Friday roundup: More Bills non-threat threats, plus lots of votes on when to vote on whether to vote on things

Welp, between writing up Cleveland’s record-breaking lease subsidy offer to the Indians/Guardians and reading about how Barcelona is apparently cutting Lionel Messi loose in a dispute with the league over amortized future TV revenues (not technically stadium-related, but still fascinating if you follow sports economics), that took up most of the morning, so let’s get right to the lightning round:

  • Sports Business Journal reports — I can’t find the original article, even paywalled, but Mike Florio of NBC Sports has helpfully summarized it — that the Buffalo Bills owners plan to justify their $1.5-billion-or-maybe-a-little-less-doesn’t-less-sound-better-now stadium subsidy demand by arguing that “simply keeping the team in Buffalo when more attractive options exist should be valued as a contribution to the region.” This is still, somehow, not considered a threat to leave, just a promise to stay if its made worth their while. There are other terms for that as well.
  • An Albuquerque city council vote on whether to funnel $70 million or so to New Mexico United for a new minor-league soccer stadium was put off until August 16 following negative reaction during Monday’s public comment period, but not before producing the exquisite headline “City council meets on proposed stadium, arroyo safety and balloon landing areas.”
  • Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf still says she’s ready to continue negotiations on a new Oakland A’s stadium with the team’s owners, the team’s owners remain silent, that’s about all that’s going on there. Games of chicken involving actual vehicles are more exciting, I’ll give you that.
  • The Denver city council has decided to let residents vote separately on a $160 million arena project from other city bonds for things like new libraries, which is considerate of them. Without that, voters would be stuck having to vote on things they like and don’t like on the same ballot item, like Oklahoma City did, precisely because it’s easier to get stuff passed that way.
  • The NYC F.C. stadium proposal in the Bronx isn’t quite dead yet, everyone is just still haggling over how to count parking spaces.
  • The Chicago Sun-Times has a long article on whether a Chicago Bears stadium would make sense to anchor a development at Arlington International Racecourse, all of which is worth reading, but especially for this maxim from sports economist Allen Sanderson: “There are two things you should never put on a valuable piece of property: a cemetery and a football stadium. They’re closed all the time.” (Yes, Allen Sanderson, the “throw money from a helicopter” guy. He has a way with maxims.)
  • Sporting Kansas City‘s owners are set to be on the hook to repay $15 million in subsidies that the health tech company Cerner Corp. got as part of the team’s stadium deal, now that Cerner is moving out of town; it’s super-complicated and involves some Cerner execs being part-owners of the team, just click the link if you really want to know, or enjoy the schadenfreude if you don’t.
  • Almost 500 people who attended the 100,000-person outdoor celebration of the Milwaukee Bucks‘ NBA championship contracted the coronavirus, according to state health officials. It’s not clear whether the state has determined that they all definitely picked it up there, or that they definitely picked it up outdoors and not, say, while celebrating in a bar afterwards; for that matter, the number of attendees who subsequently tested positive could be much higher, given that not everyone getting tested is getting asked, “Hey, did you go to that Bucks thing?” The original virus variant almost never spread outdoors, but with Delta way more transmissable some scientists are wondering if crowded outdoor events should be considered less safe — you know what, just wear your masks for a while, it’s not going to kill you.
  • That MLB-built stadium in the middle of the Field of Dreams cornfield is finally ready to host a game, and it comes with a corn maze in the shape of the MLB logo, because of course it does.
Share this post:

NFL and MLS about to start letting fans in, is this a terrible idea or what?

So far, the restart of sports in the U.S. has gone reasonably well: Sure, there were a few embarrassing pratfalls like the Miami Marlins having to stop playing games for a week after they had a dozen players test positive for Covid when they played a game right after initial positive tests because their shortstop said it was okay, but overall, things are working out much better than one might have feared. No league has actually had to stop play entirely (yet) as the result of outbreaks, and leagues playing in “bubbles” like the NBA and NHL have avoided even interruptions for individual teams.

The one thing that major North American leagues haven’t tried yet, though, is allowing actual fans to attend games. That’s about to change big-time, though, as two MLS teamsReal Salt Lake and Sporting Kansas City — are about to join FC Dallas this week in holding games before limited-capacity crowds. (FC Dallas played its first home game before a reported 2,912 fans two weeks ago, though it didn’t look like no 2,912.) And then the floodgates are set to open September 10, when the NFL season kicks off with the Kansas City Chiefs, Indianapolis Colts, Dallas Cowboys, Miami Dolphins, and Jacksonville Jaguars all set to play before about one-quarter-capacity crowds, with a dozen other teams either considering letting fans in or not yet having announced plans. In each case, there will be rules in place to protect fans — staggered entry times, mask requirements (except when eating or drinking), buffer zones between groups of seats, etc. — or at least to make fans feel more reassured that they’re being protected.

The question everyone wants to know the answer to: Is it safe? The answer, unfortunately, isn’t easy to determine: Sure, lots of overseas sports leagues have readmitted fans without ill effects, but those were all in nations with very low Covid rates — if you collect 13,000 people in one place and none of them are infectious, that’s not much of a test of how fast the virus can spread at a sporting event. The new-case rate in the U.S. has fallen by about a third over the last three weeks, but it’s still higher per capita than anywhere other than Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, or Spain. And certain states remain far worse than that: Texas would have the third-worst numbers of any place on the planet if it were its own nation, yet the Cowboys are preparing to reopen to fans for their first game, and the Houston Texans possibly for their second home game starting in October.

The science behind viral transmission at sporting events remains the same as it’s been since the spring: The more time you spend near someone, the closer you get, the more indoors with poor ventilation, and the less effective mask wearing, the more likely you are to get sick. So in theory, all the measures being taken by sports teams should help reduce risk, though item #1 suggests that if the NFL is really serious about fan safety, it should reduce the length of games to one quarter.

Trying to determine the exact risk level from attending one of these games is impossible, and in any case kind of beside the point. Will you get sick from Covid by going to an NFL game, even if fans don’t strictly obey all the new rules? (Sporting K.C. is talking about a “three strikes you’re out” rule, which isn’t exactly reassuring given that security will have to be policing more than ten thousand people while also keeping track of their card count.) Probably not — even during the Atalanta-Valencia disaster plenty of people didn’t get sick.

But in epidemiology, what’s important isn’t whether you get sick but rather whether somebody gets sick, and sticking 13,000 people in one place, even one socially distanced place with masks on, is a whole lot of dice to roll at once. And the risk then isn’t even just if you go to the game — check out the Maine woman who died after a Covid outbreak at a packed indoor wedding that she didn’t even attend, after she caught the virus from one of the 30 people who caught it there.

Really the question, then, is less “Is it safe to go to an NFL game in the middle of a pandemic?” than “Is it safe for a nation in the middle of a pandemic to allow people to go to NFL games?” The only way to know for sure is to do a huge experiment, with human subjects — and for better or for worse, that’s what we’re about to get.

Share this post: