Time for our weekly speed run through the rest of the week’s news! Let’s get started, because there is a metric crapton of it:
- After announcing a “binding agreement” for one Las Vegas site and then leaking another agreement for a different one, Oakland A’s ownership has now signaled that it hasn’t decided for sure on anything at all, with team consultant Jeremy Aguero saying, “There are benefits to different sites” and “there are a lot of discussions today.” There’s still no actual stadium legislation for the state legislature to consider — the session ends June 5, but bills have to be passed by May 26 for some reason — so no way of knowing for sure whether previously floated numbers of $395 million to $500 million in tax subsidies are accurate. To tide you over, here’s a YouTube video of what a retractable-roofed stadium might look like in several different Vegas locations in addition to floating in a sea of milk, all of it sourced from this guy’s site that asks the question: Why don’t more stadium renderings feature UFOs?
- Renovation plans for the Jacksonville Jaguars‘ stadium are still up in the air thanks to nobody yet offering to pay their owner Shad Khan a ton of money to do so, but that hasn’t stopped Mayor Lenny Curry from announcing that the team would have to play elsewhere for two seasons while the work is done. “The goal would be to play somewhere in Jacksonville,” said Curry — options include a minor-league baseball stadium, two soccer stadiums that don’t exist yet, and Wembley Stadium in London, so clearly lots of things are up in the air, but at least now everyone is talking about where the Jaguars will play instead of how to pay for it, right? Magic!
- College of the Holy Cross economist Robert Baumann and Kennesaw State College’s J.C. Bradbury have taken another look at the Worcester Red Sox and Atlanta Braves stadium’s cost/benefit to their local areas, and found that Worcester can expect to lose $40-60 million and Cobb County $100-200 million. In response, Smith College economist Andy Zimbalist walked back his initial $225-an-hour consulting report that was used to justify the Worcester project, telling the Worcester Business Journal that “I haven’t seen any data on Worcester’s finances since the stadium deal was completed” and “I would not be surprised if the financial outcome, at least so far, is worse than my model projected.” Still waiting for Bradbury to tweet an appropriate Simpsons meme, but I’m sure it’s coming.
- Lots of NYC F.C. stadium renderings for your delectation, and yup, that looks like a soccer stadium, though it sadly lacks any UFOs or fireworks, even if it does have some of those fans holding up scarves and waving flags to block fellow fans’ view in the middle of play as soccer fans love to do in renderings. Still no explanation of why a 25,000-seat MLS stadium would cost $780 million, but it does provide lots of chances for unwitting news outlets to describe the stadium as “privately financed” even after the city Independent Budget Office concluded it will cost taxpayers $516 million, so job well done, renderers.
- The polls are in, and Nashville area residents really hate the $1.2 billion Tennessee Titans stadium subsidy, opposing it by a 57% to 28% margin. Oh well, too late to do anything about that since the metro council already passed it, but using public money to bring an MLB team to Nashville is even less popular (opposed 69% to 17%), still time to listen to the peorple on that one.
- Speaking of Nashville, here’s a good long post about how the Tennessean newspaper fell down on the job of reporting on the Titans deal, unless you consider its job to have been to constantly tout the “perks” of a new stadium while mostly declining to interview any independent economists, in apparent violation of its own ethical reporting principles, in which case, heck of a job, Tennessean.
- Maybe nobody bought vintage clothing during the NFL Draft in Kansas City, but the NFL did get to host a “Government Affairs Congressional Forum” that involved flying in a bunch of high-ranking Congressional staffers to give them a private tour of the draft theater. Oh, and have them sit for a presentation on using “federal-tax-exempt bonds as a tool to promote economic development at the local level that allow state and local governments low-cost financing for community economic development projects” — you know, community economic development projects like NFL stadiums.
- A guy in Charlotte wants to build a $400 million tennis center with the city of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County putting up a third of the money. Best line from the WCNC story on this: “The company doesn’t have exact numbers yet on how many jobs the facility would create but said a major tennis tournament alone would need thousands of employees.” Thousands of employees! For a tournament that lasts an entire week or two! At $133 million, that would be a cost per full-time-equivalent job of … be right back, gotta get a bigger calculator.
The NYC IBO actually didn’t conclude that the NYCFC stadium would cost taxpayers $516m. The NYT article is misleading and I think they intentionally wrote it in a manner that makes the reader think the IBO did a full blown cost-benefit analysis, which they didn’t. I’ve confirmed this with the IBO. The NYT asked the IBO to calculate what property taxes would be if a $780m stadium were to be constructed on that land and the IBO gave them that figure. The IBO didn’t do a complete cost-benefit analysis nor were they doing anything on their own, but just responding to a request from the NYT who decided to narrowly focus on the property tax item (which shouldn’t be ignored, but it also is one tiny piece of the whole picture)
The IBO concluded that a $780m stadium with a full tax exemption (which is what NYCFC wants) would cost $516m in forgone property taxes. I guess it would be more precise to say “the taxpayer subsidy would be $516m,” not “it would cost taxpayers $516m,” but either way “privately financed” is wrong.
Privately financed is correct. The stadium is being paid for with private funds and no public funds is being used for construction. That is what “privately financed” is being referred to and generally is referred to.
The taxpayer subsidy is separate from “privately financed” though it is still clearly a thing.
Nope, it’s not separate — it’s all part of the same financial package. If NYC wanted to charge taxes (or at least payments in lieu of taxes) on the land, it could, but it chooses not to.
“I pay for it with my money out of pocket and get reimbursed with tax kickbacks” is going to count as private funding, then I have a bridge to buy and ask the government to give me tax credits for.
Lol, we’re arguing semantics. In my mind (and I think most) “financing” is used in terms of how a particular project is going to be paid for. And that refers to the completion of the project, not operating costs going forward. Property taxes have nothing to do with the creation of something but rather something existing and then taxing it.
I’m not trying to say that the club wouldn’t be receiving any public benefits here by not having to pay property taxes or PILOTs, I’m categorizing “financing” as the term is generally used for.
Actually “financing” usually means how the money is raised (bonds, bank loans, etc.), and “funding” is how it’s paid off. So neither of us are really talking about financing.
But yes, semantics, agreed. My point is that getting $500 million in crisp twenties and getting $500 million worth of tax breaks are, to a developer’s balance sheets, indistinguishable.
MLS stadium deals in major cities have all been really stupid. The Red Bulls get there’s in Harrison- but it’s too far New York! We need an expansion team in the city! The Galaxy get there’s in Carson- it’s too far from the west side! So in comes LAFC. Chicago Fire had problems in Bridgeview, so they moved back to Soldier Field.
How long before the NYFC stadium in Queens is “too far from Manhattan!”?
No, these big markets can support multiple MLS teams just as they support multiple teams in all the other sports.
And even if they really can’t, it’s not the public’s job to tell these leagues where to put its teams any more than it’s the public’s job to decide how many pizza places we “need” in a given area. The market will sort that out and, for the most part, that’s fine.
But, regardless of where they put the teams, it’s not the public’s job to pay for their stadiums any more than it’s the public’s job to pay for pizza places.
Public funding for privately owned teams – at least the kinds of numbers that are talked about here – is just a bad deal regardless of where they are located.
They can certainly support multiple teams, it’s just that MLS’s method of expansion is very reactionary and stupid. Teams move to a distant part of the metro area because that’s where the stadium deal is located- attendance/interest wains, MLS responds with an expansion team at a better stadium site or in Chicago’s case the fire get back to soldier field asap.
A promotion/regulation structure would be a much better system for figuring out how many teams that major cities could support (the answer is a lot, and now that MLS is all about streaming, expanding to different markets is less important, unless MLS is a just a big Ponzi scheme designed to keep the gravy train flowing via “expansion” fees from the new “owners”, but I digress).
Contrary to popular myth among soccer fans, promotion/ relegation is actually an incredibly stupid way to run a sport if you’re trying to keep it going as a commercial enterprise.
MLS would not exist if we had that. Owners would not invest in a franchise that could go down.
The teams in USL do not have the investment or the stadiums to be in the top flight. If they went up, they’d go right back down.
Fans romanticize it because they have it in Europe and they think everything in Europe is better, but it doesn’t actually work very well there either. The rich get richer. The same teams win every year unless some murderous middle eastern regime decides to buy a championship. It’s boring.
Meanwhile teams lower down routinely lose money and go out of business. The only thing keeping it going is tradition and sentimentality.
We don’t have that tradition or 150 years of loyalty. If we had that system in the US, we’d have a bunch of teams in New York and a bunch in LA, but then the whole thing would go bust in a few years just like NASL did.
It’s a model for sports invented long before soccer was a lucrative business. But it’s a business now whether we want it to be or not.
The MLS model is better? Teams owned by the league, with a hard cap and the league management deciding where top players go? Whether or not you have a top tiered team is based on what kind of stadium handout your local municipalities give out? The MLS structure is so stupid and holds the sport back.
When it comes to what makes the most money- the same teams winning every year is what brings home the bacon! The general public can’t handle a difficult complex narrative of every team having the ability to win. People say they do, but it doesn’t pan out at all with actual tv ratings. This is why the NBA markets itself around stars, so the general public cares about LeBron or KD, not the team they play for. This is why ESPN leads with stories about the Dallas Cowboys- whether they’re good or not- that’s what fans care about.
Promotion/relegation give the fans two things to care about during the season- who’s going to win it all, who’s going to be demoted (ie, a fate worse than death!). Could you imagine the crazy fan interest if the Cowboys or Steelers or Lakers or Yankees were having a bad year and struggling to stay in the top tier? It would be wild. There should be consequences for being a bad team, instead, American sports rewards them!
Neil – doesn’t the A’s exclusive negotiation period for Howard Terminal expire today? Do both parties have to agree to an extension?
It certainly seems Fisher jumped the gun on the site announcement in LV. The original announced site is very close to the Raiders stadium. Davis and A’s execs do not get along as he blames them for stifling his negotiations in Oakland (whether true or not). The Tropicana Casino site has been rumored for a ballpark for years. That would be a waste of prime strip land (although the adjacency to the airport might impact development).
According to a press release I got today, they’ve already agreed not to do an extension. Though, obviously, “no exclusive negotiating period” doesn’t mean “they can’t negotiate,” just that Oakland can now, you know, date other people.
“date other people.”
LOL laugh of the day!
Thanks!
Shhhhhhh!!!!
Man, Steve, I am THIS close to getting Oakland to sign on to a publicly funded $3bn pickleball development at HT…. the only way this can fail is if Fisher hears about it before it’s too late….
Baseball is yesterday’s sport. Pickleball is where it’s at, man.
Too late!
A look inside Oakland’s booming pickleball scene
by Alix Wall
April 5, 2023
https://oaklandside.org/2023/04/05/pickleball-courts-oakland-east-bay-darlene-vendegna/
Today is correct
On Thursday, people called into the port of Oakland meeting urging the A’s to abandon their plans in Las Vegas and return to the negotiating table.
“It’s a scummy thing to do,” one speaker said about leaving Oakland.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/howard-terminal-lease-a-s-oakland-port-expire-18094737.php
I am actually for the soccer stadium and do not even like soccer ( or the Mets). Why? There is finally a use for the land instead of junkyards and then nothing. It was such an environmental eyesore that was not even hooked up to the NYC sewer system.