Friday roundup: Vegas MLB rumors, North American soccer superleague rumors, and everything just costs untold billions of dollars now, get used to it

I published two long articles yesterday — one on sports stadium and arena deals that haven’t sucked too badly, one on a particular non-sports subsidy deal that looks to be sucking pretty hard — so I wasn’t able to post anything here, despite a couple of news items that might have warranted their own FoS posts. But as the saying goes, Thursday omissions bring a shower of Friday news briefs (please don’t tell me that’s not a saying, because it is now), so let’s dig in:

Rays owner buys Rowdies, stirs speculation a dodge to get a new baseball stadium site (probably not, but maybe a dodge to spur speculation)

Tampa Bay Rays owner Stuart Sternberg is buying the Tampa Bay Rowdies USL club for … okay, nobody’s saying how much he’s spending on the team. But never mind that, because the Rowdies also have management rights to 7,500-seat Al Lang Stadium in St. Petersburg, so cue the conspiracy theories that this is really all about finding a site for a new Rays stadium:

The Rays tried a decade ago to get a new baseball stadium built there and never fully let go of the idea — which is why there was immediate speculation there was more to the Rays-Rowdies deal than just control of a soccer team.

Most pointedly, were the Rays seeking an alternative St. Petersburg stadium site to their proposed new home in Ybor City, where talks have been ongoing to bridge the funding gap in completing that $892 million deal to build a Tampa ballpark?

Rays execs immediately pooh-poohed the idea, saying they just wanted to get into the soccer business. And there’s reason to believe them, as the reason why the Rays gave up on the Al Lang Stadium site in the first place is because it’s probably too small for even a smallish MLB stadium, so it’s not really a very good option — not to mention that the Rowdies don’t actually own the stadium, just management rights to it.

Ah, but if you’re looking less for a viable stadium site option than for a sorta-viable stadium site threat, now we’re talking. Rays execs have been talking up Hillsborough County, which is the Tampa side of the bay, as more accessible to fans; but Pinellas County, which is the St. Pete side, has more tax money available to help fund a stadium, partly because Hillsborough has already spent its hotel taxes on buildings for the Buccaneers and Lightning. So even if Pinellas officials may not be eager to spend this tax money on the Rays, it’s at least an option that Sternberg and company will likely want to keep open.

All of which is to say: Sternberg probably bought the Rowdies just to buy the Rowdies, but if it helps keep alive some semblance of a bidding war between the two counties, he’ll surely be happy enough to take that as a bonus. He hasn’t done a great job of shaking loose public subsidies for his team so far — he managed to get out of his lease clause that prevented him from looking for new stadium sites in Hillsborough, but that’s only given him a site with a giant funding hole that shows no signs of going away — but where there’s competition, there’s hope. And Rays fans had better hope it comes soon, because the team is … er, actually, coming off a surprisingly resurgent season with a host of exciting young players and turning a tidy profit to boot, so what was the big deal about the stadium again?

Friday roundup: Bad MLB attendance, bad CFL loans, bad temporary Raiders relocation ideas

And in other news:

New Yorkers about to pay more than $1m a year for Mets Triple-A team to stay in Syracuse

You want some shittier news? How about the New York Mets being on the verge of agreeing to an 18-year lease extension for their Syracuse Chiefs Triple-A team, just as soon as the city and state agree to $22.4 million in renovation subsidies?

[Onondaga County deputy executive Bill] Fisher said $8.5 million of the funding would come through bonding. At least another $3.6 million would be kicked in from the county and the Mets from stadium naming rights revenue (the current deal expires after 2025).

Fisher believes once the county locks in its approval, the state will toss in a dollar-for-dollar match of that $12.1 million foundation. That would bring the total pot to at least $24.2 million.

That’s a public expense of $1.24 million a year for each year the soon-to-be-remonikered Chiefs stay in town, which is between 8% and 33% of what some major-league franchises have extracted in terms of lease extensions — so you can either look at it that Syracuse cut a better deal than St. Petersburg did for the Tampa Bay Lightning, or that Syracuse spent a third as much as St. Pete did per year and only got a minor-league baseball team, not the NHL Atlantic Division champions.

Either way, I look forward to hearing how New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will explain how keeping the Chiefs in Syracuse will totally be worth $12.1 million to the people of New York state, because of all the tourists the team draws in from, I guess, Vermont and Pennsylvania? Or maybe he’ll just raise his hands in victory over his head and declare, “Hey, at least we’re still better off than Worcester! Excelsior!”

Friday roundup: More MLS expansion drum beating, more wasteful non-sports subsidies, more bonkers Tottenham stadium delay stories

Getting a late start this morning after being out last night seeing Neko Case, so let’s get to this:

Terrible Worcester stadium deal gets appropriately terrible renderings

We have new renderings of the Worcester Red Sox stadium set to open in 2021! Let’s see what one of the largest minor-league baseball stadium subsidies in history will get for the Paris of the 80s:

I’ve always assumed that people in architectural renderings come from some sort of clip art, but if so, the ones here appear to have been imported from the Wacky Poses collection. We have the kids in oversized t-shirts putting on shower caps, the woman hailing a cab on an empty street, the woman intently staring down a tree, the man with a beard down to his navel, the two guys not at all suspiciously wearing long overcoats when everyone else is dressed in shorts, and so, so much more! Really, you could make a good “Find the X things wrong with this picture” puzzle out of this image, except the answer would be “everything.” (Why are so many of the people subtly translucent, anyway?)

The stadium will have a diner! This is, I guess, one of those touches that’s supposed to show it will be a year-round economic catalyst, and not just a giant building that’s closed almost 300 days a year. I especially like how the renderers chose to add a big dorky pointer labeling the diner, rather than the way easier solution of making the diner signage say “Diner” instead of “Signage.”

They really want you to see that diner. It will, apparently, be filled with a toxic gas that will repel all potential customers and keep them at a safe distance, which is probably a good idea seeing that the customers will all be gray, featureless ghosts. (But not translucent! Only living, breathing people are translucent in WooSox world!)

WE GET IT THERE’S A DINER OKAY

Finally, the first image where we can see the inside of the stadium. Aside from being weirdly asymmetrical — is it modeled after Fenway Park, maybe, with its short porch in left and terrible right-field corner seats? — it has a rather large upper deck for a 10,000-seat Triple-A stadium. That’s not at all a bad thing, not is the fact that the upper deck appears to be cantilevered well over the lower-deck seats, but I am puzzled by what’s holding it up, since there are no columns underneath it and nothing behind it to serve as a counterweight.This image makes it ever more clear: That upper deck is just suspended off of the front of the concourse behind it by some mysterious force. Hey everybody, we may have found the location of the universe’s missing dark energy! And who can put a price on unlocking one of the fundamental puzzles of the universe?

Friday update: Bad D.C. arena math, bad Bucks arena math, bad Columbus ticket tax math

It must be September, because my TV is filled with Jim Cantore and Anderson Cooper standing ankle-deep in water. But anyway:

  • Washington, D.C., is about to open its new Mystics home arena and Wizards practice facility, and Mayor Muriel Bowser says it’s a model of how the city would build a new NFL stadium as well. “We know [sports] can help our bottom line by attracting people to our city, but it also has a big impact when we’re winning on our collective psyche,” says Bowser of an arena that got $50 million in public subsidies for two teams that were already playing in D.C. anyway. Maybe she should go back to using her terrible soccer stadium deal as a model instead.
  • People in Calgary are starting to ask whether, if the city is looking to spend $3 billion on hosting the 2026 Olympics, maybe it should build a new Flames arena as part of the deal? Camels, man.
  • Buffalo Bills co-owner Kim Pegula says she’s going to wait until after the gubernatorial elections this November to start negotiating a new stadium with whoever ends up in charge of the state. It won’t be the lox-and-raisin-bagel lady.
  • Speaking of the Pegulas and New York’s current governor, they’re planning an $18 million upgrade of Rochester’s arena that hosts the Rochester Americans minor-league hockey team (which the Pegulas also own), with costs to be split among the owners and city and state taxpayers. Split how? Sorry, no room in the Associated Press article, ask again later!
  • The AP did find time to fact-check Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s claim that the new Milwaukee Bucks arena would return three dollars in new taxes for each one spent, and found that “Walker omits some of the state money spent on the 20-year arena deal and relies on income tax estimates that experts call unreliable.” I could’ve told them that — in fact, I did, three years ago.
  • “‘Ticket tax’ proposal could lead to higher prices on movies, theater, sports in Columbus” reads a headline on ‘s website, something that the station’s reporter asserts in the accompanying video without saying where he got it from. He’s at least partly wrong: Ticket prices are already set as high as the market will bear, so unless the ticket tax changes the market — in other words, unless people in Columbus are forced to spend more on movies and theater and such because the other options (staying at home and watching TV, going out to eat) aren’t good enough, mostly this will just mean prices will stay roughly the same but a bigger share will go to theater/team owner’s tax bills. (I could try to find an economist to estimate exactly how big a share, but isn’t that really WSYX’s job?)
  • Former Oakland A’s exec Andy Dolich says the team owners may be looking at buying both the Howard Terminal site and the Oakland Coliseum site, and using the revenues from one to pay the costs of prepping the other for baseball, which, if the Coliseum site is such a cash cow and Howard Terminal such a money pit, wouldn’t they be better off just buying the Coliseum site and developing that? Or is the idea that Oakland would somehow give up the Coliseum site at a discounted price in order to get a new A’s stadium done? I have a lot of math questions here.
  • With nobody wanting to spend $250 million on a major renovation of Hartford’s arena, the agency that manages the XL Center is now looking for a $100 million state-funded upgrade instead. Still waiting to hear whether this would actually generate $100 million worth of new revenues for the arena; if not, the state would be better off just giving the arena a pile of cash to subsidize its bottom line, no?
  • Cobb County is only letting the Atlanta Braves owners out of part of the $1.5 million they owed on water and sewer costs for their new stadium. Yay?

How Zimbalist’s Worcester study provides a “convenient dodge” for cities looking to subsidize stadiums

One silver lining of the Village Voice canceling all new articles is that it gives me time to write for Deadspin again, and I did so yesterday, with an article investigating how exactly sports economist Andrew Zimbalist, once known as a prominent critic of stadium subsidies, ended up helping Worcester put together one of the biggest minor-league baseball subsidies ever to lure the Pawtucket Red Sox to town.

There’s been lots of speculation about Zimbalist’s role out on the interweb — I forget if it was in a comment thread here or on Twitter that someone suggested he was secretly following orders of his masters in Fenway Park — but the reality turns out to be more complicated, and in some ways more disturbing:

Zimbalist hasn’t exactly changed his tune on the terrible return cities get from stadiums. But he is more willing to grant exceptions, whether on the grounds that additional non-sports development makes for sunnier outcomes, or because minor-league cities are a different beast altogether…

He was able to reach this conclusion, he says, without any bookkeeping trickery: “I tried to at every turn be as straightforward and conservative as I could.” Even if the stadium itself is a money-loser like virtually all others in the past have been, he says his figures showed the city paying off its debts and even turning a small surplus, thanks to all the tax revenues that would pour in from the development alongside the stadium.

Basically, Zimbalist says that he hasn’t changed his tune on stadium subsidies — he still thinks they’re almost always a waste of cash — but the extra development that was promised alongside the stadium should generate lots of tax revenue, so Worcester should come out even. And if that’s development that Worcester could have gotten without spending to build a stadium — which is Worcester-based economist Victor Matheson’s contention, and which would have allowed the city to keep the tax revenue instead of giving it to the PawSox owners — well, that’s not the question Zimbalist was hired to answer: He just had to say whether a new stadium would require new taxes, and he was able to make the math say “nope,” albeit by throwing in some speculation about housing economics similar to what he did with his first big consulting analysis, that of the Brooklyn Nets arena 14 years ago.

“I don’t want to sound idealistic about this—it’s not perfect,” Zimbalist says. “I was not arguing that this is necessarily the best financial outcome that might accrue to the city.”

But does that come across to the public, I ask? Or do people not attuned to the nuances of stadium economics just hear “no new taxes” and leave it at that, even if it’s siphoning off tax money that might otherwise be available for less sportsy purposes?

“I think the point has come across really well,” says Zimbalist. But, he adds, “you ask, do people understand this? I think in Worcester, they don’t even want to understand it. There’s a tremendous amount of excitement about bringing the team there.”

That’s not exactly a “yes, they’re going into this with eyes wide open,” of course, and it raises concerns about what exactly the role of an economist should be: just to do the math on questions being asked by a city government, or to warn them, “Hey, that’s not really the right question to be asking.” Matheson told me he saw Zimbalist’s role as that of “a bit as an enabler … using his credentials and his prominence to basically give cover to the Worcester city council and Ed Augustus to go forward with this project.” And West Virginia University economist Brad Humphreys says he worries that studies like Zimbalist’s only end up encouraging cities and team owners to tack on development projects with harder-to-define impacts just to muddy the economic waters:

“This is a convenient dodge for any municipal government engaging in these sort of things,” says West Virginia University sports economist Brad Humphreys. “There’s not much evidence about the effectiveness of these targeted redevelopment projects that go along with mixed-use retail/residential projects.” That’s a good thing in one way, he says: At least it’s encouraging sports venues to be built with more than a sea of parking lots around them. But whether the ancillary stuff is going to pay for the subsidy, that’s a pie in the sky claim that has no evidence to back it up.”

Anyway, this article ended up being really long and taking a deep dive into not just the economics on ancillary development, but minor- vs. major-league stadium impacts and the ethics of serving as an economic consultant. You can read the whole thing here, and if all goes according to plan, keep an eye out for future articles by me on stadium (and other) topics at Deadspin.

Friday roundup: A farewell to Baby Cakes, and other stadium news

It’s hard to believe it’s already been a week since a week ago — but then, looking at all the stadium news packed up like cordwood, it’s actually not:

Friday roundup: Worcester stadium subsidy snowballs, Rochester Rhinos look to abandon 12-year-old stadium, old rich white guys continue to control the media

TGIF, but please cut God some slack for this week in stadium facepalms:

  • Members of the Worcester city council say they won’t rush to rubber stamp city manager Edward M. Augustus Jr.’s proposed $100 million stadium subsidy deal for the Pawtucket Red Sox, with public hearings scheduled for next Tuesday and September 5. Augustus, though, says he won’t accept proposed amendments to the deal, only a straight up or down “yes” or “no” vote, because any changes “would significantly impact our ability to deliver this project on time and could lead to unintended consequences.” So, basically, he’s asking for a rubber stamp, though the council still always has this one available.
  • Worcester city councilmembers might also want to check out this article from WBUR about how throwing large sums of money at minor-league baseball stadiums has worked out in other cities like Nashville, Durham, and El Paso. Representative quote, from Nashville City Councilor John Cooper: “Our overall success as a tourist destination is clearly not part of this baseball project. Nobody here thinks of the minor league baseball park as driving much of that.”
  • Meanwhile, the Worcester stadium deal has already created a cascade effect, with the owners of the Boston Red Sox‘ single-A team, the Lowell Spinners, asking when they’ll get some public money too. “I love Lowell, and I believe in Lowell,” Spinners owner Dave Heller said after meeting with Massachusetts state economic development officials. “I’m excited about the future in Lowell and investing here. I want to make sure we can take advantage of any incentives that are available from the state.” Spoken like a true Vercotti brother.
  • The GM of the New York Islanders and the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers both say they’re optimistic about getting the arenas built that they are lobbying to get built, and they both got articles in major news outlets (Newsday and CBS Sports) about their optimism. Normal non-rich humans who would like to express their pessimism about the arena projects can write a letter to the editor — ha ha, just kidding, CBS Sports doesn’t publish letters to the editor, go write an angry tweet or something.
  • The former owners of the USL Rochester Rhinos got $20 million from the state of New York for a new stadium in 2006, but now the new owners say they’re looking to move to a newer stadium in the suburbs, because people would rather watch the Premier League on TV than sit in a 12-year-old stadium or something? (And this after they narrowly avoided getting evicted!) Anyway, what the hell is it with upstate New York cities not thinking to lock their minor-league teams into long-term lease deals? Is it something in the water?