The study that Joe referenced is pretty good. That publicly financed stadiums don't really add to a city's economy isn't all that surprising. I doubt that most tax breaks for private endeavors ever realize any gain for the public as a whole. As the article points out,
A demonstration of a significant, positive economic effect on a host area
should not be seen as a prerequisite for allowing private sports
investment. Most investment in private businesses - even very
successful ones - would fail to demonstrate this kind of impact.
Another good point brought up by the study, but not really addressed,
Large conventions utilize stadiums and arenas, and super-stations and cable
television broadcast games nationally, increasing the likelihood that stadiums
and teams are successfully marketed to the rest of the country.
Joe's point about the Iowa Events Center is right on. The study was written in 1988, and in the 20 years since then, probably all of the stadiums and arenas are specific to the sport and team they host. Very few pro sports arenas are central to an metropolitan or state's major activities. Indy's RCA dome had an impact because they use it for all major sporting events in the state. They get NCAA tournament games every year, they use it for all divisions of state football championships, the Colts play there and it isn't a monstrosity, meaning it is a versatile venue. The new stadium will not have the impact that the RCA dome had. The Alamodome in San Antonio is the same type of deal. Although no pro team calls it home, it holds a similar importance.
The most prominent example I can think of is the Houston Astrodome - the "eighth wonder of the world." The first and only revolutionary stadium design, the Astrodome was central to the biggest events in the Houston area for over 30 years. The original multipurpose venue, the Astrodome was home at one time or another, four professional football teams, an MLB team, the University of Houston sports teams, nearly 20 years of bowl games, along with a final four. The Houston rodeo was held there for 37 years. Perhaps most importantly, the Astrodome was a Houston landmark. The idea of an air conditioned, indoor stadium was parallel with the over-the-top, booming persona of Houston during the 60's and 70's. The construction of the Astrodome made a lasting impact on the city that few, if any, stadiums have been able to replicate since. The builder and owner of the Astrodome - Harris County, TX.
Seattle shouldn't have to put up money for a new stadium, especially if they build it in the suburbs. It is their right to say no, and for everyone to paint them as the bad guys is ridiculous. The Sonics attendance is poor and there is no reason to think that a new stadium will help that. Besides, the current ownership wants to move the team to OKC, where there seems to be demand. The NBA should be okay with this. The city of Seattle supports the Seahawks fanatically, perhaps there just isn't enough support there for the Sonics, too. One would think that OKC will be supportive of the team for no other reason than there is no competition in the city or in the state. Any pro franchise should do better in a region without any other pro franchises. The OKC Sonics should be a "state team" much like the Indianapolis Colts are. Durant, the good young talent they have and the multitude of draft picks they have in the next few years should provide some additional excitement. If the demand isn't there in Seattle, why would the NBA force them to stay?
No comments:
Post a Comment