We do not hate baseball
The law suit against Sarasota County was not about baseball, it was about ”sunshine” and government transparency.
That being said, lets look at the economics of hosting a major league team.
America’s favorite pastime has evolved into a big, money-making business. The claims that hosting a team will kick-start the economy and create jobs are inflated and possibly bought and paid for. In Sarasota’s case our commission accepted a study from CSL which is devoted to promoting the sports industry. Will a company who’s main source of revenue comes from sporst be expected to conduct a neutral study?
Revenues go to the team and the team runs the show. In our case, The Baltimore Orioles gain even more revenus by arranging a Parking License Agreement with the county for 658 spaces during Spring Training games. Our commissioners didn’t discuss this decision in public. They never offered this opportunity to another group or non-profit. It was a bonus for our “snow-bird” team.
A team signs a 20-30 year contract, giving an appearance of security to the community hosting the team. When the stadium isn’t up to their standards or another city is willing to build a bigger, better stadium, the community either caves to their demands or the team buy’s out of the contract, leaving an empty stadium. With no real investment in the community, it is no loss to them to buy out and leave.
Are stadium subsidies good for the economy?
Sarasota’s spring training economic impact study compiled by Dr. Phil Porter
My conclusion: Cancelling spring training games appears to increase sales in Sarasota and the more games you cancel the greater the sales increase. However, because the coefficients are insignificant, the most we can say is that there is no evidence that hosting spring training games in any way contributes positively to sales of taxable items in Sarasota. That other variables like Hurricane Charley do show up as significant testifies to the quality of the model.
Interview with Professor J.C. Bradury: stadiums, spring training, and the Reds’ offseason
Dr. J.C. Bradbury is an Associate Professor at Kennesaw State University, and the author of The Baseball Economist: The Real Game Exposed. He also maintains an active blog at sabernomics.com.
Stadium Subsidies Hitting Taxpayers Harder: Joseph L Bast
“Publicly funded stadiums are, at best, an inefficient investment of taxpayer dollars for the meager benefits produced and, at worst, massive payments to rich team owners and players at the expense of ordinary taxpayers,” wrote study author Andrew Moylan, government affairs manager for the NTU Foundation
Sports Stadium Madness: Why It Started, How to Stop It (summary)
Taxpayer subsidies to professional sports teams amount to some $500 million a year. The decision to subsidize a team is driven by competition among cities for a limited number of teams, league policies that reward relocation, and lobbying by special interest groups. The solution is for fans and taxpayers to campaign for nonprofit ownership of teams, a model pioneered by the NFL Green Bay Packers in 1923.
Merritt-ocracy: The Paulson Sporting Doctrine
“More jobs? Economic development? Sounds great! The only problem is that it’s not true. Recently, sports economists Dennis Coates (University of Maryland) and Brad R. Humphreys (University of Alberta) carried out research asking whether cities that built new stadiums to entice professional sports teams experienced a boost in the local economy. In their study–which spanned nearly thirty years and examined almost forty attempts to lure teams–they couldn’t find a single example of a sports franchise jump-starting the local economy
7/12/2011 “Stadiums costly legacy throws taxpayers for a loss” Reed Albergatti & Cameron McWhirter
With a combined estimated cost of $540 million, the stadiums—one for football’s Bengals, the other for baseball’s Reds—were touted by the teams and county officials as a way to generate cash and jobs. The Bengals, who had threatened to relocate if they didn’t secure a new home, drove negotiations.
8/25/2010 “Marlin’s face outrage over stadium funding”
Officials in Miami accused the MLB’s Florida Marlins of misleading taxpayers to secure public funding for a new stadium while the franchise was turning a $37 million profit
3/18/2010 “Borrowing money for baseball” Dale White
Deputy County Administrator Dave Bullock said the county will borrow the money from “a variety of sources” other than property taxes. If they deem it necessary, the commissioners may also take out a short-term bank loan for $6.7 million.
All of the money would be repaid with future taxes on tourist accommodations, also the funding source for paying off the proposed bonds.
8/26/2009 The city and county staff review sites for a spring training venue. They purchase land adjacent to Payne Park. The Red Sox decide not to re-locate to Sarasota. The lot sits empty. Payne Park Purchase memorandum
4/03/2009 The Cheers and Jeers for a costly new ballpark By: Mike Esterl The Wall Street Journal Excerpt: Philip Porter, an economist at the University of South
Florida, said Lee County’s decision to bankroll a new spring-training site is
“unconscionable” amid the current uncertainty
12/16/2008 “Put stadium proposal before Sarasota County voters” Cathy Antunes
“Consider the following data provided by the Center for Public Policy Analysis at the University of South Florida: In 1996, the New York Yankees moved the team’s spring training site from Broward County to Hillsborough County. Consultants predicted that Hillsborough would realize a $100 million boom if the county hosted the Yankees. Hillsborough built a $50 million stadium, but never saw an economic benefit. Broward County never suffered an economic loss.”
“NY Yankees spring training bust” The economic results of the NY Yankees moving from Broward County to Hillsborough county in 1996?
Congressional panel rips Yanks, NYC over new stadium’s financing
10/25/2008 “Stadiums are not money makers” Waldo Proffit SHT
10/19/2008 “Who says there’s a benefit in baseball”
10/11/2008 “Let economists speak on Sox Plans” Cathy Antunes
Our group is requesting that the city and county commissions invite USF professor Phil Porter to present his research. Porter is a sports economist, and an expert on the economic outcomes of publicly funded stadium projects.
Sarasota government has considered only one source of economics information so far: a favorable report authored by Conventions, Sports and Leisure, a specialty firm.
Stadium & Arena Data Field of Schemes Editor: Neil deMause
4/12/2001 “The imbalance sheet: the new stadium fallacy” Keith Law
