Friday roundup: Titans get their $500m in state money after all, who’s next? (Answer: everybody, probably)

Normally here I would say something about a long week finally coming to an end, but now that I know that time doesn’t exist (much like Wyoming, and birds), that just seems silly. So happy eternal present, and let’s get to the news from what we might once have called “the recent past,” if “once” had any meaning to begin with:

  • Well, that was fast: One day after the Tennessee state senate stripped a provision from the state budget bill to spend $500 million in state money on a new Titans stadium, the combined legislature put the money right back in, approving it 71-19 in the house and 18-13 in the senate. Arguments for the subsidy: “When you decide to do a dome type of facility, all of a sudden we go from a football dominated venue to an entertainment dominated venue”; “You cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good”; “If you’re not going to give half a billion dollars to the local NFL billionaire, who will you give it to?” (Ed. Note: One of these quotes is not real.)
  • The Denver Channel asked Broncos president Joe Ellis if a new owner will likely want to build a new stadium once the team is sold, and Ellis said, “It’ll be the No. 1 decision the new owner will have to make,” and then they went and asked a bunch of other people if that was a good idea, and then that became an article somehow headlined “Will they build it? Broncos president floats idea of new stadium with new ownership.” If this sounds familiar, it’s because the Denver Post ran pretty much the same article two months ago. The Broncos’ stadium is all of 21 years old, so it’s not clear if the Denver sports press is just bored, or somebody in the Broncos front office or the Denver business community is feeding them these storylines, or things have just gotten to the point where everyone assumes a 21-year-old stadium is of course obsolete by now, but here we are.
  • The Santa Cruz Warriors G League basketball team might leave town without a new stadium, because the old one is 10 years old and has “long-outlived its tenure and usefulness for the team,” writes Lookout Santa Cruz. (To be fair, the old arena only cost $3.5 million and was meant to be fairly no-frills; also to be fair, it’s only 10 years old.) “If it becomes evident that there is no viable solution aside from the current arena, we don’t really have much of a choice but to not play in Santa Cruz,” said team president Chris Murphy; the article doesn’t say if he stared meaningfully at listeners’ wallets as he said “viable solution,” but we can read between the lines.
  • The Carolina Panthers owners officially bailed on their plan for a new practice facility and surrounding development now that cost overruns have raised the price tag, despite $225 million in public funding that would have come with the $800 million project. “We are prepared to sit down with the City and other interested parties to discuss the significant challenges ahead,” said a statement from team owner David Tepper’s GT Real Estate Holdings, which … actually, that sounds less like abandoning the plan than saying he wants a new plan, only one with less of his money, doesn’t it? Old stadium deals never really die, they just re-emerge with more zeroes at the end.
  • Your friend and mine Victor Matheson had a fun op-ed this week about how the $1 billion Buffalo Bills stadium subsidy is “one of the worst stadium deals in recent memory,” which really anybody could tell from that $1 billion figure, but it’s nice to have a professional economist confirm it. A sample: “The Bills have earned over $300 million in operating income since the Pegulas purchased the team for $1.4 billion just seven years ago. And since then, the value of the Bills has risen by another $900 million. The Pegulas have earned enough on their investment in just seven years to pay for the entirety of a new stadium on their own.” But of course, if you spend your own money, then you don’t have it anymore.
  • This article would have been 1000% better if the headline writers had dropped the word “Arizona.”
  • Roger Goodell gets booed at NFL draft party in Downtown Detroit, then projects $200 million windfall for city,” on the other hand, is an awesome headline, made only the more awesome by the fact that most of the article is behind a paywall, leaving me to assume that Goodell actually produced a study showing the tremendous economic activity generated by booing him, Roger Goodell, which seems totally in character.
  • Elsewhere in headlines, the Voice of OC asks: “Should OC Taxpayers Be Paying the LA Angels $6 Million for Suicide Prevention Ads?” No? I’m going with “no.”
  • The Columbus Blue Jackets just got $13 million public money for, I dunno, stuff, because reasons, does it even matter anymore? The world is just an endless flow of money from working people to people too rich to work, who, vampire-like, live only by sucking living labour, and live the more, the more labour they suck. It’s a little late to be getting all upset by every instance of this — sure it’s fun for a while, but eventually either you have to accept it as the natural, if horrible, state of things, or rise up and seize control of the means of production, don’t you think? Just a thought, anyway; have a good weekend, if weekends exist, which scientists say they don’t!
Share this post:

Santa Cruz considering replacing eight-year-old arena with new one to “woo” minor-league basketball team

Move over, Knoxville — Santa Cruz is ready to take the lead in the “looking to build a new sports venue despite the Covid budget crunch” race. The Santa Cruz Warriors G-League team’s lease expires after next year, and the city is reportedly looking to “woo” the team into staying put beyond that, according to the Santa Cruz Sentinel. And what, precisely, do they mean by woo?

A city-sponsored market and arena project feasibility study by consultant Victus Advisors concluded in 2017 with support to build a permanent arena in an expanded footprint on the existing location, top among several preferred locations. [Santa Cruz economic director Bonnie, I’m assuming, the Sentinel article didn’t actually bother to give her first name or ID] Lipscomb said Tuesday that she recognized that right now was, “from a fiscal standpoint in the middle of a pandemic, the worst time to come forward asking for a public subsidy.” Lipscomb clarified she was not asking city leaders for that this week. City Manager Martín Bernal later further elaborated that building a new arena would be a public-private effort, not a “100% or primarily a public type of project.”

So nobody is asking for any kind of public subsidy, just a “public-private” effort that wouldn’t be “primarily” public. Got it.

As for the outmoded arena in need of replacement, it was opened way back in … I’m sorry, did you say 2012?

Okay, so technically this is classified as a temporary building: It’s a metal frame with an air-supported roof. (The city loaned the Warriors $4.1 million to help build the place, most of which has been paid back, according to Lipscomb.) Still, air-supported roofs have been used for plenty of permanent structures in the past, and nothing seems to be falling apart at the current arena. The Warriors owners — who are, let’s be clear, the same billionaires who own the Golden State Warriors) may want a snazzier place, but that wouldn’t seem to be Santa Cruz’s problem.

Except, of course, for that expiring lease, which gives the team owners that all-important leverage. Along with the fact that basketball is unusual among North American sports in having only a single 29-team minor league when there are hundreds of cities that could potentially support a minor-league basketball team — while Joe Lacob and Peter Guber would have been insane to move the Golden State Warriors out of the Bay Area, their G-League affiliate could probably do just fine in Fresno or Sacramento or Vacaville, which makes it way easier to get a bidding war going, or at least threaten your city with the possibility of a bidding war, which as we’ve seen time and time again is a great way to get local development officials talking about “public-private partnerships.”

And all this makes me wonder whether, even if the Covid recession causes a brief lull in sports subsidies, we could see a huge surge once it’s over, if not before then. We already have the likelihood of a large swath of minor-league baseball teams getting disappeared next year; and still more minor-league teams across several sports may go belly-up if they run out of cash while waiting for fans to return. And while that may be terrible for the sports industry as a whole, for the teams that survive, it hands them a convenient gun to hold to the heads of their current homes: With plenty of other empty stadiums out there to choose from, give us what we’re asking for, or else.

That’s going to be a tough call for city officials: Dip into recession-ravaged budgets to give money to the local sports team, or risk losing one of your few local businesses. (I almost wrote “major businesses,” but that’d be pushing it for a business that’s only open at most 70 days a year — though there is some evidence, at least, that minor-league teams are better at siphoning off spending from the next town over than their big-league counterparts.) Again, we’ve seen which way most cities tend to go on that decision, so it’d be crazy for minor-league sports owners not to at least try.

Share this post: