So it all started, as things so often do, with an open letter from Garth Brooks about how his recent Nashville concert getting rained out proves the Tennessee Titans need a domed stadium:
Country music icon, Garth Brooks, wrote Metro Council a letter in favor of building a new domed stadium. Brooks says a domed stadium is a must in an entertainment city. @FOXNashville @garthbrooks pic.twitter.com/cquvli1APK
— Kaitlin Miller (@kmillerreports) December 1, 2022
That’s right: “Domed stadiums are revenue generating machines because they can be kept busy 365 days a year.” (Incredulous emphasis added.) That would seem to be rather a lot, given how Garth Brooks can’t be everywhere playing at every domed stadium every night. But what do the actual numbers say?
Fortunately, Jon Styf of The Center Square was at work looking into this — less because of Brooks’ claims, it appears, than because Nashville’s freshly released tax revenue projections for a new $2.1 billion domed stadium assume 21 non-football events per year thanks to that roof. Styf asked College of the Holy Cross economist Victor Matheson, who’s actually done the calculations, and he brought receipts:
Sports economist Victor Matheson has studied major events at NFL stadiums and found that, on average, NFL stadiums host 4.9 non-league events per year between 2000-2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic…
“The difference between an outdoor stadium and an indoor stadium is essentially zero in terms of events,” Matheson said. “The reason for that is that all the big tours all go out in the summer specifically so they can use all the outdoor stadiums in the country rather than the limited number of domed stadiums.”
“Essentially zero” is, if my math is correct, somewhat less than “every day of the year.” Brooks has not yet replied to Styf’s article, though you better believe J.C. Bradbury has.
While we’re beating up on Brooks, what’s the deal with his line about “The amount of revenue lost during that storm on top of what it cost to present the make-up show resulted in heavy losses for not just me, but also for the stadium and the city”? Did the city have to absorb a ton of costs for each show that it didn’t make up by having everyone come back to see him again a few months later? Wouldn’t standard stadiums-boost-economies marketing claims mean that Nashville got twice the economic impact by having people book hotel stays twice for the same concert? Maybe thunderstorms are the real economic drivers here?
Thankfully, nobody pays attention to what Garth Brooks thinks about economics, so we can all just laugh at this without worrying that it will lead to articles where the Nashville metro council is asked to seriously respond to his claims wait what
“I was glad that he sent it. One of the most notable recent events at Nissan Stadium was the infamous rain out of his concert and I had a great many East Nashville neighbors there and got rained out,” Metro Councilman Brett Withers said…
“I think he offers a unique perspective as a world-renowned artist that performs all over the world to say there would be a benefit to having an enclosed arena,” Metro Council’s Courtney Johnston adds.
I eagerly await WZTV’s followup article where they ask the council’s reaction to what an actual economist says about a domed stadium’s likely impact. Otherwise one would be forced to conclude that our nation’s journalists are basing their coverage decisions on how to get a famous person’s name into a headline in order to attract more eyeballs — something this site would surely never resort to.
Gonna guess they made people buy tickets months in advance for the show and made money off the float that is not included in Brooks’ dissertation for his Ph.D in economics.
Five days a year beyond NFL events is virtually nothing. It makes you wonder how hard stadium operators work at booking additional events.
Yes, I understand that very few concerts can draw more than 20k (let alone 70k) but it seems like they could do better than that. Motocross, X Games, etc.
Still, I’d be amazed if any dome could get more than 25 non-NFL dates. Even accounting for the days needed for big events to move in and move out, I suspect that would still mean about 300 days a year where nothing at all is happening in the main bowl of the stadium.
Of course, the other spaces can be used. The restaurants and bars can be open and the suites can be used for other things, but that couldn’t justify the public cost.
Also, if having a dome means artificial turf – which it usually does – that dramatically limits the potential for soccer. The 2026 men’s world cup will only be on natural grass and with all of the soccer-specific grass stadiums available, I can’t imagine USSF wanting to play a friendly, let alone a qualifier, indoors on astroturf.
The women’s world cup in Canada included fake surfaces, but that didn’t go over well with the players, fans or press, so I suspect that won’t happen again.
Rough comparison, but St. Louis, a slightly larger market than Nashville has a dome un-hindered by an NFL team. It has 7 events booked for 2023. (Including 2 nights of Metallica, Rock on!). Some might get added later, but there just aren’t that many dome fillers out there.
Not sure what the lease will entail, but I recall for the St. Louis version of the Rams, the team required so many blackout dates that booking other events during football season was nearly impossible.
Now, come on Neil. What is more exciting? A shiny new billion dollar stadium toy endorsed by a musician or an economist explaining why spending a billion plus for a wealthy sports owner is not in the public’s interest? Are adults really that much different than children? The shiny toy is always more interesting even if it’s unaffordable and hurts other areas down the line.
Neil
U buried the headline “ Victor Matheson supports tearing down all non domed stadiums and building domed”.
Why would you deprive us of seeing big rock and roll shows in January