Category: Atlanta Braves

Friday roundup: Rays execs propose “squishy” MOU to unlock stadium vote; Bears tax hike proponent crushed in reelection bid

access_time personNeil deMause

Now that the Tampa Bay Rays stadium push has been pushed back to beyond the end of this legislative session, maybe we can get on with looking at some of the week’s news from other cities. Though wait: Could the Rays actually be on the verge of agreeing to an actual MOU with the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County, which might be voted on as early as next week? Or maybe: Is this just a vague outline of an agreement, not even looked at yet by actual city councilmembers or county commissioners, meant to convince the state legislature that it should move ahead with its own Rays funding? But what about: OLEICAT?

Okay, fine: There is a draft MOU, and it is this. Its very first word is “NON-BINDING,” and it changes some stuff around from the last proposed MOU. Instead of this public funding plan from the city and county:

  • $272 million from the county’s Community Investment Tax 0.5% sales tax surcharge that was passed by voters after promises it wouldn’t be used for stadiums
  • $268 million from county hotel taxes
  • $132 million from county cash reserves
  • $30 million from the county disaster relief funds
  • $224 million from the city of Tampa via the Drew Park TIF district
  • $74 million from reply hazy, ask again later

It would now be this:

  • $360 million from the county Community Investment Tax
  • $263 million from county hotel taxes
  • $40 million from more county hotel taxes
  • $30 million from county stormwater infrastructure funds
  • $100 million from the city of Tampa via the Drew Park TIF district
  • $80 million from the city Community Investment Tax
  • $103 million in county money from reply hazy, ask again later

The first set of numbers totaled $1 billion and the second one is $976 million, meaning the total public cost has gone down very slightly! Rays owner Patrick Zalupski would still keep all revenues from the county-owned stadium; he appears to have dropped his demand for a $10/year rent for now, with the MOU only saying that a lease agreement with the county will be negotiated at a later date.

Rays CEO Ken Babby issued a statement boasting that the new MOU “protects all public funding currently allocated for police, fire, emergency management or response functions,” which is true inasmuch as it doesn’t dip into those particular budget pockets, but not true inasmuch as city and county governments with $975 million less in overall tax money than it would otherwise will find it harder to fund those things.

The new MOU was negotiated with city and county staff, not legislators, so this still has to get voted on by the Tampa city council and Hillsborough County commission — and then, since it’s nonbinding, presumably voted on again at some later date once all those blank spaces in the budget are filled in. (Tampa council chair Alan Clendenin described this MOU as “on the squishy side.”) In the meantime, this stopgap measure is intended to convince the state legislature to move ahead with approving its share of the deal while Zalupski’s buddy Ron DeSantis is still governor. It’s all a lot of balls to keep in the air, but if it all works out, the Rays’ stadium plan could at least live to fight another day.

Okay, now the rest of the news:

  • Add another casualty to the list of elected officials who have been voted out of office and/or shot in the butt for their support of taxpayer-funded sports subsidies: Porter County council president Andy Vasquez got stomped in his Republican primary to stand for reelection, and one reason may be that he supported a 1% county food and beverage tax surcharge for a Bears stadium in Hammond, whereas his opponent opposed it. (Hammond is in Lake County, not in Porter County, but the Bears are seeking tax money from both.) The counties aren’t set to vote on the tax subsidies until after a deal is struck to bring the Bears to Indiana, which seems like it would be the dumbest kind of throwing good money after bad possible, but hey, all the kids are doing it!
  • In tax subsidy news on the other side of the Illinois-Indiana Bears border war: Amanda Kass of Good Jobs First, who earlier this week worried that the Illinois megaprojects bill that the Chicago Bears owners want so they can get up to $2 billion in tax breaks on an Arlington Heights stadium would turn the state’s property tax base into “swiss cheese,” has penned an analysis of the bill along with Kristan Wong Karinen of Good Jobs First and Rita Jefferson of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy for Crain’s Chicago Business and concluded that it would result in “a direct property tax cut for corporations that other residents will pay for.” And since any projects costing at least $100 million would be eligible for the tax breaks, it would be down to individual municipalities to decide — which is especially worrying, they write, given that “billionaire developers come to the table with sophisticated financial models and experienced attorneys. Communities don’t.”
  • The Missouri legislature snuck $80 million into this year’s state budget for “wastewater, stormwater, and water infrastructure,” and some legislators are concerned it could be a stealth attempt to set aside money for a Kansas City Royals stadium project. “This is the stuff that makes me sick,” said state senator Maggie Nurrenbern, who noted that other programs received budget cuts even as this potential stadium slush fund was created.
  • “Vancouver city council could approve a deal by July with a potential ownership group in pursuit of a Major League Baseball team,” reports Business in Vancouver, before further reporting that “so far, no ownership group has publicly shown an interest.” But if some billionaire shows up wanting to get an MLB expansion franchise, and if they can come up with a way of building a stadium, and if MLB actually decides to expand, then Vancouver is willing to get in line along with Sacramento and anyone else.
  • No, the Atlanta Braves Battery project really doesn’t turn a profit for Cobb County, that’s not how math works.
  • Buffalo Bills fans have noticed that the new stadium they’re paying for with their state and county tax money so that team owners can make more money is charging more money for tickets, and now they’re unhappy.
  • The New York/New Jersey World Cup host committee has rented school buses to provide 18,000 rides to this summer’s soccer matches for only $20, providing a relief to fans but potentially undercutting New Jersey’s attempts to recoup its World Cup expenses by gouging on train fares. New York state taxpayers will be footing $6 million of the bus cost, courtesy of Gov. Kathy Hochul.
  • What do you get when you combine AI slop with clickbait vaportecture? The nightmare fuel that is “Ballparks Reimagined: If Every MLB Team Built a Stadium From Its Soul,” which is if anything even slightly more horrifying than the YouTube version three years ago.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: County tells Rays no stadium approval by June 1, Blazers and Wild get pushback on subsidy demands as well

access_time personNeil deMause

Welcome to any new readers who are joining us for the first time this week in the wake of all the news craziness about the Kansas City Royals and Chicago Bears stadium deals. It’s Friday, which means it’s time for a speed run through stadium and arena news items that were otherwise overlooked this week. But first, one city has seen developments in its stadium wrangle that deserve attention at a bit more length:

One of the standard ploys in the sports stadium demand playbook is what in Chapter 4 of Field of Schemes we called the “two-minute warning”: Setting a deadline, arbitrary if necessary, and using it to get elected officials scrambling to determine how to fund a new sports venue with public dollars without taking time to think about whether to do so. But playing chicken, obviously, comes with the risk that your opponent won’t blink first, and that’s what appears to be happening to Tampa Bay Rays owner Patrick Zalupski, who has been informed that Hillsborough County will not be meeting his June 1 deadline for signing off on a stadium deal that could total anywhere from $2 billion to a lot more in public costs:

That deadline, the team has said, is necessary not only for the ballpark to open in time for the 2029 Major League Baseball season, but for the deal to be feasible at all.

On Thursday, the county attorney’s office informed the team that meeting such a deadline is improbable, according to a memorandum obtained by the Tampa Bay Times.

A timeline, the memo reads, “cannot be reasonably considered” until all involved parties reach an agreement on the terms. After a preliminary agreement is reached, “it would likely take at least 60-90 days” to negotiate the deal’s development and funding obligations.

That’s perfectly reasonable, given that the county’s memorandum of understanding for the stadium still includes a lot of open questions and there is no MOU yet at all for the rest of the development that Zalupski says he wants to build atop what’s currently Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry campus. But it also messes with Zalupski’s timetable — not just that he wants to open a new stadium by spring 2029 (probably overly optimistic anyway, given that stadiums take three years to build and he’d have to tear down part of the college campus before he could begin construction) but that he desperately wants to get the deal approved this legislative session, before his pal Ron DeSantis is term-limited out of the governor’s office at the end of 2026.

Tampa Bay Rays CEO Ken Babby has already warned the county that “we would have no choice but to evaluate alternatives” if the June 1 deadline isn’t met, but Zalupski’s options are limited there: He’s not likely to be able to negotiate and push through a stadium plan in another city (Orlando has a big sign! Greensboro exists!) by June 1, so he’s going to be left having to work out a deal without the hammer of having Florida’s governor in his corner.

One alternative would be for the Rays owner to walk back some of his demands in Tampa. Leading Rays stadium deal critic county commissioner Joshua Wostal has said he’d consider approving just $268 million in hotel tax money, saying, “Start acting like a serious bidder. The offer is out there.” Of course, $268 million is a whole hell of a lot less than the $1 billion in city and county money that Zalupski wants, but maybe he’d be happy to take his $1 billion or so in state-gifted tax-exempt land and run with it, and give up on shaking down Tampa and Hillsborough County quite so hard? The only way to find out is to ask, and kudos to Hillsborough County officials for seemingly understanding that it’s both their right and their responsibility to haggle, and not being bullied into rushing into a deal.

Anyway, sorry for the Tampa-specific digression, on to the bullet points now:

  • Also in no hurry to rubber-stamp a rushed sports venue deal: The Portland city council, whose members are balking at signing a nondisclosure agreement to engage in Trail Blazers arena funding talks or sign a letter to the NBA supporting an arena deal. “If you want the public to support using public money to remodel a stadium, then you need to make the case to them in public about why using those funds is better than some alternative,” councilmember Mitch Green wrote on Bluesky. Blazers owner and renowned cheapskate Tom Dundon has already landed $365 million in state money toward arena renovations, but it looks like the remaining $235 million in city and county money could be a slightly harder lift.
  • And in yet another pushback to a sports subsidy demand, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has said that while he personally would be fine with giving the Wild $200 million in state money for arena renovations, “it’s going to be a tough lift in a non-budget year to be able to get that done.” Okay, that sounds less like “no” and more like “come talk to us in 2027,” and given that Wild owner’s Craig Leipold’s lease doesn’t expire until 2035 he can afford to wait, but it still counts as a kind of pushback.
  • Kansas News Service has done a deeper dive into Missouri’s potential funding for a new Kansas City Royals stadium at Crown Center, and found that it could be less than advertised: Last year’s Show-Me Sports Investment Act limits state funding to whatever sales and income tax revenue a team paid in the year before a stadium deal is agreed to, and for the Royals at Kauffman Stadium in 2025 that was likely in the $15-17 million range. That would only cover around $250 million in stadium bonds, a fair bit less than the “at least $350 million” to $900 million numbers that have previously been floated. If the state coughs up less, it could bring the public stadium subsidy down to $1.3 billion — unless the city’s $600 million that has yet to be negotiated turns out to be more than $600 million counting things like a repair fund, in which case it’d be more again. It’s becoming ever clearer that this whole thing is barely penciled out, let alone inked, but headline writers gonna headline write.
  • Whenever a sports team owner or elected official points to the Atlanta Braves‘ Battery stadium district as an example of a sports development project paying for itself, I make a point of linking to Kennesaw State University economist J.C. Bradbury’s paper on how no it di’n’t. But even academics know that nobody likes to read academic papers, so Bradbury has penned an essay for The Conversation — titled “Sorry, Tampa Bay, mixed‑use districts don’t reverse the dismal economics of sports venues” — that lays out exactly what did and didn’t happen in Cobb County, Georgia: The Braves owners are bringing in an extra $97 million a year from the Battery, while the county is running a loss of about $15 million a year. If it seems crazy that this sea of red ink is being held up as the kind of success story that other cities should emulate, such is the magical power of being a sports team owner in a country where journalism has long since given up fact-checking the press releases of rich dudes.
  • The wandering Athletics just released a new promo video for premium seating at their under-construction-and-they-swear-they’ll-finish-it Las Vegas stadium, and it is a hilarious supercut of what SF Gate describes as “AI-generated scenes of AI-generated people walking through the AI-generated models of what the club sections of the park might look like.” I’m not sure whether my favorite bit is how the AI fans are all wearing what appear to be A’s jerseys with the A’s logo removed or the multiple extreme closeups of wine glasses, but I can agree with Oakland sportswriter Dan Moore’s comment that “when I close my eyes and think ‘baseball’ I literally think the exact opposite of this.” SFGate further reports that they reached out to A’s officials to ask how much if any of this represented what a Vegas A’s stadium might actually look like as opposed to just AI hallucinations, but “an A’s spokesperson initially asked for a deadline extension to respond and then later came back and declined to comment,” LOLAthletics.
  • In less encouraging modern journalism news, WKYC reports “Cavaliers‘ impending playoff run already boosting business for downtown Cleveland bars,” citing precisely one owner of a bar a block from the arena who is “expecting steady traffic throughout the day,” which isn’t the same thing as “already boosting” at all. Bar owners more than one block from the arena were presumably unavailable for comment on whether they anticipated empty barstools while everyone was off watching the Cavs.
  • Friends don’t let friends who are concerned about being constantly surveilled and possibly targeted for being associated with people on New York Knicks and Rangers owner James Dolan’s enemies list go to Madison Square Garden.
Share this post:

Even MLB doesn’t pretend the All-Star Game brought $100m to Atlanta, so why does the media?

access_time personNeil deMause

The MLB All-Star Game was last night, and the word being used to describe it most in headlines is “historic,” which is the nice way of saying it was tied after nine innings and decided by a mini–home run derby because baseball changed the rules in 2022. And the thing about history is that it can be good or bad, or both depending on your perspective, so it’s a fair word for everyone to describe what unfolded last night.

What hasn’t changed, meanwhile, is the torrent of article that accompany every major sporting event these days, claiming the true historic event is the rain of economic activity that falls from the sky as a result:

According to preliminary estimates, the All-Star Game and surrounding events are expected to generate at least $50 million in economic activity for metro Atlanta. Statewide, officials believe the number could approach or surpass $100 million, comparable to what Georgia was projected to lose when the 2021 All-Star Game was relocated.

This is the kind of reporting that causes sports economists to lose their shit. The impact of sports mega-events has been studied to death at this point, and the findings show that while events like All-Star Games or Super Bowls obviously draw tons of fans, they often drive away other visitors who steer clear of town during the event, cost significant amounts of public money for hosting and supporting the event, divert money and attention from other things cities could be investing in, and siphon off much of their benefits to out-of-town interests. And when pressed back in 2021 on the source of their economic projections for an Atlanta All-Star Game in particular, the league and county officials who boasted of them already backed away from them, with the county saying they came from the Braves and MLB, the Braves saying they came from the league, and the league denying any role in calculating them at all.

USA Today sportswriter Gabe Lacques visited The Battery, the bespoke neighborhood that the Braves built in a wooded area alongside their new suburban stadium that opened in 2017 with the help of more than $300 million in county money, and found that while it’s a success from a team real estate development standpoint, generating $67.3 million a year for the team, it hasn’t done much for the county, and certainly not for the Atlanta metro area as a whole:

Certainly, Cobb County captured the revenue that used to go to Fulton County when the Braves played there. Yet much of the activity – a night at the movies, a mid-range dinner, a round of drinks with the boys or the baddies – simply would have occurred somewhere else minus The Battery’s existence.

“You built a department store,” says JC Bradbury, an economist and associate professor at Kennesaw State. “We already have seven of those in Cobb County. It’s not transformative for development when you look at a county that’s a ($64 billion) economy. It’s a rounding error.

“Even though they’re always touted as a great economic engine, they’re not. And the data bear this out.”

Bradbury has already crunched the numbers and found that the county is losing about $15 million a year in tax revenue on the Braves stadium development, a figure that didn’t make it into any of this week’s coverage, not even USA Today’s.

And, hey, what was all that way back up above about “when the 2021 All-Star Game was relocated”? Also not mentioned much, in an event that celebrated Henry Aaron breaking Babe Ruth’s career home run record while downplaying the groundbreaking civil rights aspects of the moment, was the fact that Atlanta was originally supposed to host the All-Star Game in 2021, but MLB took it away because of concerns over Georgia’s draconian new voting laws that threatened to disenfranchise many Black voters. What ever happened with those laws, anyway?

In fact, voting rights experts say, conditions have only worsened for potentially disenfranchised voters….

A Brennan Center for Justice analysis of the 2022 midterms revealed that the racial gap between white and Black voters was the largest in at least a decade.

As opponents of the bill indicated, reducing the amount and availability of drop boxes would have a disproportionate impact on voters in areas like Fulton County, where they were abundant during the presidential election but much scarcer in the wake of SB 202.

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred’s explanation of why he changed his mind despite the laws that led to the 2021 cancellation not changing one bit: “I made a decision in 2021 to move the event and I understand, believe me, that people had then and probably still have different views as to the merits of that decision. What’s most important is that the Atlanta Braves are a great organization. Truist Park and The Battery are gems in terms of the facilities, and Atlanta and Georgia have been great markets for us for a very, very long time.”

All that reporting is again courtesy of Lacques, who is shaping up to be the hero of All-Star week journalism, along with folks like Craig Calcaterra and Bradbury. Much like last night’s game itself, the impact of the All-Star Game looks exciting and historic on the surface, but it leaves out a lot of the story.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Commanders warn DC council “Don’t make Trump come in there,” plus Blue Jackets could join the line for Ohio subsidies

access_time personNeil deMause

Okay, that’s done, Friday roundup, let’s get to it:

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Bengals land $350m in county stadium cash, will seek more from state

access_time personNeil deMause

The stadium deals are coming fast and furious now: Hamilton County and the Cincinnati Bengals owners have reached an agreement on a lease extension, four days before the team owners could have extended their current lease unilaterally. The new lease, approved yesterday by a 2-1 vote (Alicia Reese, dada poet, abstained) will run through the 2036 season (with five two-year options afterwards), and the team will receive $350 million in county money toward $470 million in stadium upgrades. The team will start paying rent for the first time (beginning at $1 million a year, gradually rising to $2 million), while continuing to receive 93% of parking revenues.

That’s a little over $30 million in public money per year of lease extension, which would be high but still short of the $43 million a year that the Carolina Panthers received last year. But the real question is: Did Hamilton County succeed in getting out from under that state-of-the-art clause that requires taxpayers to buy the team anything that other teams’ stadiums have, famously including holographic replay systems should they ever be invented? Neither the Bengals’ statement nor the county’s statement mentions this, and if it’s still in place, then you have to wonder why the county didn’t just let Bengals owners the Brown family renew the old lease and pass on giving them $350 million in cash.

And it could end up being more than $350 million: Hamilton County stated that “Commissioners plan to pursue state support as capital grants become available to grow the size of the renovation project” — which would be insane for the state to do in exchange for exactly nothing in return from the team owners, but the Ohio state legislature isn’t exactly known for its sanity lately.

More news as events warrant, then, but it certainly looks like a big win for the Browns, not to be confused with this week’s big win for the other Browns. And while we await more news, here’s more news:

  • The Kansas City Chiefs owners have officially requested an extension on Kansas’s offer of state money for a new stadium, either because they really want to move to Kansas or because they want to scare local Missouri lawmakers into sweetening the pot on the state money that was already approved there. The Kansas legislature will discuss the extension proposal on July 7; in the meantime, state senate president Ty Masterson declared: “The letter from [Chiefs president] Mark Donovan indicates that the drive to bring this historic project to Kansas is moving down the field. Now that we are in the red zone, this extension will provide stakeholders sufficient time to ensure the ball crosses the goal line” — at which point the English language itself died of metaphor overload.
  • The community revitalization levy (Canadian for TIF) that provided $300 million in tax money for a new Edmonton Oilers arena is set to expire soon, so of course the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce wants it extended for another 20 years, or else: “Extending the CRL is about making a generational investment in our city, and it directly responds to what we’re hearing from local businesses. A vibrant Downtown isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s a must-have,” said ECC CEO Doug Griffiths. Some of the money would go toward expanding the Oilers’ ICE District Fan Park, which is less a park than an event space that Oilers owner Daryl Katz can use to hold GWAR concerts; “We shouldn’t be doing secret deals behind closed doors for one or two businesses. That’s just wrong,” objected city councillor (Canadian for councilmember) Michael Janz in advance of public hearings yesterday and today.
  • The Tampa Bay Rays need to figure out where to play their home playoff games if they make the postseason, and if you want to read Ken Rosenthal expounding semi-coherently on it — sample text: “Come October, a team known for disrupting the sport might provide its wildest wrinkle yet: a public-address announcer bellowing, ‘Welcome to the 2025 postseason at Steinbrenner Field!'”— here’s the Athletic paywall, go to town. (Or, psst, you can always try archive.ph.)
  • The Marietta Daily Journal reports that the Atlanta Braves‘ stadium is producing more tax revenues than it’s costing Cobb County in tax expenditures; no, it’s not, points out Kennesaw State economist J.C. Bradbury, who notes that this fails to account for the 60% of county costs that are covered by sources other than property taxes, which puts the county comfortably back in a sea of red ink.
  • The Washington, D.C. city council has scheduled public hearings on a proposed Commanders stadium for July 29 and 30, which makes it clear that the council won’t be voting to approve the potential $7-billion-and-up subsidy deal on July 15 as team officials and Mayor Muriel Bowser had hoped. Any delay past July 15 would “jeopardize D.C.’s ability to attract premier concerts, global talent and marquee events — including the 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup” and “slow new jobs at a time when the District needs them the most,” a Commanders spokesperson harrumphed. Council president Phil Mendelson says he still expects a stadium deal to be approved this summer; the big question is whether the council will do anything to trim the proposed record-breaking public costs or will just greenlight basically what Bowser approved. If nothing else, the hearings should be a good opportunity to fill out some of our bingo cards.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: How fast is the A’s Vegas stadium going nowhere, and other questions

access_time personNeil deMause

Another week down! Have you been enjoying the Olympics so far? Did you even remember the Olympics were happening, other than to make sure you weren’t going anywhere near Paris during them? I, for one, cannot wait for the 2028 flag football competition.

Meanwhile, here’s what’s been happening:

  • Until now Oakland A’s owner John Fisher’s lack of any options for funding a Las Vegas stadium has just been widespread conjecture, but now a research note by JMP Securities analyst Mitch Germain confirms it: “The Oakland A’s new stadium currently remains in a holding pattern. The last piece of the puzzle was private financing obtained by the owner for the remaining cost of the stadium. Chatter suggests this may have hit a roadblock.” Oh wait, “chatter” could just mean Germain is reading the same conjecture? We can upgrade it to extremely widespread conjecture, at least.
  • Oakland has officially signed a deal to sell its half of the Oakland Coliseum site to the African American Sports & Entertainment Group for $105 million, paid out between now and June 2026. If AASEG fails to make the payments, then … that part didn’t make it into the San Francisco Chronicle story, it’s okay, they had bigger fish to fry.
  • The Massachusetts legislature adjourned this week without rezoning industrial land in Everett for a new New England Revolution stadium, and team owner Robert Kraft said he’s “deeply disappointed,” then threw some passive-aggressive shade by adding, “Massachusetts’ political landscape is one of the only places where creating opportunities in environmental justice communities and rehabilitation is dictated by the needs and bargaining of political leaders with outside influences.” Outside influences, eh? Were they … agitators?
  • Cleveland councilmembers want the Cleveland Browns to keep playing in Cleveland, not so sure about the whole “giving them hundreds of millions of dollars” thing, film at 11.
  • There are two competing proposals to put a sales tax increase back on the ballot to raise money for a Kansas City Chiefs stadiums, and the Jackson County legislature just voted down the one for a 0.125% hike over 25 years but is still working on the one for a 0.375% hike for 40 years.
  • Chicago Bears president/CEO Kevin Warren says he still prefers a new stadium on the Chicago lakefront that would come with billions of dollars in public money, but if that doesn’t work, Arlington Heights is nice, too.
  • Turns out someone did do a more robust analysis than the one by the Pennsylvania Independent Fiscal Office of the number of hotel room stays attributable to Philadelphia Phillies fans, and the finding was “not statistically significant.” I know Springer books are pricey, but the fiscal office really couldn’t afford $180?
  • The Atlanta Braves owners’ decision to build their stadium in the middle of the woods in the suburbs has prompted much debate, but until now it didn’t have its own Tracey Ullman parody song.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: NYC approves $780m NYCFC stadium in Queens, still doesn’t know what it’ll cost the public

access_time personNeil deMause

I keep meaning to find a place to mention it, and here is as good as any: sports economists J.C. Bradbury, Dennis Coates, and Brad Humphreys have taken up the task of updating Judith Grant Long’s epic database of stadium and arena deals, and the results are online as a CSV file. There are likely still going to be some debates about specific figures — the Buffalo Bills stadium is listed with an $850 million public cost, for example, because that’s what the New York Times said, but that leaves out state and county money set aside for future maintenance and upgrades — but it’s still a hugely useful resource for getting ballpark estimates (sorry) of both total and taxpayer costs. Bookmark it now, or just click the “Data” tab here anytime to find it!

That’s enough about that, let’s get to the news, oh the news, so very much the news:

  • The New York city council approved NYC F.C.‘s plan to build a Queens stadium across the street from the Mets‘ stadium, which is expected to cost $780 million and open in 2027. While construction costs are being covered by the team’s owners, Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner and Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, it’s still unknown exactly how much the city will be giving up in property-tax breaks and discounted rent (the city Independent Budget Office estimated $516 million) or how much the city will be spending on infrastructure for the project (which includes housing and other stuff too, so it’d be tricky to determine exactly how much of infrastructure costs should be charged to the stadium). Ah well, plenty of time to figure that out after the agreements are all signed! Queens councilmember Shekar Krishnan cast the only dissenting vote, declaring, “We are not facing a stadium crisis in this city. We are facing a housing crisis, an inequality crisis and a climate crisis. Now we’re looking at a proposal that gives away public land worth hundreds of millions of dollars in public financing for a commercial soccer stadium. What is the benefit for the people of New York City?” You mean the joy of visiting Naming Rights Sponsor Stadium isn’t enough?
  • Patrick Tuohey of the Show-Me Institute wants to know what happened to the 2022 Populous study of the Kansas City Royals‘ stadium that projected it would cost more to repair than replace, thanks to “concrete cancer,” since it’s been taken down from the KC Ballpark District website. Good news and bad news, Patrick: The report is still there on the Wayback Machine, but it provides no sourcing at all for its figures. It does print them in very large type, though, and how could anything in a 48-point font be wrong?
  • Jackson County legislator Sean Smith polled his constituents about why they voted how they did on the Royals and Chiefs stadium tax surcharge referendum last week, and determined it’s because nobody listened to their concerns and engaged in too much “fear-based campaigning” by threatening the teams would leave. Smith didn’t release any detailed results of his survey, though, so it’s left as an exercise for the reader to imagine what the public’s concerns were, exactly.
  • Adding insult to injury department: Workers for the Oakland A’s weren’t told by team management that the franchise was relocating to Sacramento next year and that they would all be laid off as a result, they saw it on the TV news. “Thank you for ruining our lives,” said one A’s bartender only identified by CBS Sports as Tony. (Also, the layoffs have reportedly already begun, because John Fisher has clearly determined you don’t need concessions workers when you’ve so effectively alienated your fans that no one will come to your games.)
  • The Atlanta Braves claim that a new survey found their stadium-in-the-middle-of-suburban-nowhere ranks 13th out of 30 teams in “walkability,” and we don’t even need to debate whether it’s a dumb survey because it turns out 13th actually means 21st because it turns out the dumb survey people don’t know how to break ties.
  • “Can Minor League Baseball Survive Its Real Estate Problems?” asks the New York Times, but those problems were created by MLB when it bought and contracted the minor leagues and then forced cities to scramble to upgrade stadiums to avoid being left without a chair when the music stopped. Try to keep up, New York Times! Even without a sports department!
  • D.C. United wants to build a stadium for a minor-league affiliate in Baltimore, and the Baltimore Banner article on how “there hasn’t been enough information shared about the project” doesn’t even try to ask how much it would cost or who would pay for it, this has not been a great week for journalism. Here are some tips, guys, start with those!
Share this post:

Friday roundup: A’s now open to “different” Vegas sites, stadium reno could leave Jaguars homeless, Zimbalist says he may have been wrong about Worcester ballpark benefits

access_time personNeil deMause

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:

Share this post:

The latest Bradbury v. Zimbalist economist slap fight over Braves stadium, explained

access_time personNeil deMause

If you’ve been waiting patiently for the next shoe to drop in the exciting economist war of words between Kennesaw State University’s J.C. Bradbury and Smith College’s Andrew Zimbalist over the economic impact or lack thereof of the new Atlanta Braves stadium, you will be happy to hear this news: Bradbury has fired back at Zimbalist’s Braves-commissioned trashing of his economic studies, and does not pull any punches. In a 64-page response — “I wish this reply were shorter, but its extensive length results from the magnitude of errors that I am forced to address,” Bradbury writes — he goes through Zimbalist’s criticisms and excoriates them in language that … okay, it’s not that spicy for normal human discourse, but for an academic paper it is fire. Some of the highlights, and my attempts to translate them into trash talk fit for a layperson:

  • “Andrew Zimbalist’s review of my retrospective analysis is deficient to the point of negligence,” writes Bradbury, and furthermore “has violated the standard protocols of scholarly discourse.” Most of this, Bradbury writes, involves 1) making assumptions that benefit his client’s desired outcome — namely, that the Braves stadium isn’t actually a huge money pit for Cobb County taxpayers — and 2) consistently accusing Bradbury of failing to do things that he explicitly did in his original study.
  • One case where Bradbury accuses Zimbalist of cherry-picking: Zimbalist cites two studies showing increased property values around new stadiums as examples of how “some sports facilities have produced salutary financial outcomes.” Except the co-author of those studies is West Virginia University’s Brad Humphreys — who happens to be a co-author with Bradbury on other work — and Humphreys himself has written that those two studies probably aren’t representative of any larger trends, but just indicate that for stadiums built in areas primed for redevelopment, property values then go up because they would have gone up anyway, duh. (This is a big part of Bradbury’s argument about the Braves deal: Property values went up in Cobb County after the stadium was built, but no more than they did in surrounding counties, so you can’t credit the stadium with being the cause.)
  • There’s a long section about Zimbalist griping that Bradbury said it was “egregious,” “specious,” and “incomprehensible” for the Braves to assume that revenue from new hotel and business taxes imposed around the stadium should count as the result of the presence of the stadium. Bradbury writes that that assumption is too all those things, because slapping new taxes on all spending in a seven-square-mile area around the stadium and then calling the revenue “stadium-related” makes about as much sense as taxing blue cars and then declaring that because blue cars weren’t taxed before the stadium was built, the blue car tax money was generated by the Braves. For good measure, he then cites Zimbalist himself, in a 2013 essay, as noting that an increase in spending right around a stadium doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in overall spending, so you can’t count it as a net gain.
  • Bradbury cites several instances where Zimbalist accuses Bradbury of not explaining his methodology, to which Bradbury responds by citing exactly where in his paper he explained his methodology, and notes that Zimbalist could have easily found this if he’d bothered to use the search function.

There’s much more, but most of Bradbury’s upshot comes down to: Bradbury looked for any evidence that the Braves’ new stadium has caused Cobb County’s financials to improve significantly relative to neighboring counties and found none; Zimbalist’s retort is well, but maybe that will change in the future, if these several unlikely things happen:

When I reconstruct Zimbalist’s model to evaluate its projections, I demonstrate that its estimates are the product of the favorable assumptions he chooses. Zimbalist bases his optimistic conclusions on a limited set of projections that produce the greatest fiscal impacts. Using more reasonable assumptions, his model estimates negative fiscal impacts.

I want to be clear: this is not a case where two scholars hold a good-faith disagreement after presenting equally-compelling arguments regarding esoteric phenomena.

And if that’s still too oblique for you, Bradbury helpfully shared a meme on social media:

The takeaway from all this is, well, that economists can really, really hate each other, or maybe more specifically that economists can really, really hate Andy Zimbalist. (I recall one sports economist telling me years ago when I asked about Zimbalist’s longstanding penchant for trashing his colleagues — sorry for the anonymous quote, but I genuinely don’t remember who said it — “There’s a reason Andy doesn’t co-author too many papers.”) But also that when sports team owners presented with a study saying their stadium is a dud find a guy with academic credentials who will take their money and provide the conclusions that they want, it becomes way too easy to present the resulting dispute as “economists disagree” rather than “the guy working for the team says one thing, while everyone else says the exact opposite.”

All of the above is one-sided by necessity, as Zimbalist hasn’t yet replied to Bradbury’s reply to Zimbalist’s reply to Bradbury’s paper. I emailed Zimbalist yesterday to ask if he had anything to add, and he said he’s on vacation but is working on a re-re-rebuttal. They will fight eternally.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: When stadium CBAs go sour, Zimbalist explains why he takes team money, and Rob Manfred doesn’t understand how road games work

access_time personNeil deMause

Happy Friday! Before we get to the new stadium news, here’s some hot-off-the-presses old stadium news from me for City Limits magazine, for which I took a hard look at the enforcement problems around the community benefits agreements surrounding the Brooklyn Nets and New York Yankees development deals. The nut graf, as we say in the biz:

One big problem with CBAs: They’re not laws, but rather private contracts between a developer and community groups—in the case of the arena project, groups that were not only hand-picked by the developer but in some cases funded by him. And if those groups aren’t around to hold a developer accountable—or the developer isn’t around and there’s no successor clause—there’s little anyone else can do to enforce an agreement.

That was certainly the problem with the Nets deal, where most of the signatories to the CBA are now long-defunct. And for the Yankees deal, it was even worse: The only people to sign the agreement were elected officials who are now long out of office, and promised regular reports on the community fund’s spending have been withheld from the public on the grounds that no one is authorized to see them — though the fund’s initial administrator says there’s a simpler reason for why no reports have been issued: “During my time, no reports were written.”

Well, lesson learned! Or not, given that the rest of the nation seems intent on repeating the same mistakes over and over and over and…

  • MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said for the umpteenth time this weekend regarding the Oakland A’s and Tampa Bay Rays stadium demands that “we need a solution in both those markets and the time has come for that solution,” which is both some of his typical awkward-as-possible wording and also an excellent example of how sports team owners love to define their not-as-high-as-they’d-like profits as a problem in need of a solution, preferably with someone else’s money. Manfred added re the Rays: “We are getting to the point where wherever it is in the region that has an interest in having 162 baseball games, they need to get to it, get with the club.” Um, the region has 162 baseball games now (really 81, but let’s not bother Manfred with concepts like “road games”), and the Rays don’t exactly have an offer on the table from another city with a stadium, or even the promise of a stadium, so it’s not like if their lease expired today they would be gone. But when you’ve got one move and it’s vague threats, you’ve got to make the most of it, I suppose.
  • Sports economist Andy Zimbalist has fired back at critics of his criticism of sports economist J.C. Bradbury’s study of the Atlanta Braves stadium deal in an interview with Sportico (which didn’t bother to interview Bradbury that I can tell [CORRECTION: it did, it just didn’t quote him much]), saying among other things that getting paid by a team owner to conduct a study of the team’s nine-figure stadium subsidy isn’t a conflict of interest because “If I didn’t get paid there is an element in it that says I am not a professional, I am doing it for some other reasons. The payment thing is, ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’” I am pretty sure that phrase does not mean what you think it means, Andy.
  • Speaking of paid consultants, Nashville Mayor John Cooper and the metro area council are considering hiring one to analyze whether it would really cost taxpayers $1.8 billion to maintain and upgrade the Tennessee Titans‘ stadium for the six-year remainder of the team’s lease, a key cog in the team’s argument that the public should just build a new stadium instead. This is an excellent idea, but may I just suggest that one particular person not be hired for the job?
  • And speaking of Bradbury, he has an excellent rundown in Global Sport Matters (for which I also write) of what every city should know before publicly funding a stadium or arena deal, which pretty much comes down to “don’t.”
  • NYC F.C. fan site The Outfield, which has done an excellent job following the bouncing ball of the MLS team’s never-ending search for a site on which to build a stadium of its own, reports that the club’s owners are reopening talks on building at a site on railyards along the Harlem River, completing a memorandum of understanding with the state Department of Transportation to lease the site. This is still likely just kicking-the-tires stage — The Outfield also notes that “NYCFC still seems to be engaged to a degree in feeling out development in Willets Point,” across the street from the New York Mets‘ stadium — but as a reminder, here are some pictures of what the Harlem River Yards stadium was supposed to look like in 2018, and here’s a projection from the time of how the deal would involve possibly $400 million in state land subsidies, and here’s the team itself backing away from the plan at the time as fast as possible.
  • If Anaheim tries to sell Angel Stadium land to Los Angeles Angels owner Arte Moreno again after the stench of the bribe-solicitation scandal that forced the resignation of the old mayor wears off, a new bill in the California state legislature is seeking to require that the city open it up to competitive bidding first. This is another excellent idea, if only to find out what the land is actually worth, which has been a bit of a point of contention.
  • “Arizona Coyotes plan to privately finance new arena, entertainment district, team president/CEO says” reads the ESPN headline, but the story itself reports that Coyotes CEO Xavier Gutierrez actually said, “It’s going to be privately financed. … And then we have made a request to have the city issue bonds whose sole collateral would only be the land and the real estate, so the taxpayers would never be at risk.” Which is not how “privately financed” or “not at risk” actually work — regardless of the collateral, Tempe taxpayers would be out at least $200 million — but “[person with a fancy title] says” allows for a lot of non-reporting by news outlets like ESPN, the better to move on to writing the next six posts of the day. (An even better time saver: Just make quotes up! Those articles about McDonald’s employees leaping out drive-through windows to save people choking on chicken nuggets aren’t going to write themselves!)
  • And speaking of journalism with room for improvement, here’s GOPHNX reporter Craig Morgan’s opening sentences in his article this week on the arena plans: “Before the special Tempe City Council meeting on June 2, there was genuine concern about the fate of the Coyotes’ proposed arena and entertainment district along the south bank of the Salt River. Some insiders worried that the opposition was too strong, that the issues were too numerous and that the council was lacking the votes necessary to push the project forward.” Or, you know, some people, that aforementioned opposition, did not “worry” those things but presumably “hoped” them. Can someone please tell Craig that there’s no cheering in the press box?
Share this post: