1
[Seattle Times] 15 years after moving Sonics, now it’s the Thunder asking for publicly funded arena
(www.seattletimes.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
NBA - Main
14 readers
4 users here now
Game analysis, highlights and everything else that is happening in the NBA.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The data for it's economic impact is murky, but part of that is because it's hard to quantify. They're an economic multiplier. Depending on the city it will have differing levels of impact across a multitude of businesses. But part of the intangibles are creating a brand identity for the city. In your example it also makes Buffalo a bigger travel destination. I'm a lot more likely to travel to Buffalo to visit Niagara Falls and catch a Bills game than I am to travel there to only do one of those things.
I wouldn’t say Buffalo getting a new stadium makes them a bigger travel destination. If anything, Buffalo’s new stadium shows how much of an absolute waste these publicly funded stadiums are.
Niagara Falls has the majority of its visitors come in the spring and summer which is outside of when the Bills play so you aren’t really getting any dual tourism benefits. The new Buffalo stadium is also open air which most likely rules it out of getting any major entertainment events like concerts during the winter. And for Buffalo as a city it will always play second fiddle to Toronto for a tourist destination so a new stadium doesn’t really push the needle for more people to vacation in upstate NY and not stay in Toronto.
Like you said, professional sports can bring a lot of intangible benefits for a city such as brand identity or lumping them into infrastructure improvements. However, the $850 million public contribution NY is giving towards building a stadium could easily be used for other infrastructure improvements that would economically improve Buffalo.
That's a fair argument.
Counterpoint is I've heard of Buffalo and part of that reason is because of the Bills. People gravitate towards latching onto sports team and it makes them feel invested in them and their city. I have no connection with either city but if I get a job offer to move to Buffalo, NY or to Bismarck, ND you damn well know which one I'm picking. It's a level of prestige it gives a city. If they have a sports team I know they're going to be a moderately okay place to live with things to do.
Also $850 million spread out over 20 million New Yorkers is a bit different than $900 million spread out across 4 million Oklahomans.
That's nonsense. When there are only 8 or 9 home games a year, and the overwhelming majority of tickets go to season ticket holders who live locally and tailgate in the parking lot, the overall economic multiplier impact is negligible. Study after study debunks that claim. Meanwhile you have a giant concrete ring surrounded by an enormous asphalt circle of parking lots, all empty for at least 340 days of the year. A football stadfium is not not only a bad thing to subsidize, it is just a bad use of land, especially high value land in the center of a city or along a river. Subsidizing a football stadium with public money is madness - most cities are better off without football stadiums even if they are built entirely by the teams themselves.
This is not so true for basketball arenas. Many more games, the arena is useful for concerts, conventions, circuses, etc., and if you minimize the parking lots, people will spend money in the local restaurants before the game. Billionaires should still build their own basketball arenas, but throwing some money there is not as ridiculous as a football stadium.
That's a really good point, there are numerous concerts and other events held at most NBA stadiums. Just off the top of my head this year at Gainbridge Fieldhouse they had WWE Fast Lane, a number of concerts, Indiana Fever games, and girls and boys high school finals.