Teams pack up and leave (is that bad?)
It would be logical to think that a lockout by team would be bad for the local area around stadiums. With no games consumers would have less reason to visit the area. Also that a team leaving the city (for any reason, like lack of a new staduim) would have a heavy impact on the cities economy. However, its seems to be quite the opposite. During the strike of the NBA from 1998-1999 there was almost no impact at all. In fact a team leaving a city didn't even impact the economy the next year. This suggest that consumers will spend their dollars on something else, perhaps a different form of entertainment or maybe some other luxury. So does the threat of leaving if a city won't back the creation of a new stadium carry any weight, or is it the empty threat of desperate entity?
4 comments:
I think it's a little bit of both. The team will threaten to leave, hoping they'll receive more money, a nicer stadium, or whatever it is they want. On the other hand, the article states that sometimes the city is better off without the team. However, the city may lose their identity or sense of pride without a professional team. Either way, I think it just depends on the people of the city and what they stand for. In some cases you may have a city who won't mind losing their identity, whereas in others, the city will fight to keep their sense of pride, no matter if they would be better off or not.
I believe the economy would actually benefit from the team leaving the area. Disposable income can now be used in other areas that will benefit the city. Also, the city will not have to incur the costs of standard operating costs and depreciation anymore. With the team there,negative externalities are being spilled over onto non-consenting citizens that are not being compensated for. For example, noise pollution. The city as a whole and the citizens will both be better off.
I do not believe that the threat is entirely empty because most cities enjoy having a professional sports team in their city for the publicity, even if it is seemingly bad for the economy. Even though activists for a venue in a city describe many benefits, including an increase in jobs, spending in the area, etc... many more studies show that these are actually very bad for the economy. This includes spillovers of many sorts into the surrounding areas, most of which are unwanted by the people living in the area. Usually, after presenting a city with an all-or-nothing deal, the city will usually reach a compromise with the venue because the city officials also believe that the benefits of being a city with a pro sports team greatly outweighs the spillovers into the community.
I don't care if it would have cost the city of Cleveland millions, I wanted the Browns to stay rather then moving to Baltimore. There is more important things then money and city identity is one of them.
Post a Comment