That is the ongoing debate., does it make sense ,dollars and cents, to subsidize sports stadiums?
Is the public subsidy really any benefit just so a city can say they have the prestige of having an NFL team?
Does the stadium even matter when the vast majority of fans watch games on TV and never even go to a game at a stadium?
The numbers never worked.
This was a bit of a secret because the pro-stadium folks were traditionally well organized and well funded with political connections.
The KC example was a good one—the pro stadium folks spent thirty five times as much money spreading their message as the anti-stadium folks.
The web site I posted chronicles decades of pro stadium lies and lies and lies—and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the only reason stadiums need public funding is because the private market knows they are lousy investments and refuses to take on the full risk of financing them.
The intangible “reputation” benefit is highly debatable at best—and falls into the category of self-dealing propaganda.
The city should just tell the team to leave. That's what San Diego did.
The NFL is rigged now so what's the point?