BY JUSTIN KENDALL
The Chiefs didn't get the roof, but they did get a few hundred mil.
Remember a couple of years ago when the Chiefs and Royals held up Kansas City taxpayers for money to renovate Arrowhead and the K? Do you recall the threats of leaving Kansas City and taking away hundreds millions of dollars from the local economy? Yeah, well it turns out at least one sports team owner thinks they were full of shit.
Sports economists have been saying it for years. But in a bizarre court filing last week, lawyers for the Seattle Supersonics actually admitted that a professional sports franchise has no economic impact, The Seattle Times reported. Wonder Woman must have used her Lasso of Truth on Sonics’ lawyers, who admitted in U.S. District Court that Seattle’s economy wouldn't suffer if the Sonics moved to Oklahoma City. The strange claim contradicted Sonics owner Clay Bennett’s previous boasts of just the opposite while trying to swindle taxpayers into paying for a new arena.
“The financial issue is simple, and the city's analysts agree, there will be no net economic loss if the Sonics leave Seattle,” court records say. “Entertainment dollars not spent on the Sonics will be spent on Seattle's many other sports and entertainment options. Seattleites will not reduce their entertainment budget simply because the Sonics leave."
In March, the people of Oklahoma City – the Sonics most likely next home – will vote on a $120 million tax package to upgrade the 6-year-old – SIX! YEAR! OLD! – Ford Center and build a NBA practice facility.
Remember this when the Kansas City [insert team name here] holds taxpayers hostage for Sprint Center renovations.
Showing 1-5 of 5
Oh yeah and the Sprint Center is having no economic impact on Kansas City, it's only created more than 1000 new jobs. No economic impact whatsoever.
Uh, in typical fashion the Pitch has not reported the whole story, only the parts that help them make their argument.
"The financial issue is simple, and the city's analysts agree, there will be no net economic loss if the Sonics leave Seattle. Entertainment dollars not spent on the Sonics will be spent on Seattle's many other sports and entertainment options. Seattleites will not reduce their entertainment budget simply because the Sonics leave," the Sonics said in the court brief.
You will notice that the lawyers have very carefully worded this statement. What they fail to mention is the people that come to Seattle from somewhere else to see the Sonics and more importantly, the teams they play and players they bring will no longer come. There will be an economic loss suffered by the city if the Sonics are not there.
For whatever reason The Pitch didn't want the Sprint Center, they continue to tell us about situations like this and leave out key facts and common sense. One can only wonder if The Pitch is owned by Enterprise Rent A Car.
I think there may be a couple of differences. First of all, the Sonics are one of three professional franchises in Seattle, and arguably the least popular of the three. There's some data that shows that getting one, the first, franchise may be economically worthwhile for city, but that value lessens as additional franchises are added. So, you could argue that removing one of three franchises from a city, leaving two there, has negligible economic impact. Were Kansas City to lose two franchises, especially NFL or MLB, that would be a disastrous comment on the state of the city, and could well have a negative economic impact. The NBA simply isn't as big a loss.
like
dislike
