PDA

View Full Version : Full Count: The Real Cost of Public Funding for Major League Sports Facilities


SouthSide_HitMen
11-08-2005, 10:00 PM
http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/long.html

Professor Long's recently completed research includes a study of public/private partnerships for the financing, design, and development of major league sports facilities, funded by HUD and the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. The summary article "Full Count: The Real Cost of Public Funding for Major League Sports Facilities" will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Sports and Economics. Her other research interests include the role of public/private partnerships for sports, tourism, and cultural facilities, particularly global approaches to facility planning for the Olympic Games.

You can access her full dissertation at the site linked above. A summary article can be found at the Journal of Sports and Economics ($35 access online).

Minnesota's Metrodome is the only stadium which the public made money from (net costs less state / local revenue received from team(s)). The article's main premise is while sports teams are picking up more of the upfront tab for these stadiums, the breaks they receive during the lease - discounted or no property tax (which screws Canadian teams who do not receive such breaks), free land, infrastructure, public services, etc. amount to 40% or $5 billion (for the 99 stadiums in existence) of the cost.

The new "fully financed" proposed Yankees and Mets stadiums carry with them an unfunded $400 million each (or $1.3 billion total for the Mets, Yankees and Nets http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/001289.html ) and that these freebies are only getting worse - governments are getting worse deals as time goes by - perhaps due to the fact they can tout the "low" upfront costs but not discuss the hidden costs.

I plan on reading her dissertation over the next few weeks and will report back if I can find anything interesting. Her figures on the Comiskey Park II ($150 mil - inflation adjusted to $247 in 2001 - the year of her study) account for $49 mil in costs above and beyond the stadium which seem accurate.

antitwins13
11-08-2005, 10:09 PM
Interesting. As an economics geek, I'll look forward to reading this article.

Brian26
11-08-2005, 10:36 PM
But we can make all of that money back if we host a Superbowl!:D:

SouthSide_HitMen
11-08-2005, 11:15 PM
But we can make all of that money back if we host a Superbowl!:D:

That or two Jimmy Buffett concerts.

:dollarbill:

But there's booze in the blender,
And soon it will render
That frozen concoction that helps me hang on.
Wasted away again in Margaritaville
Searchin' for my lost shaker of salt.


:tool http://media.phillyburbs.com/2005/02/15/0215betteman.jpg

Some people claim that there's a union to blame,
But I know, it's my own damn fault.

Steelrod
11-09-2005, 04:52 AM
http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/long.html

Professor Long's recently completed research includes a study of public/private partnerships for the financing, design, and development of major league sports facilities, funded by HUD and the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. The summary article "Full Count: The Real Cost of Public Funding for Major League Sports Facilities" will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Sports and Economics. Her other research interests include the role of public/private partnerships for sports, tourism, and cultural facilities, particularly global approaches to facility planning for the Olympic Games.

You can access her full dissertation at the site linked above. A summary article can be found at the Journal of Sports and Economics ($35 access online).

Minnesota's Metrodome is the only stadium which the public made money from (net costs less state / local revenue received from team(s)). The article's main premise is while sports teams are picking up more of the upfront tab for these stadiums, the breaks they receive during the lease - discounted or no property tax (which screws Canadian teams who do not receive such breaks), free land, infrastructure, public services, etc. amount to 40% or $5 billion (for the 99 stadiums in existence) of the cost.

The new "fully financed" proposed Yankees and Mets stadiums carry with them an unfunded $400 million each (or $1.3 billion total for the Mets, Yankees and Nets http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/001289.html ) and that these freebies are only getting worse - governments are getting worse deals as time goes by - perhaps due to the fact they can tout the "low" upfront costs but not discuss the hidden costs.

I plan on reading her dissertation over the next few weeks and will report back if I can find anything interesting. Her figures on the Comiskey Park II ($150 mil - inflation adjusted to $247 in 2001 - the year of her study) account for $49 mil in costs above and beyond the stadium which seem accurate.

NOT!
The Cell cost $100 million, paid for by hotel tax that had so much excess that it helped fund the Soldier Feild Renovation.
The upgrades at the Cell were paid by US Cellular.
The Cell makes money as the tax dollars continue to flow in!!

Fredsox
11-09-2005, 06:40 AM
NOT!
The Cell cost $100 million, paid for by hotel tax that had so much excess that it helped fund the Soldier Feild Renovation.
The upgrades at the Cell were paid by US Cellular.
The Cell makes money as the tax dollars continue to flow in!!

Yeah, I think its important to note that the White Sox write a check every year to the stadium authority when the attendance is above 1-something million. This represents a continuing source of revenue back to the state. I'm sure someone else has researched the figures and it would be interesting to see how much the White Sox have paid in rent since moving in, and then to compare that figure to the construction costs and the annual operating costs that the stadium authority is responsible for. I could very well be wrong but my guess is the state did well on this deal.

Does anybody have these figures?

Paulwny
11-09-2005, 09:26 AM
JR's deal with the state has been discussed every year on this site, read the last post on page 1 by Lip.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=43851&page=1&pp=15&highlight=cost+comiskey

Malgar 12
11-09-2005, 10:35 AM
Andrew Zimbalist's "May the Best Team Win" has a really good chapter on the topic of stadium financing, for those who are interested in this topic. He argues it comes down the the monopoly status of MLB, because teams can hold cities hostage, due to the artificially created supply/demand ratio.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-09-2005, 11:43 AM
NOT!
The Cell cost $100 million, paid for by hotel tax that had so much excess that it helped fund the Soldier Feild Renovation.
The upgrades at the Cell were paid by US Cellular.
The Cell makes money as the tax dollars continue to flow in!!

NOT!

1. Illinois Sports Authority

http://207.241.73.152/managex/index.asp?x=142&y=142&articlesource=142

Annual Report Page 18

On March 29, 1989, the Authority issued $150,000,000 Series 1989 Bonds to finance the construction of New Comiskey Park.

http://207.241.73.152/images/ISFA_AR_2004.pdf

2. The deal with US Cellular took place in January 2003 - before several of the renovations.

3. The costs cited include costs above and beyond the stadium (and renovations through 2002) which is the whole point of the dissertation - 40% of the costs to government ($5 billion) are perks above and beyond the actual building of the stadium.

I am glad US Cellular is paying for the recent changes - both as a fan and taxpayer.

Steelrod
11-09-2005, 04:21 PM
I believe they issued $150 but sold $100. Of course I am not a lawyer and couldn't begin to read all that. If there was residual, it was used at SF. As I recall, the Sox had to sign off on it in order for the Bears to use it.

But then again, I may be wrong!

Steelrod
11-09-2005, 04:23 PM
I believe they issued $150 but sold $100. Of course I am not a lawyer and couldn't begin to read all that. If there was residual, it was used at SF. As I recall, the Sox had to sign off on it in order for the Bears to use it.

But then again, I may be wrong!

I am curious
What is the income from rent and taxes received to date. Is the stadium a winner or a loser? And by how much?