Friday roundup: Rays set stadium deadlinish thing, D.C. United can’t find the sun in the sky, Inglewood mayor flees lawsuit filing on Clippers arena

Farewell, Koko and Argentina:

Friday roundup: Kraft tries to use World Cup to get new stadium, Roger Noll says Austin MLS subsidies are indeed subsidies, NC mulls new tax breaks for Panthers

Posting this while watching the first World Cup match at the crazy stadium with the seats outside the stadium. (I haven’t honestly even noticed who the teams are yet, I’m just watching the architecture.) Anyhoo:

Friday roundup: The news media are collectively losing their goddamn minds edition

It’s a full slate this week, so let’s do this!

Minnesota made a squillion dollars from Super Bowl LII, say people paid to say such things

If you were running a business, how would you figure out how much money you made at the end of the year? You could do an estimate of how many customers entered your store each day, estimate how much you think they spent on average, subtract a theoretical number for your costs per item sold, and call that your best guess. Or you could, you know, actually look at how much cash you have at the end of each day, and count.

The latter method is how economists prefer to calculate the impact of sporting events: Add up the tax revenues during the big game or games, and compare it to tax revenues during a normal month. If you’re an economic impact consultant who’s paid more to come up with big numbers than accurate numbers, though, it’s often better to use the former method, since there’s a lot more wiggle room for truthiness.

Which brings us to yesterday’s headlines that hosting Super Bowl LII brought in $370 million in new economic activity for the state of Minnesota:

That was the net new spending from the 10-day event Jan. 26-Feb. 4, according to an economic impact report released Tuesday by Gov. Mark Dayton.

The results, which are in dispute, came in $50 million over pre-event projections by Rockport Analytics made years in advance. Rockport, based in Pennsylvania, also wrote the final report.

If you’ve been reading this site for a while, you’ve probably already spotted the first problem, which is that this is economic activity, not economic benefits. So part of that money includes $179 million in spending by the NFL’s broadcast partners, much of which likely went directly into the pockets of the NFL, never actually touching the Minnesota economy. As far as actual tax revenue goes, the report estimated $32 million in new receipts.

That number, though, was goosed by including increased property tax receipts, I guess on the grounds that hotels are worth more when they can sell Super Bowl stays once every couple of decades?

And then we have our old friend the substitution effect, where one has to account for any money that would have been spent locally anyway, either because it was spent by locals who’d be in town regardless, or because Super Bowl tourists displaced other tourists (and locals) who steered clear of town because they didn’t want the hassle of dealing with football fans. The study trimmed about 18% from its projected economic activity for substitution, a number that it arrived at thusly:

“The average visitor spent $608 per person per day,” said Ken McGill with Rockport Analytics, a consulting company that looks at the economics of big events and wrote the report on the 2018 Super Bowl. “We interviewed, and we literally intercepted visitors … and asked them where they were from, what they were spending in certain categories and whether they’d come back.”

This, needless to say, is not rigorous science, since people are terrible reporters of their own spending activities. And, on top of that, Rockport wasn’t able to intercept anyone who would have been in town if not for the Super Bowl, since they were off doing something else.

Fortunately, Minneapolis’s chief financial officer is calculating the actual changes to city tax revenues during the Super Bowl, and will present those numbers to the city council in June. While we wait, maybe we can pass the time by seeing how things went the last time tax officials fact-checked an economic consultants’ claims:

Minneapolis All-Star Game impact overstated by 27-72%, says state revenue department

Ah, well. We’ll always have the excited headlines.

Bills co-owner says they may not even want a new stadium, give them a couple of years to decide

The Buffalo Bills stadium-replacement discussion has been taking a rather weird course, as NFL stadium talks go, with team owners Terry and Kim Pegula generally refusing to demand anything, even while other league owners and commissioner Roger Goodell insist that the Bills gotta have one. Now Kim Pegula has talked to the Buffalo News about her perspective on the matter, and she still doesn’t sound super-stoked:

“I don’t even know if we can get there,” the team’s co-owner told The Buffalo News while attending the NFL spring meeting. “I know fans in Buffalo don’t want higher ticket prices, they don’t want PSLs (personal seat licenses). The state doesn’t want to give you any money, the city doesn’t … We don’t have a billion-and-a-half dollars sitting around. We used it to buy the team.”

These are good reasons not to build a new stadium! If you’re not going to be able to charge fans more in ticket prices or PSLs, it’s kind of dumb to drop around a billion dollars on replacing the perfectly acceptable stadium you already play in, especially if it’s a billion dollars of your own money and not New York taxpayers. (And speaking on behalf of New York taxpayers, it would be even more dumb for us to pay for it.) Even if all the other kids have one.

Pegula said it could take a “couple of years” to reach a final stadium determination, and that ultimately “it may be nothing happens, it may be we make renovations, it may be that we build a new stadium. But we’ve got to get the information first.” Again, all very reasonable and honest about the decisions to be made. Man, Roger Goodell must hate her.

New Panthers owner: There are two Carolinas, you catch my drift?

With the Charlotte Panthers being sold to hedge-fund billionaire David Tepper for $2.2 billion — and at purchase prices like these, you can sort of understand why NFL owners are freaking out about anything that might cause them to lose fans, even if the reaction might cause them to lose other fans — there’s been lots of talk about how Tepper could shake down his new home city for stadium cash, including a step-by-step manual in the Charlotte Observer. But now we’ve entered full-on move-threat-by-proxy mode; take it away, Associated Press:

The new owner of the Carolina Panthers is committed to keeping the team in the Carolinas.

And Charlotte is his clearly his first choice.

But David Tepper left a bit of wiggle room on his first day as owner of the team…

“What’s the name of the team? Carolina Panthers. It’s going to be the Carolina Panthers,” Tepper said. “And that means this team has to have some kind of presence in the Carolinas and last time I saw, how many are there? That’s right, there’s two of them.”

Oh, snap, Tepper’s going to move the Panthers to South Carolina! Except, you know, he’s probably not, but if hinting he’s going to move the team just across the state line (Charlotte is right on North Carolina’s southern border, which is likely one of many things you may not know about Charlotte) helps shake loose some stadium cash from Carolina the North, why, he’d be dodging his fiduciary responsibility to himself not to mention the other Carolina, now wouldn’t he?

Anyway, Tepper went out of his way not to say much of anything else about a new or renovated stadium, which either means he’s still getting his feet wet, or has seen enough as part-owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers to know that it’s best to let the sports media carry your water for you. Where he goes next with this is anyone’s guess, but you’ve gotta think waking up the first morning as owner of a $2.2 billion asset and seeing headlines like “NFL owners officially approve sale of Panthers, but will team stay in Charlotte?” has to warm the heart of any red-blooded money grubber.

Friday roundup: Panthers’ record sale price goosed by public money, Beckham stadium delayed yet again, Rams stadium really will cost $4B-plus

Google looks to have broken all of its RSS feeds, so if I missed anything important this week, drop me an email and I’ll play catchup next week:

Temple economist Michael Leeds just pwned the Browns on their stadium demands, yo

The Cleveland Scene has a long article up today about the Cleveland Brownssaber-rattling for a new stadium, most of which is about what the Browns are probably after in seeking to replace a 19-year-old stadium — a site with lots of land around it to develop, probably — and how likely that is to happen — not too likely, according to the Scene, unless the Browns owners can get Cleveland to decommission an airport, which is hard because the FAA would be involved. It’s an interesting read, but I mostly want to take a moment to appreciate this quote from Temple University economist Michael Leeds, explaining why teams keep upping the ante for what they “need” despite having stadiums that are barely out of the packaging:

“Every parent goes through this type of thing and knows the deal,” he said. “You ask your kid what they want for their birthday, and she might say, ‘I want a pony.’ You ask her why and she says the kid down the street has one. Most of us figure out a way to ignore what she wants and get her something else.”

[mic drop]

Hamilton County may now have to fire sheriffs to afford payments to Bengals required by stadium lease from hell

Hamilton County, Ohio, has reached an agreement with the Cincinnati Bengals allowing the county to defer $2.67 million in payments to the team from this year to next. And if you’re wondering why the county is sending public money to the local pro sports team on a regular basis, you clearly haven’t been following the county’s lease from hell, which not only requires taxpayers to foot the bill for any future stadium improvements needed to keep the team on par with other NFL franchises (including, famously, holographic replay systems once they’re invented), but also has the team paying negative rent, with the county forwarding $2.67 million a year (rising by 5% each year) to the Bengals owners for “operating costs.”

County officials made noise late last year about simply refusing to make the payment and seeing what the Bengals owners would do — they could break the lease and threaten to move, but then they can do that when the lease runs out in 2026 anyway — but instead they seem to have settled on waiting a year to figure out where to come up with this year’s $2.67 million, plus next year’s $2.8 million. Which is going to be a bit of a problem, because the cupboard is pretty much bare:

The cash-strapped county can’t pay the Bengals this year because it faces $28 million budget deficit in 2019. The county is considering raising the sales tax to help keep the overcrowded jail running, pay for sheriff patrols and avoid deep cuts to staffing.

If Hamilton County ends up adding “laying off sheriffs” to “selling public hospitals” on the list of things it’s done to pay for this Bengals stadium over the years, it will truly cement its place as negotiator of the worst lease in the history of professional sports. If it hasn’t already, that is.

Friday roundup: Nevada gov candidate threatens Raiders’ roads, Phoenix sued over Suns arena plans, Rays stadium could seek Trump tax break

And the rest of the week’s news: