On Thursday night the Patriots and Steelers kick off the 2015 NFL season (kickoff is set for 5:30 Pacific time on NBC 7) at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, MA. Not coincidentally, that facility was built in part using public funding.
Also not coincidentally is this little tidbit of information: A recent report by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) titled “Sacking Taxpayers: How NFL Stadium Subsidies Waste Money and Fall Short on Their Promises of Economic Development” suggests using public money to finance an NFL facility is a great way to ruin your economy.
The TPA says it’s a “… non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to educating the public through research, analysis and dissemination of information on the government’s effects on the economy.” It seems to have a bone to pick with the NFL (or at least communities that take money from the public and pour it in to football stadiums).
According to the TPA, since 1995 29 of the 31 current NFL stadiums received public money for either construction, renovation or both (the two exceptions being Miami, where Stephen Ross is spending $400 million of his own money to update Sun Life Stadium, and New Jersey, where MetLife Stadium’s entire $1.6 billion construction was privately financed). The TPA says the total price tag for the taxpayers on those 29 stadiums runs $7 billion.
The TPA looked at two main things when determining whether or not public stadium dollars have a positive or negative impact on taxpayers: median household income and poverty rates. Specifically, how are those elements different now than they were in 1995? Here’s what they found.
In 14 communities both the median household income dropped and poverty rates increased: Arizona (new stadium), Chicago (renovation), Cincinnati (new stadium), Cleveland (new stadium), Dallas (new stadium), Detroit (new stadium), Green Bay (renovation), Indianapolis (new stadium), Jacksonville (renovation although another round of upgrades is scheduled to be finished for this season), Kansas City (renovation), Philadelphia (new stadium), Pittsburgh (new stadium), Tampa Bay (new stadium) and Tennessee (new stadium).
In seven communities one factor improved while the other got worse: Denver (new stadium), Houston (new stadium), New England (new stadium), Oakland (renovation), Seattle (new stadium), St. Louis (new stadium) and Washington (new stadium).
In four communities both factors improved: Atlanta (renovation of the Georgia Dome, NOT construction of their new stadium), Baltimore (new stadium), New Orleans (renovation) and San Diego (since renovations to Qualcomm Stadium the poverty rate dropped 0.2% and median income rose $4389).
Data is not yet in for Buffalo (renovation), Carolina (renovation), Minnesota (new stadium) or San Francisco (new stadium that’s actually in Santa Clara).
The report, which you can read in its entirety here, also ranked the communities that seem to be hit hardest after pouring millions in to a stadium. According to the study, in the 12 areas in which taxpayers funded more than half the cost of a new stadium between 1995 and 2013 the percentage of the total population living in poverty rose from 16 percent to 18.7 percent. That’s a 26.3 percent greater increase in poverty over other areas that are home to NFL stadiums, and an increase of more than 231 percent the national average, which rose from 13.8 to 14.5 percent during that time.
But it’s not just new stadiums that the TPA says are having a negative impact on fans. Tops on the list of both the highest change in poverty rate and biggest drop in household income is Green Bay, WI. The Packers poured nearly $300 million in to renovating Lambeau Field with more than half coming from public funds in the form on a half-percent sales tax. The TPA claims that 0.5% sales tax contributed to the financial burden of Green Bay’s taxpayers.
While the timing is certainly interesting there are likely other factors at work that the TPA does not take in to consideration. But their research is certainly worth considering when looking at whether or not to use public money to fund a new sports facility. It's something Mayor Kevin Faulconer might take in to consideration when dealing with the Chargers (or Jaguars or Raiders or Rams or MLS or insert name of potential tenant in a new facility here).
