Here’s a lesson for you, assuming that you are the president of an impoverished West African nation: Don’t try to complain that American football is wasting electricity that could be going to power your nation, in an attempt to focus attention on your country’s war-ravaged deprivation. Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf tried it, in Foreign Policy magazine, and this is the Wall Street Journal article she got in response:

Bob Brackett, is an energy analyst at Bernstein Research. Mr. Brackett took issue with Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s statement in Foreign Policy that the heart of Texas football (sorry, Houston Texans) does indeed use more power than the nation of 3.7 million people…

Numbers were crunched, and after the pile-on was cleared they found that the answer was yes and no.

During moments of peak demand on game day, the 80,000-seat stadium may consume up to 10 megawatts of electricity, Bernstein said. Liberia has the capacity to pump less than a third as much power into its national grid.

But with only eight games played at the stadium during regular season, peak demand levels aren’t reflective of how much electricity the stadium uses over an entire month or year. In other words, Cowboys Stadium might use more electricity than Ms. Sirleaf’s country for a few hours eight days out of the year, but it stands empty for most of the rest of the remainder.

So Cowboys Stadium (now renamed after a phone company, but apparently the WSJ’s style guide has been slow to keep up) indeed draws more power than a nation of 3.7 million people founded by resettled American slaves, but only on the days when they turn everything on for football. Or, to put it another way, in order to power Liberia for less than it costs to run the Cowboys stadium, you’d need to turn the nation off for much of the year. Not that most Liberians would notice, given that more than 99% of them already have no electricity at all.

Sorry, did I drift into talking about Liberia? Let’s return to the WSJ, which writes, “After factoring in every other U.S. football team – even the low-drawing Oakland Raiders – it becomes clear that it takes a lot of power to charge American sports.” Now there’s a conclusion everyone can agree with. And it doesn’t require thinking too much about places like … where was it again?

Late last week, word broke that the Dallas Cowboys were going to be moving their practice facilities to the Dallas suburb of Frisco, pending a vote of the Frisco city council. With everything else that was going on (hasn’t anyone told the nation’s city councils that they’re supposed to be on vacation now?), it barely registered on my radar — I figured the most notable thing was how the Cowboys’ old facility collapsed in a storm four years ago and paralyzed an assistant coach.

But I forgot: This is Texas. The financial numbers for the Frisco facility were released yesterday, and holy crap:

The city of Frisco, Frisco ISD, the Frisco Economic Development Corporation and the Frisco Community Development Corporation will pay a combined $115 million for the facilities to be built at Warren Parkway and the Dallas North Tollway in Frisco.

The agreement, which has been in the works for months, outlines the development of the indoor stadium, its use and maintenance, and the development of the team’s corporate headquarters. Those will be built on 25 of the 91 acres owned by the Frisco Community Development Corporation. The remaining 66 acres will be sold to the Blue Star companies for private development. The terms of that mixed use development are also included in the deal.

The agreement also details the formation of a tax increment reinvestment zone that will be formed on that 66 acres to generate money to finance for a separate parking structure for that private development.

That’s right, $115 million … for a practice facility. Plus free land. The TIF money, at least, looks like it’s part of the $115 million, not on top of it, but still, yeesh.

The Dallas Morning News, ever credulous, states that the practice facility is “expected” to be “a boon to the local economy as it anchors a new mixed-use development called Frisco Station.” I’ve often said that pro football stadiums are the worst possible development anchors, because they’re only active ten days a year, but a pro football practice facility might actually be even worse.

At least Frisco high-school football teams will get a nice place to play for their parents’ tax money — local high schools will get “priority” on Thursday and Friday evenings, according to the agreement. But still … holy crap.

Cowboys Stadium is getting renamed AT&T Stadium, in a long-awaited naming rights deal for the Dallas Cowboys stadium opened in 2009. AT&T will pay … well, no one really knows exactly how much, though the Fort Worth Star-Telegram notes that AT&T was already paying $6-12 million as an “anchor sponsor” (read: have ads all over the place) at the stadium, and so is likely tacking on about another $6 million to actually put its name on the building.

Forbes says this adds about $100 million to the value of the Cowboys franchise, which is about right for the present value of an extra $6 million worth of annual revenue. (Unlike ticket sales, naming-rights money doesn’t have to be shared with the NFL.) That should let Cowboys owner Jerry Jones inch up the billionaires’ list. The city of Arlington, meanwhile, which actually owns the stadium, is expected to get a $500,000 annual cut, based on the Cowboys’ lease that gives the city 5% or half a million a year, whichever is less. Which is more than many cities get from naming rights — for some reason, sports team owners have been able to establish that it’s standard practice for tenants to own the names of the buildings they rent — but still not likely to do much to help pay off Arlington’s $25 million a year in stadium construction debt. Not to worry, though — there are plenty of local folks paying sales tax who can keep on making up the difference.

This week’s award for the worst stenography journalism goes to the Dallas Morning News, for its report on how an NFL lockout would affect the local economy:

The NFL Players Association contends that its members and team owners shouldn’t be the only ones worried about a possible lockout next year if they can’t settle on a labor contract.

The NFLPA sent letters to Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert reminding them that cancellation of the 2011 football season could cost $160 million in “lost jobs and revenue” for the region.

In addition, a group called Don’t Mess With Success — described as a “diverse coalition of football fans, small businesses, community leaders and other associations” — sent a letter to Arlington City Manager Jim Holgersson warning about a $140 million economic hit to the region from canceling the season.

Number of economists consulted for comment for the story: zero. Accordingly, the article never discusses the possibility that in the case of an NFL lockout, sports fans in Dallas might, you know, find something else in Dallas to spend their money on. This is the well-known “substitution effect” — possibly best exemplified by the fact that when baseball went on strike in 1994, movie rentals and comedy clubs saw their business skyrocket. But finding that out would require a five-minute Google search, which is a lot to ask of newspaper writers.

The Dallas Morning News has a long editorial (or maybe a column? hard to say, as online it’s unsigned) today asking why the Cowboys built their stadium in Arlington instead of Dallas. (This prompted by Cowboys owner Jerry Jones recounting how he spurned Dallas after Mayor Laura Miller patted him on the knee.) Among the questions posed:

Was the loss of Cowboys Stadium a failure of leadership or was a Fair Park location a fantasy that had no chance of becoming reality, particularly with Jones shopping for the best deal available? …

Where was the council? Where were the opposition leaders who gleefully blocked Miller on other issues?

Of course, who really knows if a stadium could have been built in Dallas? Fair Park was too small for what towers over Arlington.

All fine questions, but missing is one big one: Would Dallas have been better off if it had built a stadium instead of Arlington? After all, Arlington had to kick in $325 million and displace local businesses to make way for the Cowboys’ new digs; Dallas residents, meanwhile, still get to go to the games, but are spared the expense. Arlington presumably gets some added tax revenues as a result of the stadium, but it’s still a worthwhile question: Did Dallas win by losing? If so, maybe that knee-pat, if it really happened, wasn’t so inexplicable after all.

You can’t be much more wishy-washy than calling a new stadium “a godsend for some and a nightmare for others,” but the Dallas Morning News has tried, evenly balancing positive and negative quotes from store owners in the vicinity of the Cowboys‘ new stadium. Sample couplet:

[Olenjack’s Grille] general manager Adam Jones said his restaurant has “embraced the stadium since Day One.” He said Sundays and Mondays were traditionally slow, but now he sometimes doubles his business. The stadium is about three-quarters of a mile away. … “It’s been fantastic for us,” Jones said.

The stadium’s impact has been particularly surprising to [Mi Tierra Latin Fusion] restaurateur Damaris Torres. At a mile and a half from the stadium, she thought she might get a few extra customers to drop in for Cuban sandwiches and guava turnovers. Instead, diners have stayed away, many of them worried about potential traffic jams, she said. That has driven down business an average of 40 percent when the Cowboys play at home.

It’d be nice to see the News make some attempt at coming up with conclusions from its survey: Is the stadium helping more businesses than it’s hurting? Are there particular geographic areas, or types of businesses, that benefit more than others? But that’s probably too much to expect from today’s time-pressed journalists.