is the issue I have.  Where does this figure come from?

[ac]

Finehoe, from what I've heard via local radio (Cole Pepper, Sam Kouvaris), and could have sworn there was an article that cited source, despite lack of documentation (which for some reason the T-U's abysmal search feature won't help me find and link to), the figure apparently was given to Peyton by the CoC.

[finehoe]

finehoe is on his/her own with the redneck thing, though.

Responding to my posting of academic studies backing up my point with a trite "Yay! An agenda" sounded to me like a dismissive "argument" an uneducated buffoon would make (ie a redneck), not someone who was actually trying to make a legitimate point.  I'm glad the later postings proved me wrong.

[Wacca Pilatka]

Finehoe, from what I've heard via local radio, and could have sworn there was an article that cited source, despite lack of documentation (which for some reason the T-U's abysmal search feature won't help me find and link to), the figure apparently was given to Peyton by the CoC.

I think there was such an article in the Daily Record or the Jax Business Journal?

[Shwaz]

don’t even know what you’re trying to say here, but the point is, the mayor didn’t cite any “local studies”.  He just threw that number out.  And that is the issue I have.  Where does this figure come from?

Show me statistics proving that the a major sports team negatively impact's the local economy here in Jacksonville.

h no?  What do you think “Overall, professional sports reduced real per-capita income in their metropolitan areas by about $40 per year.” or “concluded that there is no evidence that sports facilities and sports teams increase the rate of real per capita income and, in fact, may actually generate a negative impact on real income per capita” means?

This quote holds no more water than what was was said by the Mayor. This report has nothing to do with Jacksonville and foremost does not outline any specific data lol