Should Cities Invest in Major League Sports?

[Redman84]

I believe that in all depends upon the circumstance of the city. For example, the picture posted on the font page of the website features the new Charlotte Bobcats Arena in Uptown Charlotte. I can see the reasons why they built the arena, but I do not feel that it was necessary. Uptown Charlotte was already a very popular and vibrant area without the arena, and I believe that adjustments could have been made to the Charlotte Coliseum, rather than building a downtown arena.

But in other cases, (I am a Raleigh, NC resident) I believe that building a downtown arena can be a great idea if taken advantage of. Here in Raleigh, they built the Raleigh Entertainment and Sports Arena (ESA) now called the RBC Center, home to the Carolina Hurricanes and the NC State University Mens Basketball team. This arena was built away from downtown, and basically connected to Carter-Finley Stadium the home to the NC State Football team. In the case of my city, we're going through a major reconstruction of our Downtown area, with towers being built and condos popping up everywhere. I believe here in Raleigh, building the RBC Center in downtown 6 years ago, would have started the revitalization much sooner than now due to the amount of people it would have brought to the area. Now we're faced with a great arena that is for the most part isolated in a section of town that is easily accessible, but yet there is nothing around it. Only one hotel, a restuarant, a Wendy's, and a Citgo gas station. Granted, there is a new multi-use project being built across from the arena now, but it has taken until now to get something going.

My overall verdict is that in order for tax payer money to be used to construct arenas in a downtown setting, it must create an overall better image for the center city, and help with revitalization...Not just to build one because the city thinks it would be neat to have it there. Overall good for the economy and city image (if needed) is the key.

[tamias6]

I believe that in all depends upon the circumstance of the city. For example, the picture posted on the font page of the website features the new Charlotte Bobcats Arena in Uptown Charlotte. I can see the reasons why they built the arena, but I do not feel that it was necessary. Uptown Charlotte was already a very popular and vibrant area without the arena, and I believe that adjustments could have been made to the Charlotte Coliseum, rather than building a downtown arena.

[RiverwoodCLT]

The old arena in Charlotte could hold approx.24, 000 and the new arena is less than 20,000. The problem the old one did not have enough luxury boxes. It is bad when 24,000 seats can

[CarolinaDaydreamin]

I have been to 13 of the current NBA arenas and probabaly 10 that have been "retired". The Charlotte Coliseum is without a doubt the worst stadium of any that I have been to that still are used. Those include MSG in NY, Arco Arena in Sacramento and The Palace of Auburn Hills in Detroit, the three oldest in the NBA. Those were built for the NBA when they were built (even if it were the sixites or seventies), the coliseum was built for college basketball NOT NBA. I said to those Charlotteans that argued against a new area on the grounds that the Coliseum was sufficient, or could be sufficient, that they simply didn't know what they were talking about! The debate on arenas in the NBA should be: "Is this city willing to pay for a new arena?"; because if an owner wants a new stadium these days he can find it- even if that means somewhere else. George Shinn (a scumbag to those non CHARLOTTE Hornets fans) found it in New Orleans, and the owners of the Seattle Sonics might find it in Oklahoma City if the city of Seattle doesn't suit their needs. BTW the Charlotte Coliseum was in worse shape for NBA basketball than even Key Arena in Seattle. The Coliseum only had 12 boxes! The new arena in CLT has 64 suites and the ability to built about 20 more if need be.

[Spartan]

I think it depends on the situation (as most things do), but in general I would say that its a worthy investment. In Charlotte, the Coliseum was out in the 'burbs. If you wanted to go to a Hornet's game but say.... get some food before hand, it required driving around an area that can be confusing to the non-local, and where there arent that many restaurants yo begin with. The new arena is uptown, and as a visitor, I am more likely to go visit the area if there is a draw like that. Its easy to just park your car and walk around before the game. I recently went to a Bobcat's game and did just that, and I would not have gone to uptown Charlotte were it not for the new arena.

[alon504]

Yes...it is a good idea for city's and state's to invest in professional sports teams. The tax revenue cities and states enjoy with having those teams far outweighs the costs of making investments in the teams. Numerous locals and visitors alike swarm the arena' and the areas around the arenas before and after games (and spend plenty of $$$). Making the investment is a whole lot better than making no investment and having no teams, at all, IMO. But, almost all cities and states all over the US make investments in their respective pro teams. It's because they are smart and see the benefits of making such investments.

[demon]

I have been to 13 of the current NBA arenas and probabaly 10 that have been "retired". The Charlotte Coliseum is without a doubt the worst stadium of any that I have been to that still are used. Those include MSG in NY, Arco Arena in Sacramento and The Palace of Auburn Hills in Detroit, the three oldest in the NBA. Those were built for the NBA when they were built (even if it were the sixites or seventies), the coliseum was built for college basketball NOT NBA. I said to those Charlotteans that argued against a new area on the grounds that the Coliseum was sufficient, or could be sufficient, that they simply didn't know what they were talking about! The debate on arenas in the NBA should be: "Is this city willing to pay for a new arena?"; because if an owner wants a new stadium these days he can find it- even if that means somewhere else. George Shinn (a scumbag to those non CHARLOTTE Hornets fans) found it in New Orleans, and the owners of the Seattle Sonics might find it in Oklahoma City if the city of Seattle doesn't suit their needs. BTW the Charlotte Coliseum was in worse shape for NBA basketball than even Key Arena in Seattle. The Coliseum only had 12 boxes! The new arena in CLT has 64 suites and the ability to built about 20 more if need be.

[CarolinaDaydreamin]

Actually The Continental Airlines Arena, Orlando Arena & The Brandley Center are all older than The Palace.

[BHCav]

Your right about Continental Airlines arena, it is older than the Palace. However Amway (Orlando) opened a year after The Palace and the Bradley Center opened in October 1988. The Palace opened in August 1988.

[MadVlad]

The Whalers leaving Hartford was one of the worst blows the city has ever taken. They left 10 years ago and the city is now recovering. At the time they left, downtown really didn't have too much going for it, but it would be packed with people, including bars and restaurants, when the Whalers had a home game. Not so with the AHL Wolf Pack. If there were 15k people downtown for the Whalers, how could 5k or 7k compete? Also, the cheaper tickets for the minor league team meant many more "family" attendee's would go. That also means they leave at about 9PM and never look back. Having a major league team in downtown was a boon to Hartford, getting another back would be an even greater boon, no questions asked.

[kickazzz2000]

Actually The Continental Airlines Arena, Orlando Arena & The Brandley Center are all older than The Palace.

[dgreco]

Orlando's Arena is less than 20 years old and it's obsolete? Must be a skybox issue since they're getting the new arena. I guess if it don't make dollars, it don't make cents.

[dpbaker]

No. The sports teams should, and can, build their own facilities. It can be done though PSLs and the like.

[Urbane]

It does depend on the market, but in general these facilities are neutral in terms of revenue and should be paid for by the teams. San Antonio has been held up in the past year by both baseball and football teams, and the city (not rich to begin with) already has helped build two arenas (Alamodome and AT&T Center) for the NBA's Spurs in the past 15 years. Los Angeles lost out on an NFL franchise to Houston because the city didn't want to pay close to $1 billion to to the league, and that was a prudent choice.

[GVLaker06]

THis is an old debate in sports economics...

Does it generate positive attributes for the city? Yes, it does. There is a certain pride about having pro sports in your city, but the economic impact on some cities is virtually nothing. For example, when I travel to see a tigers game, I watch the game, and then get out of Detroit as fast as I can. I spend nothing in the city, and thats how many cities justify attracting a new team or building new stadiums to attract the ones they have to keep them from moving to a new city willing to pony up for that mecca of a stadium with 3 levels of luxury suites. No city wants to lose their team to another city. That makes the city look poor. They will spend whatever it takes to keep the team there.

Even the players themselves spend little money in small market cities, they spend their money in the trendy suburbs that they live in, not the city itself. There should be a ripple effect of money spent around the city that compensates the residents and business owners for negative effects such as increased traffic and logistics problems, higher taxes, noise etc. Often the residents and business owners see little increased benefits.

The real benefits go to the team and its owners who collect on gate and concession money, while either getting huge tax breaks or not paying for the stadium at all, like the Cavs in cleveland, i believe. One system of providing means to bring in a team that seams somewhate acceptable is taxing tourists, hotel taxes or cruise port fees. This taxes people, but often times taxes people from out of town with more disposable income and not the cash strapped residents and business owners.

This all of course is debatable, but this is just my opinion.

[Dylan]

Id say its a good investment for a city. A sports team brings tourism to the city, which in turn will bring money.

[redhead]

It seems that stadiums and arenas may genererate some new interest but never any real revenue because They become outdated often before the bottom line is ever met.

[SmellyCat]

Yeah, I'd love to know what King County/Seattle's investment return was on the Kingdome. Didn't even make it to 30 years, did it? Who foot the bill for that fiasco...the taxpayers?

[Okie]

I have been to 13 of the current NBA arenas and probabaly 10 that have been "retired". The Charlotte Coliseum is without a doubt the worst stadium of any that I have been to that still are used. Those include MSG in NY, Arco Arena in Sacramento and The Palace of Auburn Hills in Detroit, the three oldest in the NBA. Those were built for the NBA when they were built (even if it were the sixites or seventies), the coliseum was built for college basketball NOT NBA. I said to those Charlotteans that argued against a new area on the grounds that the Coliseum was sufficient, or could be sufficient, that they simply didn't know what they were talking about! The debate on arenas in the NBA should be: "Is this city willing to pay for a new arena?"; because if an owner wants a new stadium these days he can find it- even if that means somewhere else. George Shinn (a scumbag to those non CHARLOTTE Hornets fans) found it in New Orleans, and the owners of the Seattle Sonics might find it in Oklahoma City if the city of Seattle doesn't suit their needs. BTW the Charlotte Coliseum was in worse shape for NBA basketball than even Key Arena in Seattle. The Coliseum only had 12 boxes! The new arena in CLT has 64 suites and the ability to built about 20 more if need be.

[eastsider]

Shinn found what in New Orleans? Football season?

I don't get it. What exactly does New Orleans have going for it that they should have the Hornets?

[mandrws1]

The old arena in Charlotte could hold approx.24, 000 and the new arena is less than 20,000. The problem the old one did not have enough luxury boxes. It is bad when 24,000 seats can

[umarismail]

<br />Is it good policy for a city to invest tax money in building stadiums and arenas for major league sports? Specifically I mean the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL. <br /><br />Supporters for these venues always claim these are economic generators for the cities and in many cases they are built in downtowns and center cities in hopes they will bring some kind of revival in street life and build an urban fabric that people will want to visit and live in. So the question is, do they accomplish this goal or do they amount to little more than corporate welfare?<br />

[umarismail]

Is it good policy for a city to invest tax money in building stadiums and arenas for major league sports? Specifically I mean the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL.

Supporters for these venues always claim these are economic generators for the cities and in many cases they are built in downtowns and center cities in hopes they will bring some kind of revival in street life and build an urban fabric that people will want to visit and live in. So the question is, do they accomplish this goal or do they amount to little more than corporate welfare?

[MadVlad]

Shinn found what in New Orleans? Football season?

I don't get it. What exactly does New Orleans have going for it that they should have the Hornets?

[Jones_]

Corporate and high paid player welfare. I doubt big stadiums generate anything more than the same money invested in some other way would...say in museums, affordable housing, infrastructure like roads or transit, education at primary or college level etc etc.....