Category: Arizona Cardinals

Arizona Cardinals renovation plans break new ground in catering to rich people

access_time personNeil deMause

The Arizona Cardinals ownership announced a bunch of stadium renovation plans yesterday, and since the only outlets reporting on it were the tattered remnants of Sports Illustrated and The Athletic and they pretty much just reprinted the press release, there’s no way of knowing how much the work will cost or who will pay for it. So for the moment, let’s just enjoy some of the more bonkers aspects of the renderings, because there are plenty.

First, though, let’s visit part of the press release, which is bonkers in its own way:

Last year, the Cardinals had the least expensive gameday experience in the NFL according to Team Marketing Report’s 2023 Fan Cost Index and affordability will remain in 2024. In addition, those fans seeking an unparalleled, upscale way to enjoy Cardinals games at State Farm Stadium will have an array of breath-taking new options starting this season.

Translation: “We’re charging our fans less than any other team! We want to keep things affordable, but we also want to charge as much as possible to people who can afford it, so here’s some stuff we think we can get away with charging through the nose for!”

Like what? Like this:

This is being dubbed a casita, or mini-house, which in this case means ripping out the seats behind the end zones and replacing them with tiny lounge areas with seating outside of and on top of it, to be enjoyed by … I’m sorry, what are these people wearing to a football game? Is there a heterosexist business executive cosplay convention in town? That would explain why there’s no one else at all in the stadium, though it’s left to the imagination what everyone here is watching if it’s not a football game.

Not to be confused with the casitas is the Casita Garden Club, which has no actual casitas, but does offer the chance to take photos of the Cardinals players while they … taunt you? I honestly can’t figure out what’s going on here, but I do wholeheartedly approve of the choice to show one of the clip-art fans facing away from the players she or her corporate employer paid so much for her to be near, the better to use them as a backdrop for her selfie.

Then there are the “field seats” built right out onto the field, or at least into the sideline area. Again, this is an extremely poorly attended game, despite the opportunity to, apparently, walk right up to the visiting team as they take the field, or even go on the field yourself, not like there’s a barrier or anything stopping you. Maybe this will be the ultimate premium experience, where if you pay enough for a ticket you can actually be a part of the game? In that case these fans are definitely dressed all wrong for it, at least one of the guys in the second image is wearing a souvenir jersey — and, it appears, possibly souvenir shoulder pads — so he might last a few seconds before going down with a traumatic brain injury.

All this, plus “an array of all-inclusive high-end menu offerings and handcrafted cocktails, beer and wine,” can be yours for only … okay, pricing isn’t available yet, but just put down a $10,000 deposit and we’ll start there. If these plutocrat pens can pay for themselves, more power to the Cardinals for identifying a market, I guess, but it’s absolutely a sign that income inequality is way out of control.

Share this post:

Friday roundup: Terrible concerts, new Yankees garage costs, and why Phoenix’s ex-mayor is glad he didn’t build a Cardinals stadium

access_time personNeil deMause

Welcome to the first-ever weekly stadium news roundup to kick off with a review of a terrible Ed Sheeran concert:

  • The Minnesota Vikings‘ $1 billion stadium still sounds like crap for concerts, reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune in its review of an Ed Sheeran show last Saturday: “Anytime Sheeran slapped out a beatnik-funky drum beat on his guitar and put it on repeat, such as ‘New Man’ or the pre-encore finale ‘Sing,’ it sounded hopelessly mucky and un-funky, sort of like a kitchen-sink garbage disposal trying to clear out gallons of half-dried concrete.” Time for Zygi Wilf to demand a new one yet? Only 28 years to go on their lease!
  • Speaking of concerts, CBC News has a chart of top touring acts that have skipped Saskatoon while playing in other cities in recent years — ostensibly because Saskatoon’s arena is too old (30 years! even older than Ed Sheeran!) and too far out of the center of town and has too antiquated a rigging system — but mostly it’s a reminder of how many arena acts are on their last legs: Paul McCartney and Barbra Streisand and Black Sabbath all played other Canadian cities but not Saskatoon? How will the city ever prepare for the future! (Also, Saskatoon’s bigger problem might just be that it’s Canada’s 19th-largest city — I bet Paul and Barbra didn’t play Lubbock, Texas, either, which is about the same population.)
  • The Miami Dolphins stadium’s revenues were up 39.7% last year, and expenses were only up 31%, so guess owner Stephen Ross’s $350 million renovation is paying off (though a large chunk of that was actually paid for by Miami-Dade County and by the NFL). It makes it all the more puzzling why the county handed over additional subsidies last summer that could be worth as much as $57.5 million, but actually, since the stadium renovations were already done and paid for by then, it would be puzzling even if Ross were losing money on the thing. Florida, man.
  • Here’s a fun Guardian article on what makes a good soccer stadium. Not sure there’s one takeaway other than “Design them to be good places to watch the match with seats close to the action, and try to make them fit into their immediate surroundings,” but that’s more than most U.S. stadium designers do, anyway.
  • Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert and Detroit Pistons owner Tom Gores still want an MLS expansion team in Detroit, and while they’ve determined that removing the Lions stadium’s fixed roof and building a retractable one like MLS asked would be prohibitively expensive, they have offered to spend $95 million on a training field and other soccer fields throughout the city, though Crain’s Detroit notes that it’s “unclear” if that spending “would use any public funding.” If it would, this will be an interesting test in how badly MLS wants its teams to play in soccer-friendly outdoor stadiums, and how much it just wants new owners who’ve shown they can extract cash from their local municipalities.
  • Hey, check it out, it’s an NPR report on how Worcester, Massachusetts has been undergoing a boom in development and influx of new residents thanks to its cheap rents compared to nearby Boston, to the point where some locals are worried that they’ll be priced out. Is it too late for Worcester to take back that $100 million it’s spending on a Red Sox Triple-A stadium that was supposed to be needed to put the city on the map?
  • Who says that new stadiums don’t transform the areas around them? Why, the SkinnyFats restaurant near the new Las Vegas Raiders stadium just added a new craft beer tap room! That’s gotta be worth $750 million.
  • The deal for the new New York Yankees stadium included new parking lots that were mostly to be paid for by a nonprofit shell corporation that was to own them and collect parking revenues, but now that it turns out nobody wants to pay $45 to park for Yankees games when there are plenty of cheaper parking options plus multiple subway and commuter rail lines nearby, the company is $100 million in default on rent and taxes to the city, with no real hopes of ever paying it back. I should probably add this to the “city costs” section of my Yankee Stadium subsidy spreadsheet, but I don’t have time this morning, so just mentally note that city taxpayers have now put up almost $800 million toward a stadium that was sold as involving “no public subsidies,” with state and federal subsidies putting the total taxpayer bill at nearly $1.3 billion.
  • Former Phoenix mayor Skip Rimsza says one of his proudest accomplishments is not building a downtown stadium for the Arizona Cardinals, since instead the city got to use the land to build a biomedical campus that provides way more jobs and economic activity than a football stadium. Opportunity cost in action! I’d love to write an article on all the things that cities didn’t get to build because they focused on erecting new sports facilities, but sadly my Einstein-Rosen Bridge portal is on the fritz.
Share this post:

Friday roundup: A farewell to Baby Cakes, and other stadium news

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s hard to believe it’s already been a week since a week ago — but then, looking at all the stadium news packed up like cordwood, it’s actually not:

Share this post:

Arizona stadium authority paying off Cardinals’ home by skimping on tourism, youth sports spending

access_time personNeil deMause

Good news! The Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority is still making its payments on time to pay off the Arizona Cardinals‘ stadium! Less good news: Because tourist tax revenues have been lower than expected, the authority is doing so by skimping on everything else it was supposed to be spending money on.

The authority overseeing University of Phoenix Stadium made its debt payments on the building over the past four years but was nearly $48 million short in meeting its voter-approved obligations for tourism promotion, Cactus League ballparks, youth sports and its own operations…

By its own projections, the authority is facing a $34 million shortfall for those categories over the next five years.

Okay, I know, boo-hoo, Maricopa County (which includes both Phoenix and Glendale, where the stadium is actually located) is having to spend less money convincing you to take a vacation in the desert. (Youth sports spending is arguably more of a loss, unless you work at a Maricopa tourism board, I suppose.) The point here is that when voters approved hikes in hotel and rental-car taxes in 2000, they were told it wasn’t going to just fund an NFL stadium — but it turns out that’s mostly what it’s done, since the stadium construction bonds are first in line for being paid off.

And while the stadium authority figures out how to cut corners to make up that $7 million a year shortfall, it could soon be facing a far bigger hole, via that court ruling from last year that declared the car-rental tax to be in violation of the state constitution, since it wasn’t going to pay for anything highway-related. There’s still a year or two worth of appeals to be waited out, but if that other shoe drops, suddenly Maricopa County is going to be faced with either finding money to fill another $10 million or so in shortfall, or defaulting on the stadium bonds, neither of which is very appetizing.

At least the Cardinals’ lease runs through 2036, so it’ll probably be another decade or so before the team owners start demanding a new stadium to replace the one that the county is already having trouble paying for. And at least it’s still working out better than Glendale’s deal for the Coyotes, kinda.

Share this post:

Glendale proposes $46m garage for Coyotes, Cardinals, because they already got them everything else

access_time personNeil deMause

Believe it or not, the Arizona Coyotes have found yet another way to get more subsidies out of Glendale: The city council will vote in June on whether to approve a $46 million parking garage to serve the Coyotes, the Arizona Cardinals, and the local mall. The garage bonds would be paid off by Glendale’s 235,000 residents, which on the face of it is only $20 $200 [EDIT: sorry, early-morning math] apiece (plus interest), but coming on top of a $220 million arena and $275 million in operating subsidies for the NHL team, it’s adding insult to injury, if nothing else.

To be precise, the parking garage would actually still be part of the original terrible deals with the Cardinals and Coyotes, which requires the city to provide 6,000 parking spaces for the football stadium and 5,500 for the hockey arena. (The new parking deck would hold 4,000.) And it would save the city a few hundred thousand dollars a year that it’s been spending on renting spaces to meet that obligation.

Still, it’s another expense that hasn’t previously been accounted for in the subsidy totals, so update your scorecards appropriately. And shake your head sadly for the poor citizens of Glendale, who are paying a record price for the presence of a hockey team that hardly any of them are actually interested in going to watch.

Share this post:

Super Bowls are a money suck, says mayor of city about to host Super Bowl

access_time personNeil deMause

The Super Bowl will be held in Glendale, Arizona this year, which means it’s time for local officials to proclaim how much their city will benefit from having a bunch of NFL fans descend upon them for a week:

Jerry Weiers, the mayor of Glendale, Arizona, recently told me he doesn’t expect a windfall when his city hosts the big game in February. In fact, he says, “I totally believe we will lose money on this.”

Well, that’s different. Of course, Weiers is a different sort of mayor on the subject of sports spending: He fought to overturn the sweetheart deal that Glendale gave the Arizona Coyotes to stay in town, and Glendale won this Super Bowl before he won election, so he doesn’t have any stake in talking up the benefits.

It’s also not the first time Weiers has griped about the cost of hosting the Super Bowl. Last summer he said that the city had lost money hosting the 2008 Super Bowl as well, a claim that Arizona Cardinals president Michael Bidwell called “a bunch of malarkey.” ESPN The Magazine, though, reports that Weiers can back up that charge with numbers:

A study funded by Arizona’s Super Bowl committee found that visitors spent $218 million around the 2008 game, but some economists say the actual profits were much lower because football fans crowded out other tourists. Little of that money aids the city directly. Glendale said it 
spent $3.4 million in 2008, mostly on public safety, and earned only $1.2 million in taxes from direct spending at places like hotels and restaurants. (Tickets are not taxed.) One former councilwoman, Joyce Clark, who voted against hosting the 2015 game after witnessing the city’s losses seven years ago, scoffs at the idea that the publicity was worth it. “There has not been any corporation that moved to Glendale because the CEO came to the Super Bowl,” she says.

Prior independent estimates have shown that cities might be able to turn a profit of a few million dollars on a Super Bowl, even after paying for all the free police and billboards and cellphone towers and ATMs — though that’s probably more the case in a bigger city where a greater share of the money being spent stays local. (If Super Bowl attendees spend money in Phoenix, that doesn’t help Glendale one whit.) Anyway, if the public debate around this becomes a matter of whether the Super Bowl doesn’t mean squat for cities or might leave a handful of change scattered on the coffee table, that’s still a welcome step forward from where it’s been.

Share this post:

Judge rules car-rental tax for Cardinals stadium unconstitutional, could cost state $200m

access_time personNeil deMause

University of Phoenix Stadium, which isn’t named after a university in Phoenix (its namesake is a for-profit online college that bought naming rights) and isn’t in Phoenix (it’s in Glendale) but does host the Arizona Cardinals, is having its $455 million construction cost paid off mostly with money from a 3.25% rental-car tax and a 1% hotel room tax passed by Maricopa County voters in 2000. That worked out fine until yesterday, when:

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink ruled on Tuesday that a rental-car tax passed by voters in 2000 and targeted at tourists violated the state Constitution because the revenue was being used for the wrong purpose…

Fink’s ruling is tied to a constitutional provision that requires the state to spend money raised from vehicle taxes on related issues like highways.

“You can’t have highway-related taxes and spend it on stadiums,” [rental-car company attorney Shawn] Aiken said.

This is a smidge of a problem, as:

  • The Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority relies on the car-rental tax money not just to pay off the Cardinals’ stadium, but to help fund Cactus League spring-training facilities as well. Without it, somebody would need to come up with a whole lot of cash, and quick.
  • Aiken is demanding that the state refund to the car-rental companies as much as $200 million in taxes already collected, on the grounds that the tax was illegal. (Yes, it would make more sense to refund the money to the actual people who rented cars and paid the tax. No, that is not going to happen, though I suppose if anyone out there who rented a car in Maricopa County wants to file a class-action suit, knock yourself out.)

This is a giant mess, and if the ruling is upheld on appeal (there will absolutely be an appeal), and if there’s no way to funnel the car tax money to roads and divert other road money to the stadium authority, it’s likely to provoke one of those “What would happen if we just stopped paying the bills for that stadium?” discussion that is all the rage these days.

The most entertaining part of all this, meanwhile, is that another part of the legal challenge apparently was rejected because the county’s attempt to levy the added car-rental fees only on out-of-towners utterly failed:

The lawsuit’s main argument was that it violated federal interstate commerce laws by attempting to assess a tax against visitors to Arizona, while not charging the tax against local residents who happen to rent cars.

Fink found that while the law meant to be discriminatory, it wasn’t discriminatory in practice. Rental companies were just assessing it against everybody. The paperwork for determining who should be assessed the tax and who shouldn’t was just too complicated for them.

So what was sold to voters as a car-rental tax only on tourists that would fund sports facilities in fact may turn out to be a car-rental tax on everybody that will fund car-rental companies. I believe that’s what the kids today call a fail.

Share this post:

Cardinals leave Flagstaff training camp, local economy surges

access_time personNeil deMause

The Arizona Cardinals moved their summer training camp back to the team’s regular-season home in Glendale this summer after 25 years in Flagstaff, which no doubt was gripping news to all of you Arizona Cardinals training camp fans. But since the whole move was over money — money the Cardinals didn’t want to pay in rent to Northern Arizona University, money NAU didn’t want to spend on further renovations to its facilities, and money that football advocates claimed Flagstaff would lose without the annual influx of Cardinals fans — it’s interesting to see how the city fared with summer football gone.

And the answer is pretty darn well indeed:

Sales tax revenues from restaurants and bars for July and August were up by 5.3 percent over the same two months in 2012, according to city data.

For August alone, when much of the camp was held, restaurant and bar spending was up 11.6 percent even without the Cardinals.

Spending in hotels and motels also was up, although many Cardinals fans from the Valley are day-trippers. Lodging tax collections increased 7.7 percent in July and August, and 7.3 percent in August alone.

Taken together, August revenues from the 2 percent BBB tax were up 9.9 percent compared with August last year.

“This tells me that the Cardinals training camp has some entertainment value for Flagstaff but is not as significant an economic driver as we perhaps thought it was,” said Mayor Jerry Nabours.

Now, it’s hard to tell from these numbers alone whether the Cardinals leaving truly had no impact — local sales tax revenues have been up almost every summer since 2007, as the city has been marketing itself as a cooler summer destination for Arizona residents, so it’s possible the numbers would have been even better with the Cardinals. Still, it’s a pretty significant sign that losing visiting sports fans needn’t mean disaster for a local economy: If Cardinals tourists are being replaced by Grand Canyon tourists who don’t have to worry about fighting with football fans for hotel rooms and restaurant reservations, all the better — especially since the Grand Canyon doesn’t demand new locker rooms.

Share this post:

Happy new year, cities drowning in stadium debt!

access_time personNeil deMause

Happy new year! The arrival of 2013 means a fresh start, and a time to put the troubles of the past behind — unless, of course, you’re Bridgeview, Illinois:

One of the Chicago area’s most debt-saddled suburbs is borrowing even more money as it tries to put off the worst of its financial pain over the struggling Toyota Park stadium.

The latest borrowing binge — $27 million — will put Bridgeview taxpayers at greater risk of funding an even bigger bailout of the village-owned stadium if it continues to flounder. Municipal finance experts say it is another worrisome sign for a small suburb that took a huge gamble to build the 20,000-seat professional soccer stadium.

As you may recall from past reports here, Bridgeview borrowed $100 million in 2006 to build a new stadium for the Chicago Fire, with the expectation that it would pay it off from stadium revenues. Except that the lease said that all soccer revenues would go to the team, leaving the city with only money from concerts and the like, which haven’t been enough to pay off $100 million in debt. So now Bridgeview keeps borrowing more money to pay off the existing loans, and as the Chicago Tribune reports, “The move comes as Bridgeview officials try to reassure residents in newsletters that do not detail how the downward spiral will be reversed.”

Okay, but it’s a happy new year for everyone else … okay, except maybe Glendale, Arizona:

Glendale, Arizona’s bet on becoming the Phoenix area’s sports and entertainment hub is resulting in higher taxes, fired workers and rising penalties on its debt.

The city confronts new budget cuts after agreeing last month to pay $308 million over the next 20 years to keep the National Hockey League’s Phoenix Coyotes, which had the worst attendance in the NHL last season. After downgrades by both Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service that cited the hockey payments, investors demanded a 7.5 percent higher penalty on city debt compared with 11 months ago.

Glendale, of course, just put itself on the hook to pay the Coyotes’ new owner upwards of $12 million a year just to keep his team there, on top of the $12 million a year they’re spending to pay off the arena bonds. Plus the city put in money for infrastructure for the state-built Arizona Cardinals stadium, plus $200 million for a spring training baseball facility. Which all worked out great, if by “great” you mean having to fire large chunks of your city staff while being unable to borrow any more money at less than usurious rates.

Not every stadium and arena deal works out this badly, obviously, and the economic downturn hasn’t helped. (And isn’t going to be helping for a while yet, it looks like.) But if there are any suburbs and small cities out there reading this who had been thinking, “Yeah, a new stadium would totally be a way for us to get noticed!”, it’s worth noting: You might end up getting noticed for reasons you’d prefer not to.

Share this post: