Started By
Message

Do NFL teams really provide an economic advantage to a city?

Posted on 10/7/15 at 8:31 pm
Posted by CaptainBrannigan
Good Ole Rocky Top Tennessee
Member since Jan 2010
21644 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 8:31 pm
Do 8 NFL home games really provide a great economical to a city? I understand that NFL create a lot of high paying jobs, that is not what I'm asking. The relativly short season of the NFL really help a these city economically? Compared to the NBA or MLB season length. The surrounding bars hotels ect only see 8 games a year. How much does it really help a city compared to what they take from taxpayers?
Posted by SirWinston
PNW
Member since Jul 2014
81750 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 8:33 pm to
Yah not as much - football stadiums are a worse deal than MLB or nba nhl
Posted by PeteRose
Hall of Fame
Member since Aug 2014
16868 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 8:37 pm to
Nope
Posted by Bench McElroy
Member since Nov 2009
33941 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 8:40 pm to
I remember reading an article about the economics of sports not too long ago. Apparently a baseball team has about the same economic impact on a city as a mid-sized department store. And a baseball team plays 81 home games a year. So I would say the economic impact of a NFL team is negligible at best.
Posted by CaptainBrannigan
Good Ole Rocky Top Tennessee
Member since Jan 2010
21644 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 8:52 pm to
quote:

pparently a baseball team has about the same economic impact on a city as a mid-sized department store. And a baseball team plays 81 home games a year. 


Interesting. I know that Region's Park has had a strong impact on downtown Bham with the area surrounding it. But that dome idea floating around a few years ago would not have had a great of an impact as Regions.
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84886 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 8:54 pm to
LINK

quote:

Leeds pointed out that a major league baseball team has about the same economic impact as a small department store, and that is with 80 home games a year. An NFL team only plays eight home games in a season, unless they are a playoff team with home field advantage, in which case they could get one or two more.


LINK
quote:

"The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area," Humphreys and Coates noted in the report.

The researchers found other patterns consistent with the presence of pro sports teams. Among them:

• a statistically significant negative impact on the retail and services sectors of the local economy, including an average net loss of 1,924 jobs;

• an increase in wages in the hotels and other lodgings sector (about $10 per worker year), but a reduction in wages in bars and restaurants (about $162 per worker per year).

Those employed in the amusements and recreation sector appeared, at first glance, to benefit significantly from the presence of a pro team, with an average annual salary increase of $490 per worker, Humphreys said. However, he added, "this sector includes the professional athletes whose annual salaries certainly raise the average salary in this sector by an enormous amount.

As it turns out, those workers most closely connected with the sports environment who were not professional athletes saw little improvement in their earnings as a result of the local professional sports environment."
Posted by Suntiger
BR or somewhere else
Member since Feb 2007
32962 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 8:55 pm to
Probably not since the NFL is a non-profit organization.
Posted by RedRifle
Austin/NO
Member since Dec 2013
8328 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 8:59 pm to
Probably not, but it adds to a city's prestige. And this is probably not quantifiable. No one will ever go to St. Louis when the Rams move back to LA
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35239 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:00 pm to
Well I think the issue with just about every professional sports team--save for the Packers--is that the franchises tend to be in highly populated and vibrant cities with large economies. Even the rust belt cities were once vibrant (Cleveland, Detroit, etc.).

Another issue is the government often subsidizes teams, making it a costly investment.

Basically, unless it's in a small market (Green Bay) or city is proactive and builds an economy around it (Millwaukee, Columbus) then the costs are often too much to provide a substantial benefit.
Posted by BilJ
Member since Sep 2003
158761 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:01 pm to
The NFL is a non profit, the teams are not
Posted by barry
Location, Location, Location
Member since Aug 2006
50344 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:01 pm to
People have X amount to spend on disposable income, a sports team is just one aspect, the only way you can justify it is if you are saying it brings money in from surrounding areas, that normally wouldn't bring money to your city.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35239 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:02 pm to
quote:

Probably not, but it adds to a city's prestige. And this is probably not quantifiable. No one will ever go to St. Louis when the Rams move back to LA
You mean when their least popular and least historic professional franchise leaves? There may not be many reasons why I would want to go to St. Louis but the Rams aren't among the few.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 9:04 pm
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84886 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:02 pm to
quote:

That's because such impact studies often are based on skewed data. For instance, when citing multipliers - the ripple effect that each dollar spent on professional supports is projected to have on the community's wider economy - impact studies often overstate such contributions and fail to differentiate between net and gross spending. And, Humphreys added, such studies typically don't consider what economists call the "substitution effect."

"As sport- and stadium-related activities increase, other spending declines because people substitute spending on sports for other spending," Humphreys said. "If the stadium simply displaces dollar-for-dollar spending that would have occurred otherwise, there are no net benefits generated."
This is from the second link in my post, and it is the root problem of most economic impact studies - unless you're getting people to spend new money, a sports team is going to have a net zero effect on the local economy.
Posted by Boomshockalocka
Member since Feb 2004
59692 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:03 pm to
Not anymore they gave that up.
Posted by cjared036
Houston, tx
Member since Dec 2009
9569 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:03 pm to
I know most stadiums don't have this but NRG stadium in Houston probably does offer a pretty large economic impact.

It stays pretty busy...

-Rodeo is a month long event there and hotels are busy
-Otc conference is a pretty big deal
- circus / concerts / bowl games
- high school football playoffs too
Posted by TigerBait1127
Houston
Member since Jun 2005
47336 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:04 pm to
quote:

Probably not since the NFL is a non-profit organization.


People who say this don't understand the accounting behind it

The teams make the profits

I have little doubt that nfl teams help the New Orleans and Houston economies. I can't speak for other cities, but I'd imagine the larger the population, the less of a benefit
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 9:07 pm
Posted by Switzerland
Member since Jun 2008
1671 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:05 pm to
definitely yes for green bay and new orleans. how many people here would have heard of green bay if it wasn't for the packers? most of their fans are from milwaukee, madison, and other parts of wisconsin who spend money while in town. also yes for new orleans. the superdome wouldn't exist without the nfl. that means no super bowls, sugar bowls, or final fours in new orleans.
Posted by Mr. Hangover
New Orleans
Member since Sep 2003
34508 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:11 pm to
Need to put the pipe down, read that completely wrong
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 9:13 pm
Posted by MrSpock
Member since Sep 2015
4344 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:12 pm to
quote:

Do 8 NFL home games really provide a great economical to a city? I understand that NFL create a lot of high paying jobs, that is not what I'm asking. The relativly short season of the NFL really help a these city economically? Compared to the NBA or MLB season length. The surrounding bars hotels ect only see 8 games a year. How much does it really help a city compared to what they take from taxpayers?


Superdome hosts more than just NFL games. Sugar Bowl, BCS Championship, Festivals, Final Fours, Super Bowl, R&L Carrier bowl, State Championships in football etc...

And while Saints are not directly responsible for these other events without them there would be no Superdome.

I wonder if the author accounted for the non-NFL revenue a stadium can provide?
Posted by GoldenSombrero
Member since Sep 2010
2651 posts
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:13 pm to
quote:

I know most stadiums don't have this but NRG stadium in Houston probably does offer a pretty large economic impact


Same thing with Jerry World. Didn't read the article so I don't know how they define geographical area, but I can't imagine Arlington Tx not being significantly impacted by the Cowboys and Rangers. The Dallas metroplex not so much.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram