3 ms·

https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev/econrevarchive/2001/1q01rapp.pdf https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev... "

by elchief 11y ago

https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev/econrevarchive/2001/1q01rapp.pdf https://www.kansascityfed.org/~/media/files/publicat/econrev... "So does it makes sense for metro areas to use public funds to attract and retain major league sports franchises? The answer is definitely not if benefits are limited to increases in economic activity and tax revenue collection. A strong case can be made, however, that the quality-of-life benefits from hosting a major league team can sometimes justify the large public outlays associated with doing so" Either way, there's always a risk of teams relocating, and this should be taken into account.

Someone1234 11y ago
That report or whatever it is is really low quality. I just read the "How hosting a professional sports team contributes to quality of life" (page 71) section, and it reads like a middle schooler's homework. It is devoid of facts and has questionable logic and very questionable conclusions. Honestly it is junk. Essentially their entire quality of life argument boils down to "BUT SPORTS ARE AWESOME!!!" then just pull random dollar figures out of thin air and attach them to how awesome it is for fans to enjoy watching sports (????).
- scythe 11y ago
  >Formally, the quality-of-life benefit to a particular fan who attends a sports game is the amount above the admission price they would have been willing to spend to attend the game. For instance, if someone is willing to spend $30 to attend a game that only costs $20, they receive a $10 quality-of-life benefit. Adding up the individual quality-of-life benefits of all residents who attend games yields the total metro area’s quality-of-life benefit from game attendance. Nope, this is real economic theory. It's not something the Fed invented out of thin air, and it's used in a wide variety of fields. Of course, there is a (widely-acknowledged) epistemic problem in assuming a person's desire for something is proportional to the happiness they will receive from it -- this is called "the theory of revealed preferences", and it is used primarily because all of the alternatives people have been able to think of so far (for assessing happiness) are even worse.
slg 11y ago
These type of non-financial factors are always ignored in this debate. People seem to forget the government doesn't have to be profit focused and there are plenty of other examples of public expenditures that benefit private industries that are still widely popular. We don't expect public parks, libraries, or bridges to turn a profit, so I'm not sure why we expect stadiums financing deals to do it. If the citizenry of a municipality votes to spend their money to ensure that a local team stays, that is up to them. That said, they are idiots if they come away with a deal like St Louis did that doesn't even protect them from a potential team move and any politician who pushes it through without a vote isn't fit for their job.
- ars 11y ago
  > so I'm not sure why we expect stadiums financing deals to do it. Because tickets to enter the stadium are not free. If they were free, like how parks are free, that would be different.

by elchief 11y ago

Someone1234 11y ago

That report or whatever it is is really low quality. I just read the "How hosting a professional sports team contributes to quality of life" (page 71) section, and it reads like a middle schooler's homework. It is devoid of facts and has questionable logic and very questionable conclusions. Honestly it is junk. Essentially their entire quality of life argument boils down to "BUT SPORTS ARE AWESOME!!!" then just pull random dollar figures out of thin air and attach them to how awesome it is for fans to enjoy watching sports (????).

scythe 11y ago
>Formally, the quality-of-life benefit to a particular fan who attends a sports game is the amount above the admission price they would have been willing to spend to attend the game. For instance, if someone is willing to spend $30 to attend a game that only costs $20, they receive a $10 quality-of-life benefit. Adding up the individual quality-of-life benefits of all residents who attend games yields the total metro area’s quality-of-life benefit from game attendance. Nope, this is real economic theory. It's not something the Fed invented out of thin air, and it's used in a wide variety of fields. Of course, there is a (widely-acknowledged) epistemic problem in assuming a person's desire for something is proportional to the happiness they will receive from it -- this is called "the theory of revealed preferences", and it is used primarily because all of the alternatives people have been able to think of so far (for assessing happiness) are even worse.

slg 11y ago

These type of non-financial factors are always ignored in this debate. People seem to forget the government doesn't have to be profit focused and there are plenty of other examples of public expenditures that benefit private industries that are still widely popular. We don't expect public parks, libraries, or bridges to turn a profit, so I'm not sure why we expect stadiums financing deals to do it. If the citizenry of a municipality votes to spend their money to ensure that a local team stays, that is up to them. That said, they are idiots if they come away with a deal like St Louis did that doesn't even protect them from a potential team move and any politician who pushes it through without a vote isn't fit for their job.

ars 11y ago
> so I'm not sure why we expect stadiums financing deals to do it. Because tickets to enter the stadium are not free. If they were free, like how parks are free, that would be different.