Pretty stupid, I guess. Especially when the Pontiac Silverdome is still standing.
Posted on 06/29/2016 7:58:23 AM PDT by MichCapCon
Dan Gilbert and Tom Gores have recently floated the idea of bringing a Major League Soccer team to Detroit. The initial plan for the team’s new stadium was to place it on the site of the unfinished Wayne County jail, and there’s been some talk about financing the project, in part, with taxpayer dollars. Attendance at MLS games has been strong and growing, averaging 21,574 fans per match in 2015 — more than the NBA’s average of 17,826. But despite the growing popularity of soccer in the United States and despite what proponents of this new team might say, a new pro sports franchise and stadium in Detroit is unlikely to stimulate the local economy.
The evidence is that sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development. Like other pro sports stadiums, an MLS stadium is closed most days of the year. MLS teams play 34 games from March to October. Hosting just 17 games each season, a Detroit soccer stadium will be closed for 348 days of the year, or 95 percent of the time. Little economic stimulus can be expected from a facility that sits idle that often.
Rather than building a new, separate venue for an MLS team, it would make more economic sense to use Ford Field. Two MLS clubs have shared space with pro football teams: the New England Revolution and D.C. United. Given that there is little overlap between the MLS and NFL seasons, having an NFL arena serve a dual purpose would improve the return on investment for taxpayers who partially subsidized Ford Field. An NFL season requires a team to host only 8 home games, meaning Ford Field is closed approximately 98 percent of the time.
There are other reasons why pro sports stadiums fail to stimulate local economies. One is that consumers typically maintain a fixed entertainment budget. That is, they plan to spend only a certain amount on entertainment per year. This means that if a new sports team comes to town, fans are not necessarily going to spend more, they’re just going to redirect money that they would have spent elsewhere. Essentially, this results in little-to-no economic stimulus for the local economy.
Even if a new stadium could boost overall consumer spending, there is reason to believe that the vast majority of this spending would be captured by team owners, reducing the multiplier, or ripple effect, for the local economy. Stadiums are designed so that fans can get all they want from right inside the stadium itself — food, apparel and other merchandise. This reduces the impact of the new stadium on neighboring businesses on the few days it is open.
And finally, there’s a substantial amount of economic research on this matter and the consensus among economists is that subsidizing pro sports stadiums is a loser for taxpayers. Summarizing this research, economists Dennis Coates and Brad Humphrey write: “The evidence is that sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation, those arguments most frequently used by subsidy advocates.”
The belief that pro sports teams and stadiums can boost a local economy is an example of a common mistake that was first noted by the French writer Frederic Bastiat all the way back in 1850 in his classic tract: “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.” When we experience a pro sports event, we see tens of thousands of fans and all sorts of commercial activity in and around the stadium. This gives rise to the belief that pro teams boost the economy. What we do not see (and hence do not think much about) is what the stadium is doing when we’re not there — which is most of the time — and that is nothing.
Michigan taxpayers have already dumped upward of half a billion dollars into new venues for the Tigers, Lions and Red Wings in recent years. If a new soccer franchise kicks off in Detroit, policymakers should protect taxpayers from having to foot the bill. A foray into pro soccer under the banner of the blossoming MLS would be very exciting for soccer fans throughout Michigan, but they shouldn’t get fooled into thinking this would amount to anything meaningful for the economy.
Yeah....all the bangers in the hood just love them some soccer!!!!!!
The city looks like a nuclear bomb hit it and they want to build a soccer stadium in the middle of it. It will look strange. How long before it looks as run down and beat up as most of the other unused buildings in Detroit?
Building a brand new stadium for soccer ?
Seriously, how stupid is that ? that’s a dumb idea anywhere in the country...
Ford Field would work just fine...for a new team...
I wonder how many MLS teams are actually viable entities....
Makes a great place to make peeps go hunger games on each other.
“How long before it looks as run down and beat up as most of the other unused buildings in Detroit?”
________________________________________________
About a year.
“Yeah....all the bangers in the hood just love them some soccer!!!!!!”
It’s for all the illegals and Muslims that are taking over our cities.
hacky sack stadium would be a better fit?
I’d prefer shoving a skewer stick in an anthill and watching the result. Far more action and entertainment.
1. Shrink the physical size of the city--that could happen within the next ten years.
2. Completely redo the city employees pension program--already done.
3. Transition the city from depending on the automotive industry to one based on US-Canada trans-border trade--about to happen with the construction of the Gordie Howe International Crossing bridge to bypass the bottleneck called the Ambassador Bridge.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Detroit could use a completed Wayne County jail more than it could use a soccer stadium.
Indeed.
This reminds me of the effort of Camden, NJ to have a minor league baseball team in town. They spent taxpayer dollars on a beautiful stadium—a dozen years later the team left after years of terrible attendance.
The empty stadium sits there as a reminder of the stupidity/corruption of local officials.
You can be sure any stadium construction project involves kickbacks to local officials and a ripoff of local and state taxpayers.
21,574 fans at STADIUMS that hold 60,000-80,000
17,826 fans at ARENAS that hold less than 20,000
Now I'm sure there are a stadium or two that hold less than 60 and an arena or two that hold more than 20, but to use this comparison is pure BS!
Also, I'll bet my next pension check that 21,574 figure is total attendance, not PAID attendance.
Figures lie and liars figure.
Aren’t the majority of MLS stadiums in the 20,000 capacity range?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer-specific_stadium
Aren’t the majority of MLS stadiums in the 20,000 capacity range?
Yes, but someone didn’t bother researching before.
His point is valid about that the NBA would likely draw more fans if the Arenas were bigger. Remember that some NBA franchises tried playing in football arenas and it didn’t work for most.
As for the poster who questioned the viability of the franchises . . . the league is designed to be lower cost by limiting the amount spent on ‘world class’ name players and having a very US-centric roster. You would think that would be an attractive feature to many of our Freepers.
If a stadium can be built that doesn’t require much public assistance (i.e. - limited to property tax relief for example) then why not? The Red Wings are very successful. It’s a pretty darn good sports city. The Tigers average about 30,000 per game.
What will save Detroit ultimately depends on disallowing it to be run by leftists or corrupt and incompetent black people.
That is the crux.
There is not a single black run city on this planet that is run competently.
Gotta say I was NOT aware that there were that many soccer specific stadiums.
However, MLS does NOT play solely in “soccer specific” stadiums. At least a half dozen teams play in much larger stadiums...RFK, Yankee, Gillette and more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer
So my apples and oranges comparison stands.
BTW, I follow neither sport
YUP! But I corrected that in my #19.
NBA wouldn't play well in football stadiums because a lot of fans would be too far from the court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.