Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jonhasglasses t1_j6sn77w wrote

Yeah impact is a funny word. In general sports don’t help local economies. As much as team owners would like to tell you otherwise. https://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-073015/

23

JamminOnTheOne t1_j6tlo1i wrote

That article is about the economic impact of building a new stadium, which is indeed dubious, as most of the spending for and around stadium events would occur anyway.

But big events like the Super Bowl do bring in significant economic activity, as the spending is most likely by out-of-towners and large corporations, that would not be spent in that city without the SB. It’s not as significant as the industry likes to tout, but studies have shown that the effect is real.

8

jonhasglasses t1_j6tq9he wrote

That’s a fair point but I’d argue that the short term benefits are outweighed by the long term negative externalities of a stadium. First of all it seems that the short term benefit of the Super Bowl is only about a quarter of what the NFL says it is. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/super-bowls-affect-businesses-62826.html. Most of the reports I’ve seen about the impact of a Super Bowl count public sector jobs (police, emts, public transportation workers, city maintenance worker etc.) as part of the job growth, which the budget for that comes from the public budget. And you would think that the extra tax revenue from the event would balance that public investment out, but I find that dubious as the NFL and the people who own teams/build stadiums have some of the highest tax subsidies of any industry. That’s all assuming a Super Bowl comes to your city. I find reports that say the Super Bowl is a benefit to local economies are being willful ignorant of the long term impact of stadiums and sports teams.

3

JamminOnTheOne t1_j6ui1uv wrote

Of course. I'm just saying that you moved the goalposts. This wasn't a discussion about public subsidies for stadiums. You argued against the economic impact of a Super Bowl by linking to an article on a different topic.

0

jonhasglasses t1_j6uzclg wrote

If you look back at my original comment I wasn’t conflating the two. I was making a comment how the use of impact is an interesting choice because as I know it (and as Stanford has published) sports teams and stadiums don’t have a positive impact on local economies. I didn’t spell it out further but I felt that was a relevant piece of information to the discussion of the economic impact of the Super Bowl.

1