Los Angeles is somewhat unique in that it’s one of the few markets where there is strong resistance to tax subsidies for stadiums. As the Feb. 23 Los Angeles Times reported, another reason the Southland doesn’t have an NFL team “is that while every other city talks about what it will do to either lure an NFL team or keep the one it has, L.A. talks about what it will not do — namely it will not help finance a venue with taxpayer money. The Hollywood Park and Carson plans call for privately financed stadiums.”

The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders are considering combining in a potential new stadium in Carson. The St. Louis Rams are looking at a new stadium in Hollywood Park.

However, the Los Angeles stadium shutout allows the NFL to manipulate other cities. The Times noted the NFL “depends on using the L.A. vacancy as leverage to get stadium deals done in other cities. Since 1995, 27 of the 32 teams have either gotten new stadiums or had at least $400 million in renovations on their existing ones.”

Stadium jobs

Stadium backers cite the jobs created, or retained, when a new stadium is built. For example, the New Minnesota Stadium — its working title until a corporate sponsor is signed up — was advertised as a big jobs creator. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal reported the pitch in 2009:

“The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission says a new Minnesota Vikings stadium would create approximately 13,400 jobs and an estimated economic impact of $1.35 billion.

“Of the 13,400 jobs created, about 8,000 would go to tradespeople during the building process, and $577 million — more than half of the roughly $1 billion in construction costs — would go toward wages and salaries for construction workers and others working on the project, according to the report.

“Once the stadium opens, it would generate annual direct spending of $145 million, including spending by fans, the Vikings organization, players, staff, visiting teams and the NFL in connection with games and operations.

“It also would generate more than $32 million per year in tax revenue. That compares to the roughly $18 million a year currently generate by the Vikings.”

That eased the way in 2012 for the $975 million stadium to receive large subsidies from the state and the city of Minneapolis. Forbes reported:

“Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton signed a bill last week approving the plan that would include a 30-year lease for the Vikings and have the state contribute $348 million, the city of Minneapolis $150 million upfront plus $6 million per year for operating costs, and $1.5 million per year to a capital reserve fund. …”

Economists

Yet economists who study the matter insist there isn’t much return for taxpayers. Roger Noll is perhaps the country’s top expert on stadium financing. He’s a professor of economics at Stanford University. He explained to EconTalk host Russ Roberts:

“Even in the best of circumstances what you’ve created is something that essentially sucks the blood out of a neighborhood. Because it’s so rarely used. And indeed, they create slumps. As opposed to being engines of growth. And cities who put in hundreds of millions of dollars into football stadiums inevitably find themselves with big losses. …

“So, the bottom line to it is: Cities should not subsidize baseball and football stadiums, if the goal is engine of economic growth or financial benefit. Now since I don’t have anything against San Francisco subsidizing the opera, I can’t say: Therefore it follows you shouldn’t pay the money at all. But the decision to pay the money should be based purely on having it in the community because you like it. As opposed to: It’s going to return some great financial bonanza.”

Shifting money

The reason why stadiums don’t generate higher long-term revenue is that they just shift money from other entertainment spending. Fans only have so much money. What they spend on tickets and food for a new sports team is taken away from what they might have spent, or spent in the past, on Disneyland, Universal Studios or a local movie theater. The money is not created, but shifted.

Noll also pointed out stadiums are built differently today than in the past. Stadiums such as Fenway Park in Boston and the old Tiger Stadium in Detroit were built in the middle of neighborhoods. After a game, fans would go to local bars and restaurants to celebrate a victory or rue a loss.

But new stadiums are built with their own shopping complexes and in the middle of vast parking lots. That keeps fans within the facility, spending money to the benefit of team owners and businesses within the complex, but not local businesses on the outside.

Now back to politics.

It looks like the Cleveland/Los Angeles/Anaheim/St. Louis Rams might return to Los Angeles:

NEW YORK—There has been renewed attention in recent days on the NFL’s potential return to the long-vacant Los Angeles market after the Los Angeles Times reported that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke had purchased 60 acres of land between the Forum and Hollywood Park.

That prompted speculation that Kroenke could be making preparations to have a stadium built at that site in preparation for a possible relocation of the Rams to Los Angeles. The market has been without a team since the Rams and Raiders left town following the 1994 season, and some owners and others within the league have been increasingly anxious in recent years to find a way to put a franchise — or perhaps two franchises — in Los Angeles again. The Rams’ lease reportedly enables them to leave St. Louis following the 2014 season.

But NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell cautioned Friday, during his annual Super Bowl week news conference, against overreaction to Kroenke’s land purchase.

It’s probably inevitable that at least one team will come to L.A.. Also inevitable would be some sort of taxpayer subsidy.

Big time sports teams in the NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA argue that they bring profits and prestige to local areas. But numerous studies, such as those by Stanford University professor Roger Noll, show that local areas get no benefit from the subsidies. The money that fans give to a sports team just is taken from other types of entertainment, such as movies and personal recreation.

There’s no economic benefit. Rather, the tax increases to subsidize the teams distort the local economy to benefit billionaire owners and millionaire players. The local politicians benefit by hobnobbing with sports stars.

Consider Seahawks owner Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, who is worth $15.8 billion. Yet in 2002, he cajoled local taxpayers into coughing up “$390 million of the $560 million construction cost.” Why can’t Richie Rich pay for his own stadium?

A new Reason video discusses how the NFL sacks taxpayers for about $1 billion a year, despite revenues of $9 billion: