Are the Weavers hedging their bets?

[ChriswUfGator]

And Stephen, thank you for posting these, I mentioned them in my earlier posts and DogWalker posted some similar material. Private sports teams mostly exist due to public financing, and my view of these expenses is as public entertainment, like a fountain or a theatre or public park. In terms of an investment, the return to the taxpayer is generally aleays negative. But within that context, if people think they're worth it, then by all means we should have them. But everyone should all be on the same factual playing field (excuse the pun) with it, there is a lot of misinformation about the costs vs. economic benefit and on who actually supports these private enterprises.

Certainly not to say that I think we should get rid of the Jags. I like them. Like you, I just felt the need to strip misinformation from the discussion about this being any kind of 'investmemt' they're really just an entertainment expense. And on that basis, if the public wants a football team, then by all means they should have one, it's a democracy after all. But, as with anything, we should understand what we're paying for.

[PeeJayEss]

from the Brookings Institute

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/summer_taxes_noll.aspx

Sports facilities attract neither tourists nor new industry. Probably the most successful export facility is Oriole Park, where about a third of the crowd at every game comes from outside the Baltimore area. (Baltimore's baseball exports are enhanced because it is 40 miles from the nation's capital, which has no major league baseball team.) Even so, the net gain to Baltimore's economy in terms of new jobs and incremental tax revenues is only about $3 million a yearâ€"not much of a return on a $200 million investment.

As always, the voice of reason. Thanks for the articles Stephen.

I want to use this Baltimore one as an example of what I am trying to say. Not because its the most beneficial to my argument (which I guess it would be if I were heading that way), just to illustrate what I'm trying to say (with numbers for fun!). This is, I believe, the full chapter of the book referenced in the article: http://www.econ.jhu.edu/People/Hamilton/Camden.pdf

Based off this author's criteria, Baltimore's economy gains $3 million a year in new jobs and new taxes. What it means is tax revenue on new jobs and incremental spending. What they are looking at in the study, which is the problem I have with this argument against the benefits of stadium subsidy, is the real return on investment to the Baltimore treasury. This same article says that, due to construction of the new stadium, the "total incremental out-of-staters' expenditure is thus $41M." Meaning there is $41M spent each year in Baltimore that otherwise would not have been spent in Baltimore because this stadium was constructed (it would have been spent elsewhere, no doubt, but we are looking at whether this is a benefit to Baltimore, not the world). The study doesn't count money going to workers or businesses as a result of the new stadium, so I don't find it to be complete. You aren't going to justify any city activity if you aren't looking at all the effects it has.

I believe I am safe in assuming that Baltimore did not shell out the complete $200 million. So saying that $3M per year is a bad return on a $200M investment is disingenuous at best. Baltimore's share will be much smaller. Also, the $200 million includes nearly half for site acquisition, so there is significant value being held in land equity. The money that is actually spent on stadium construction doesn't just get buried in Inner Harbor. It goes to architects, engineers, construction companies and workers. None of that money comes back to the city treasury, but it does still benefit your city by creating jobs, etc. Then the workers pay taxes on their wages (included in this study) and spend their money at local businesses (not included in the study). The same goes for maintenance cost. Those maintenance costs are not just dollars being burned, they are going somewhere (maintenance workers, maintenance equipment, etc).

Even based off their assumptions that I am not comfortable with, here is the first conclusion of the study: "The new stadium generated sufficient new revenue to more than cover the capital and maintenance cost"

I'm sure the Jags financials are no where near as healthy as the Orioles (this IS a best case), but there can be economic benefit to the city without money landing back in city hall. If you're trying to justify any government activity by a budget line return on investment, you won't. But if you watch all the money, you might see some benefit. Not that I support publicly-financed stadium construction.

[tufsu1]

At my first planning job (while still in undergrad) I was tasked with doing research on the economic benefits of downtown baseball parks....Philly was looking at several potential locations and I was working for the downtown organization (similar to DVI) at the time.

Camden Yards had just opened in Baltimore and the figures showed that there was a small overall economic gain to the metro area, as compared to the old Memorial Stadium....but the real boon was for the City of Baltimore (and more specifically downtown) because the money got spent there instead of in other parts of the region.

It should also be noted that the economic benefits generated by MLB baseball stadiums are greater than for NFL football stadiums....primarily because NFL games are on Sundays and involve lots of tailgating, while 81 baseball games are spread throughout the week and often involve restaurants/bars before the night games.

There's also research that shows baseball stadiums to be more transit supportive than football stadiums...I believe this is also related to parking and congestion issues for weeknight games, especially in downtowns.

Sample local case...the UF/FSU game a few weeks ago at the Baseball Grounds had the Landing packed before...even more than for some Jags games, even though the baseball game attendance was only 10,000 (as compared to 50,000+ for Jags)

[urbanlibertarian]

And Stephen, thank you for posting these, I mentioned them in my earlier posts and DogWalker posted some similar material. Private sports teams mostly exist due to public financing, and my view of these expenses is as public entertainment, like a fountain or a theatre or public park. In terms of an investment, the return to the taxpayer is generally aleays negative. But within that context, if people think they're worth it, then by all means we should have them. But everyone should all be on the same factual playing field (excuse the pun) with it, there is a lot of misinformation about the costs vs. economic benefit and on who actually supports these private enterprises.

Certainly not to say that I think we should get rid of the Jags. I like them. Like you, I just felt the need to strip misinformation from the discussion about this being any kind of 'investmemt' they're really just an entertainment expense. And on that basis, if the public wants a football team, then by all means they should have one, it's a democracy after all. But, as with anything, we should understand what we're paying for.

Watch out, guys.  You appear to be agreeing with the Cato Institute. 

www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf

[CS Foltz]

Short answer to the question is "Yes"!

[hillary supporter]

I'm inclined to believe that the intangible, psychological benefits of a pro sports team are greater to a smaller market city, in the sense of boosting its national profile, giving the city a degree of national credibility as a growing community, instilling pride in its residents, perhaps even in encouraging young people dreaming of living in a "big-time" market to stay in town and preventing brain drain.  For those reasons, I think the Jaguars are far more important to Jacksonville than, e.g., the Nationals to Washington.  I'd say the same of the Thunder for Oklahoma City and (although they are gone and obviously not anywhere near as important to that city's boom as the banks) the Hornets for Charlotte in the late 80s.  And I hate to argue from the negative, but I believe that if the Jaguars were to leave (not that I think that's happening), the effect on the city and its national profile would be psychologically cataclysmic.  It will create a reputation for Jacksonville as the city that couldn't handle being big-time, and it may well have an indirect, deleterious effect on business or residential location decisions.

Incidentally, while I wholeheartedly agree with all the comments made upthread about how people going to Jaguars games are shuttled in and out without there being any benefit to downtown due to the traffic direction system, I surely do not agree with the implication that JSO's traffic machinations are the Jaguars' decision.

Most important , Wacca. I personally would really hurt!

[JeffreyS]

The Advertising effect is much much much greater for Jacksonville than for the other NFL markets.  We already provided a stadium for the area. I will bet even if it is not a net positive (money only) we get much bigger ROI than the Washington and Baltimore case studies.