A few other states and cities are realizing this, too, but most, including Connecticut are still drinking the Kool-Ade
/
Chicago Bears told to 'pay for their own damn stadium' after proposal has taxpayers footing $2 billion
Gov. Pritzker, D-Ill., previously said he's 'not sure' that paying billions for the stadium is one of 'the highest priorities for taxpayers'
After voters reject tax measure, Chiefs and Royals look toward future, whether in KC or elsewhere
And many more examples are cited in this article:
When voters say ‘no’ to new stadiums, what do professional sports teams do next?
I’ve seen plenty of articles, often in the WSJ, that study the effectiveness of taxpayer subsidies for sports stadiums — here’s just one, from Citizens Against Public Waste:
Fields of Failure: The Scandal of Taxpayer Funded Stadiums
(One small snippet)
…. The most common argument in favor of taxpayer subsidized facilities is the promise of economic growth where they will be built. But spending at or near stadiums is subject to the “substitution effect.”10 Outside of major events, stadium seats are usually filled with predominantly local residents. When city residents choose to attend an event at a stadium, they shift their spending from one area to another. For a stadium to generate new revenue in a given area, event attendees would have to continue other spending at the same level as they do outside of the spending on the event. Unfortunately for subsidy proponents, this does not happen. Event attendees will usually reduce other discretionary spending to offset the extra funds needed to attend the occasional sporting event.
A September 2016 Brookings Institute study supported the substitution effect by finding that, “any economic activity generated while attending a game, will largely if not entirely be offset by reduced spending on other local leisure activities.”11 When cities play host to major sporting events, many businesses see a decline in revenue because local residents choose to avoid the extra traffic and activity they provide. For example, after Super Bowl 50, restaurant owners in San Francisco reported “a 40 to 50 percent reduction in reservations and services.”12 Instead of bringing in additional patrons, the Super Bowl drove patrons away, costing business owners money.
Here at home, we don’t seem to be listening: Governor Lamont and his crowd comitted $80 million of the then-estimated $100 million cost of rebuilding Hartford’s XL Center in hope of bringing in replacement for the Hartford Whalers, who deserted the city 30 years ago, leaving behind a mountain of public debt and a pathetic won/lost record. That plan is now on hold because construction estimates have soared to $149 million, but politicians love stadiums, and I have no doubt they’ll still be ready to slap a huge debt on taxpayers’ backs when new numbers are available.
I forget how much of the $92 million cost of UConn’s East Hartford football stadium was paid for by state debt, but it was a lot, it’s still being paid off, and UConn has yet to draw more than 15,000 spectators to a stadium designed for 40,000; often, it’s fewer than 6,000. We’ve now comitted $2 million per year, for two years, to begin renovating the 15-year-old unused arena. That’s a pittance, but far more is promised: “it’s a good start” says one of the proponents.
The CT Mirror ran an informative article on this just this past February:
More taxpayer money benefits pro sports owners amid ‘stadium construction wave’
Research shows stadium and arena projects are poor public investments.
Across the country, pro sports teams are gearing up to improve or build new stadiums and arenas. In Chicago, both the NFL’s Bears and the MLB’s White Sox are exploring moves. Baseball’s Cleveland Guardians, Milwaukee Brewers, Oakland Athletics and Kansas City Royals are all working toward new or improved stadiums. So are the NBA’s Philadelphia 76ers, Oklahoma City Thunder and Los Angeles Clippers.
Elected leaders continue to shower tax revenues on stadium and arena projects with the aim of recruiting or keeping teams and boosting local economies. But public debate is growing, as decades of research shows that taxpayers don’t see a positive return on their investment.
[RELATED: New minor league soccer team, stadium planned for Bridgeport]
“This is without exception,” Bradbury said. “It’s really across the board that these are really poor public investments.”
That hasn’t stopped the deals from getting larger. Adjusted for inflation, stadium subsidies have risen to a median of about $500 million from a 2010 median of $350 million, Bradbury said.
In 2022, New York officials approved a record $850 million subsidy to finance a new stadium for the NFL’s Buffalo Bills.
Then, last April, the Tennessee Titans landed more than $1.2 billion in state and local funding for a new professional football stadium in Nashville.
The momentum is only growing, with governments benefiting from pandemic aid and strong economies, said Neil deMause, a journalist who has written extensively about stadium subsidies.
“Stadium deals tend to beget other stadium deals,” he said. “When the Bills got their money from New York, that made it easier for the Titans to get their money from Tennessee.”
