The referee said that you hit Brian Sipe too hard. Did you hit him too hard?
I hit him as hard as I could - Jack Lambert
This article: http://www.cleveland.com/browns/inde..._impact_c.html
Talks about how pro-sports folks come up with the numbers. After saying you can't really come up with a number, they use the money people spent during game days. But they don't look at how much they would spend when the games aren't played. That's why lockouts and teams moving offer interesting case studies for the economic impact of sports franchises. The article also says:
"Cleveland learned to survive without the NFL from 1996-98. Fans rediscovered Sundays. Football widows (and widowers) renewed their vows. Sports economists say fans simply spent their NFL money on other things."
Check out this article written about the NHL lockout:
They cite this article:
...[P]rior work stoppages in professional football and baseball had no impact on the economies of cities with franchises. Further, the departure of professional basketball from cities had no impact on their economies in the following years. These results refute the idea that attracting professional sports franchises represents a viable economic development strategy."In fact, the models showed that cities saw a very slight increase in real per capita income during years with a work stoppage.""Robert Baade, a sports economist from Lake Forest (Ill.) College, led a 2006 study that examined sales tax data (.pdf link) in Florida. The study found that the lockouts and strikes since 1980 had no statistically significant effect on sales tax receipts in the metropolitan areas that house pro sports franchises."
Money from normal people shouldn't be used to subsidize millionaires and billionaires for their toys when there is no (or at least questionable) benefit to the tax payers. Cities that do this are getting duped.
BTW, if you're interested in analytics in Hockey, PPP is a great site (but it's very much a Maple Leafs site).
There is also not really a known economic benefit to cities holding Super Bowls. On the surface, it appears to bring in great cash, but there also are great costs to getting it in the first place. Some studies say there is no evidence they bring in the cash the NFL says they do.
And there are other studies that say they do. Getting the Super Bowl is not like getting the Olympics. You don't have to build "villages" for athletes and all kinds of new venues.
I am inclined to agree with the notion that you can't really put a price on how much economic value the Steelers bring to the Pittsburgh area. I do know that Pittsburgh ranks high in "Best Places To Live". Proximity to pro sports teams plays a role in that.
Southern states become whores for every foreign automaker they see, throwing all sorts of taxpayer money at them to attract their attention. If those states were as business-friendly as they claim, they wouldn't need to do that. If the business model of foreign automakers is so great, they can build their own factories.
Just saying that professional sports teams aren't the only entities relying on corporate welfare these days.
Pittsburgh, PA: City of Champions.
States and cities are constantly making deal to get business to come their way. I was with a major company that decided to consolidate from 10 offices in the eastern part of the US to 1 (I was in the Pgh office at the time). They contacted at least 3 major cities on the East Coast and essentially said - make me the best deal and I'm bringing my company and all the jobs to your city. It was a bidding war to get the business. And having major sports teams is one of the items cities use as an enticement.
And while some may see the threat of taking a team elsewhere if the owners doesn't get what he wants as low; I see it as doing business. Just happened here in Atlanta. Fulton Co and the city of Atlanta didn't want to pay for a new stadium, so Cobb Co. stepped up and said, "we will" and now the Braves will be moving out of down town.