Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneWolf
I’ve seen the “studies” that state this and the numbers are flawed. There’s a reason cities fall all over themselves to bring in pro sports teams and it isn’t because they lose money on it.
|
Here's a metastudy looking at 130 individual studies of the subject spanning over 30 years. The conclusion is overwhelming.
What exactly about the numbers is flawed?
Quote:
The Impact of Professional Sports Franchises and Venues on Local Economies
Abstract
Local governments routinely subsidize sports stadiums and arenas using the justification that hosting professional franchises produces economic development and social benefits in the community. The prevalence of venue subsidies generated an extensive and vibrant research literature, which spans over 30 years and includes more than 130 studies. We chronicle this body of research from early studies of tangible economic impacts in metropolitan areas, using basic empirical methods, through recent analyses that focus on sub-local and non-pecuniary effects and employ more sophisticated empirical methods. Though findings have become more nuanced, recent analyses continue to confirm the decades-old consensus of very limited economic impacts of professional sports teams and stadiums. Even with added non-pecuniary social benefits from quality-of-life externalities and civic pride, welfare improvements from hosting teams tend to fall well short of covering public outlays. Thus, the large subsidies commonly devoted to constructing professional sports venues are not justified as worthwhile public investments. We also investigate the paradox of local governments continuing to subsidize sports facilities despite overwhelming evidence of their economic impotence. Our analysis informs academic researchers and policymakers to motivate future studies and promote sound policy decisions guided by relevant research findings.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4022547
|