Braves hired Andy Zimbalist to fire back on stadium impact criticism, and it went about as well as you’d expect

access_time personNeil deMause

When Kennesaw State economist J.C. Bradbury issued his comprehensive study in March showing that the new Atlanta Braves stadium was leaving Cobb County taxpayers on the hook for $15 million a year, Braves execs were not happy. And now, apparently on the principle that the best answer to a good economist with a study is a hired-in-house economist with a study, the Braves have commissioned a report from … oh, my goodness, it’s Andy Zimbalist!

For those who came in late, Zimbalist was part of the first generation of economists to turn a skeptical eye on sports stadium and arena deals, notably co-editing with Roger Noll the 1997 book Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, which remains an excellent overview of why claims of economic windfalls from sports subsidies are hoohah. Zimbalist was also one of the first to turn his expertise into a lucrative ($225 an hour) consulting business, taking on gigs from the likes of Brooklyn Nets owner Bruce Ratner, New York Yankees president Randy Levine, and the cities of Anaheim, Seattle, and Worcester to write reports and/or testify publicly on the costs and benefits of sports venues.

These reports were, ah, not always conducted with the rigor of Zimbalist’s other work. Memorably, his report for Seattle — which was arguing in court that losing the Sonics to Oklahoma City had cost the city money — turned out to be largely copied from his report for Anaheim — and since Anaheim was arguing that the presence of the Los Angeles Angels didn’t create a huge economic benefit, Zimbalist simply reversed his conclusions at the end. In the case of Worcester luring the Pawtucket Red Sox to town with a new taxpayer-funded stadium, he: cited University of San Francisco economist Nola Agha’s work to argue that minor-league subsidies are more justifiable, only to have Agha reply that that “virtually never works”; earned criticism from economist Victor Matheson, who actually works in Worcester at College of the Holy Cross, that “Andy is using his credentials and his prominence to basically give cover to the Worcester city council and [city manager] Ed Augustus to go forward with this project”; and later admitted (to me, for an article in pre-decimation Deadspin) that he hadn’t calculated all the costs of, for example, providing schooling to all the new residents he was crediting the Worcester stadium project for attracting.

As for the latest Zimbalist missive on behalf of Cobb County, let’s let the Marietta Daily Journal provide the takeaway:

Accompanying the county’s own numbers was a new, Braves-commissioned study prepared by Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist, which is pitched as a corrective to Bradbury’s findings. The lead finding is that by 2046, the county is expected to see a return on its initial investment of between $19.6 million and $125.6 million.

Braves management touted the study as a long-awaited vindication of the deal, saying in a news release, “This should put to rest any questions on whether this project has been a win for Cobb County taxpayers, who have seen a major return on their investment.”

But have they really? The strength of Bradbury’s study was that he looked at the actual numbers for economic activity in Cobb County before and after the stadium — sales tax receipts, property values, and so on — and compared them with other neighboring counties to see if Cobb did significantly better as a result of the stadium. (Answer: It did not.) Zimbalist’s report, meanwhile, starts off with a long section on how the Braves owners put up a bigger share of construction costs than many other teams (the public share for Cobb County being 45% vs. an average for all stadiums from 1970 to 2010 of 70%, though as he doesn’t footnote the latter figure it’s possible he’s not comparing apples to apples here), charges Bradbury with providing “no foundation, either methodological or empirical,” for his sales tax figures, and accuses him of focusing solely on short-term losses for Cobb County when the real gains will be, he says, far into the future.

The MDJ didn’t bother to call Bradbury for comment for their article, but J.C. doesn’t need no legacy print newspapers when he has Twitter:

Phew! No reply yet from Andy on Twitter, but given that he tweets about 0.0001% as often as Bradbury, that’s probably no surprise. And anyway, as J.C. rightly points out, the proper forum for hashing this stuff out is in a peer-reviewed academic journal, whereas Zimbalist just typed out a Word file and sent it along to his client, which passed it along to reporters. This resulted in the MDJ’s headline “Braves tout new study on fiscal benefits, landing between ‘home run’ and ‘pop fly’,” as well as a way more skeptical article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (“Visitors paying less, businesses more for Cobb stadium bonds”).

In any case, this is yet another reminder that not all “reports” are created equal, and it’s important to look at who has paid for them, how rigorous their methodology is, etc. Or, as a far wiser observer once noted, it takes more than a clear plastic binder to make for good research.

 

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

12 comments on “Braves hired Andy Zimbalist to fire back on stadium impact criticism, and it went about as well as you’d expect”

  2. “The lead finding is that by 2046, the county is expected to see a return on its initial investment of between $19.6 million and $125.6 million.”

    By 2046, Truist Park will likely be gone, replaced with a mostly-taxpayer funded retractable roof stadium because Atlanta’s average summertime high temperatures will be ~95 degrees F or so by then

    1. It may not be ‘gone’, given that it will be just under 30 years old at the time and the Braves have a long term lease there. However, there will certainly be ‘advanced’ negotiations about it’s publicly funded replacement by that time… or perhaps you will be proven right and both parties will agree to terminate the lease and build a $5bn indoor facility that can itself be deemed ‘no longer suitable for purpose’ by 2060 and replaced by something even more expensive and ridiculous.

      Even if it were not true, however, and the Braves were going to play there for 60-70 years, it would still be a terrible investment for the people of Cobb county (only 30% of whom supported spending tax money to lure the Braves when polled).

      In what other ‘investment’ context would you spend nearly $400m (including add ons) and earn no net revenue for more than 30 years and then try to tout a potential $20m net earn in year 32?

      Even Zimbalist’s calculator (if it works or has ever been turned on) must show that $400m invested at just a 2% net earn over the bond carrying cost would make the county more than $320m over the 30 year term.

      Put another way, even if Zimbalist’s questionable claims are correct (and they are pretty clearly not in my view), Cobb county will lose at least $200m – and more likely in excess of $300m hosting the Braves.

      How does one claim – presumably straightfaced – that fact as a ‘win’ for taxpayers?

  4. This stadium deal put Cobb County on the map. Now whenever someone hears Atlanta Braves, they think about Cobb County and why they should move their business there… if that business is a pro sports team looking for some sweet tax deals.

    1. You mean the Big Boss Man didn’t do that back in the days of the World Wrestling Federation?!

    2. Newt Gingrich put Cobb County on the map — before and during his time as Speaker of the US House of Representatives.
      To say that a baseball park put a filthy rich suburb “on the map” reeks of jock-sniffing.

    3. I think you missed the sarcasm, indicated by mb’s closing statement after the ellipsis.

  5. “Smith College economic professor” unfairly disparages a very fine institution of higher learning.

    I have contacted them and recommend anyone else to contact them for an explanation on how they can employ someone who is out of touch with reality/ “a shill”.

    For $150/hr, I’m a lapsed CPA and I will state that every sports complex will make at least a trillion dollars in 20 years. I need to get Andy’s business….

    1. I’ll do it cheaper than you will. I live by the Accountant’s Creed: How much do you want it to be?

      1. The customer is always right, Dave. Especially if they pay in advan$e!

        And what is truth but a (profitable) fable agreed upon?

  6. Ourbfavourite economists (Bradbury) strikes again!!! Dont worry Neil, you’re our favourite non-economist economist.

    Also just wow the Zimbakist ‘report’. That would get a failing grade if you submitted it to a college econ course.

Comments are closed.