Jefflog

It seems like every time a sports team wants a new stadium, civic leaders bend over backwards to find millions of dollars to help pay for the stadium. Among other things, they frequently cite that the new stadium will pay for itself through increased economic activity. Our local leaders recently pushed through something similar to build a new stadium for the Indianapolis Colts (even though the current building is only 22 years old and the typical lifespan of a stadium is 30 years.)

I always thought the “increased economic activity” line was a bunch of bull, because while it might bring some additional tourists to your city, it’s also taking dollars away when your residents travel to other cities with stadiums to see the team play away. Today I found a paper that confirms my suspicions. From the abstract:

Local political and community leaders and the owners of professional sports teams frequently claim that professional sports facilities and franchises are important engines of economic development in urban areas. These structures and teams allegedly contribute millions of dollars of net new spending annually and create hundreds of new jobs, and provide justification for hundreds of millions of dollars of public subsidies for the construction of many new professional sports facilities in the United States over the past decade. Despite these claims, economists have found no evidence of positive economic impact of professional sports teams and facilities on urban economies.

(Emphasis mine.) Note that this study only concerns itself with the economic consequences of the stadium, and not the additional civic pride that might come as an intangible benefit. I wouldn’t mind it as much if politicians offered this as the reason for funding the stadium, but it’s annoying when they pass it off as something that will pay for itself.

I’m proud that my local township leaders stood their ground and voted against the proposed 1% sales tax hike on restaurants to fund the new stadium.