Forbes: Oklahoma City Thunder #24. $1.875 billion

INTANGIBLES . . .

What kind of significance do sports serve? This research project will investigate further into one of the many different answers to this broad question, specifically in the economic sense. Exactly what kind of impact can a single sports team have on a single city’s economy?. .

. . . NBA’s Thunder to Oklahoma City is significant because it measures the above mentioned economic impact in a homogeneous economic environment - one that is characterized as a recession.

The primary argument in making this hypothesis is that the presence of the Thunder to Oklahoma City would prove to be a good driver of talent, wealth, and intellectual accumulation to not only the city but the state as a whole while complementing job creation as well as boost the region’s tourism sector and thus the overall state of the economy all the while leaving the city which was abandoned by the franchise (in this case, Seattle severing ties with the Supersonics) with a sizeable financial, capital, and intellectual hit.

Good read: Sports Economics - The Economic Impact of the NBA's Thunder on Oklahoma City. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=econuht



This paper seems to confirm that the Thunder don't really have a big economic impact on the city. In fact, he finds that his whole hypothesis is wrong. From pg. 17:


For any given market, it can be argued that consumers will spend their expendable
income regardless of what it is on. If the NBA season is not around, then fans will find a new
way to transform their earnings into something else. Looking at Oklahoma City and the Thunder
in particular, “Each missed game likely would mean a little bit less tax revenue for Oklahoma
City, said Doug Dowler, the city's associate budget director. But because the city is already
ahead of projected sales tax revenue growth of four percent for this fiscal year, losing Thunder
home games would likely only make a small dent in Oklahoma City's robust numbers. The
largest impact would likely be an increased subsidy for the arena, but by how much is not yet
known, and it would not likely cause many problems within the city's $920 million budget for
fiscal year 2012”

and pg. 18:


My arguments that
the presence of the Thunder to Oklahoma City would prove to be a good driver of talent, wealth,
and intellectual accumulation to not only the city but the state as a whole while complementing
job creation as well as boost the region’s tourism sector and thus the overall state of the economy
all the while leaving the city which was abandoned by the franchise (in this case, Seattle severing
ties with the Supersonics) with a sizeable financial, capital, and intellectual hit. I was wrong

I agree Laramie, this was a good read. Thanks for supporting my point.

This paper seems to confirm that the Thunder don't really have a big economic impact on the city. In fact, he finds that his whole hypothesis is wrong. From pg. 17:



and pg. 18:



I agree Laramie, this was a good read. Thanks for supporting my point.

So, what makes an exciting, vibrant city? Are you suggesting anything that changed OKC from the United Airlines facility failure to today is just normal, quantifiable economic growth?

So, what makes an exciting, vibrant city? Are you suggesting anything that changed OKC from the United Airlines facility failure to today is just normal, quantifiable economic growth?

The United Airlines facility failure was the 'gut punch' that led to former Mayor Ron Norick establishing the format that led to MAPS.

Remember how impressed voters were with the Bricktown Ballpark; hopefully we'll see some designs of our new Billion dollar
arena and recognize our elevation to the 'Big Leagues.'

What "Big Leagues"? What material benefits come from being in those "Big Leagues"? We're throwing around vague concepts and soft talking points without actually empirically backing them up (and in some cases even posting content that disproves them). We're talking about $1b here, money which could be spent in so many other places for so many other institutions and facilities. If this is a good investment, let's see the numbers backing it up.

What "Big Leagues"? What material benefits come from being in those "Big Leagues"? We're throwing around vague concepts and soft talking points without actually empirically backing them up (and in some cases even posting content that disproves them). We're talking about $1b here, money which could be spent in so many other places for so many other institutions and facilities. If this is a good investment, let's see the numbers backing it up.

I think we're in "dueling talking points" mode. Show us the numbers disproving it. And what are all those other institutions and facilities?

What "Big Leagues"? What material benefits come from being in those "Big Leagues"? We're throwing around vague concepts and soft talking points without actually empirically backing them up (and in some cases even posting content that disproves them). We're talking about $1b here, money which could be spent in so many other places for so many other institutions and facilities. If this is a good investment, let's see the numbers backing it up.

Aren't intangible and qualitative similar, in that they inherently can't be defined? What price can you put on having 20,000 people downtown at minimum 41 nights a year, having a brand known nationally and seen by millions on TV, and having your city seen on national TV? It's hard to define, but publicity like that isn't just available to every city. And cache also matters. Big league city is a moniker that not every city can have. Think Louisville or Omaha wouldn't kill to have a pro team? Think again.

This paper seems to confirm that the Thunder don't really have a big economic impact on the city. In fact, he finds that his whole hypothesis is wrong. From pg. 17:.

Yeah, but we don't even know what grade the author got on his thesis. lol

There are a lot of weird broad based metrics and specious correlations in that. Probably wasn't a good hypothesis to think that Seattle would take a big hit financially and in population growth just because of the basketball team. Discussing single variable metrics in a macroeconomic analysis is always going to be messy at best.

For example, the Thunder moved here in 2008. The OKC GDP has increased by 42% since then*. There was a slight dip that first year, but they weren't that good. There was another dip in 2020, but they didn't finish the season in OKC. But other than that, it's been decent increases most years. Therefore, the Thunder grew OKC's economy significantly since the team has been here.

Of course, that's a totally ridiculous conclusion, but it's similar to looking at population growth between the two cities after the move and attributing any changes to that single variable, especially since it's impossible to control for that variable in individual markets while keeping all other variables in a macroeconomic system (i.e. the cities' markets) constant.

*https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NGMP36420

I think we're in "dueling talking points" mode. Show us the numbers disproving it. And what are all those other institutions and facilities?

That's...not how logic works. Mayor Holt and other stadium proponents are the ones making the claim that this city funding for a new arena is a good investment, it is thus incumbent upon them to provide proof to back those claims up. But I've also posted numerous studies here that show that stadiums in general do not earn back their investment. Start here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547

As for other institutions, just look at numerous other threads on this forum. What do you think our rapid transit could do with a few extra hundred million? Our trails? Our support for the homeless or those dealing with unaffordable housing? What sort of support could we provide for those with mental illness, or an overworked police force? If we're gonna be hosting some Olympics events at the end of the decade, what investments can we make now to really knock visitors' socks off when they visit and ensure we have the infrastructure for them?


Aren't intangible and qualitative similar, in that they inherently can't be defined? What price can you put on having 20,000 people downtown at minimum 41 nights a year, having a brand known nationally and seen by millions on TV, and having your city seen on national TV? It's hard to define, but publicity like that isn't just available to every city. And cache also matters. Big league city is a moniker that not every city can have. Think Louisville or Omaha wouldn't kill to have a pro team? Think again.

Spending $1b on vibes and intangibles alone is a really, really bad idea.

Those 20,000 people don't just appear out of nothingness when the Thunder play, they just find other things to do and still come downtown. They still spend their recreation money on recreation and nights out, only it might mean a movie or dinner out or catching an extra Dodgers game or going to a concert at Paycom or going to a musical at the Civic Center, etc.

As for Big League city, I'd still love to see what exactly that means. Is Sacramento a Big League City? Milwaukee? Austin? Portland? Cleveland? Memphis? Detroit?

Yeah, but we don't even know what grade the author got on his thesis. lol

There are a lot of weird broad based metrics and specious correlations in that. Probably wasn't a good hypothesis to think that Seattle would take a big hit financially and in population growth just because of the basketball team. Discussing single variable metrics in a macroeconomic analysis is always going to be messy at best.

For example, the Thunder moved here in 2008. The OKC GDP has increased by 42% since then*. There was a slight dip that first year, but they weren't that good. There was another dip in 2020, but they didn't finish the season in OKC. But other than that, it's been decent increases most years. Therefore, the Thunder grew OKC's economy significantly since the team has been here.

Of course, that's a totally ridiculous conclusion, but it's similar to looking at population growth between the two cities after the move and attributing any changes to that single variable, especially since it's impossible to control for that variable in individual markets while keeping all other variables in a macroeconomic system (i.e. the cities' markets) constant.

*https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NGMP36420

For reference, it looks like Tulsa’s GDP is up 33% over the same period.

Although Wichita is up by ~47% and Omaha is up by 69%!

Spending $1b on vibes and intangibles alone is a really, really bad idea.

I know it won't matter to you one bit, but vibes and intangibles are exactly why this will pass in a landslide.

It's not about numbers and the bottom line... It's about civic pride and community self-esteem. And when you are Oklahoma City with very little to hang your hat on, that matters a lot.

I was living in L.A. when the Thunder got to the NBA finals and from that point forward nobody I met ever kidded me about being from a cowtown or thought there were still teepees everywhere. And I hate to tell you that when I went to graduate school at Pepperdine and people found out I went to the University of Oklahoma, the reaction was somewhat reverential because absolutely everyone had heard of OU and assumed it was a big, good school. And that was totally due to the football team, of course.

You simply cannot buy that type of PR, and almost everyone voting in this election understands that.


You are 100% entitled to your opinion and can post all the studies you want, but it seems you are missing the point.

Sure, and I’ve said multiple times I expect it to pass, probably by 66%-33% or so

For reference, it looks like Tulsa’s GDP is up 33% over the same period.

Although Wichita is up by ~47% and Omaha is up by 69%!

To be fair, the Oilers, Wichita Thunder, and Omaha Heart have always punched above their weight as economic generators.

Sure, and I’ve said multiple times I expect it to pass, probably by 66%-33% or so

Think of it more like MAPS... Especially the first 3 go-rounds were all shiny, sexy projects that gave the outward impression that things in this town were moving forward.

They were all things that citizens could see and touch and use and point at with pride.

This is basically another big MAPS project and as with all of those, the whole point was they would be paid for and debt free and then be a long-term asset -- often with negative cost or very little new income -- to the City.

As for other institutions, just look at numerous other threads on this forum. What do you think our rapid transit could do with a few extra hundred million? Our trails? Our support for the homeless or those dealing with unaffordable housing? What sort of support could we provide for those with mental illness, or an overworked police force? If we're gonna be hosting some Olympics events at the end of the decade, what investments can we make now to really knock visitors' socks off when they visit and ensure we have the infrastructure for them?

The good news there is that resources have been and are still being spent on those issues. I haven't seen the ballot measure yet, but I haven't heard anything that indicates the concept is to pull funding from those areas for this project. Opportunity cost is a thing, but that can be a consideration in every dollar spent.


Those 20,000 people don't just appear out of nothingness when the Thunder play, they just find other things to do and still come downtown. They still spend their recreation money on recreation and nights out, only it might mean a movie or dinner out or catching an extra Dodgers game or going to a concert at Paycom or going to a musical at the Civic Center, etc.

They can go to a Dodgers game, a concert downtown, or a musical at the civic center because of public investment made over time based on the the idea that the vibe of having cool stuff to do in the city is important for the intangible benefits it has to the quality of life of the community. Public money has always been used to improve the "stuff to do" factor in communities.

The United Airlines facility failure was the 'gut punch' that led to former Mayor Ron Norick establishing the format that led to MAPS.

Pretty much the response was "you can't pay us to come there, because there's nothing to do."

This is simply a continuation of the response to that. Like Pete said, it is the next step in the MAPS progress.

I know it won't matter to you one bit, but vibes and intangibles are exactly why this will pass in a landslide.

It's not about numbers and the bottom line... It's about civic pride and community self-esteem. And when you are Oklahoma City with very little to hang your hat on, that matters a lot.

I was living in L.A. when the Thunder got to the NBA finals and from that point forward nobody I met ever kidded me about being from a cowtown or thought there were still teepees everywhere. And I hate to tell you that when I went to graduate school at Pepperdine and people found out I went to the University of Oklahoma, the reaction was somewhat reverential because absolutely everyone had heard of OU and assumed it was a big, good school. And that was totally due to the football team, of course.

You simply cannot buy that type of PR, and almost everyone voting in this election understands that.


You are 100% entitled to your opinion and can post all the studies you want, but it seems you are missing the point.

Yes to all of this. I was in college when the Thunder arrived. In the constant fraternity city vs city pissing contest between OKC, Tulsa, Dallas, etc. guys...people's attitudes toward OKC vs. Tulsa started to change significantly when we got the team. Friends from Dallas/Ft worth of course always have and always will think Dallas and Texas are the greatest places on earth but when we got an NBA team and it started routinely beating the Mavs...it added a new legitimacy that OKC never had previously and gave all of us from OKC something to throw in the Dallas crew's face a few times a year. It also significantly reduced the "there's nothing to do in OKC" mentality no matter how wrong it still was prior to the Thunder arriving. Attitudes about the city change significantly after 2008 and if you think otherwise, you just haven't been paying attention.

It all sounds stupid on the surface but among my generation that vividly remember growing up in OKC when it was a trash heap with literally nothing to do downtown (or really anywhere) and listened to it constantly be sh*t on by those who weren't from here, merely having the Thunder has become a huge source of civic pride. Having nice things is great, but Wichita, Colorado Springs, Tulsa, Omaha, Albuquerque, Birmingham, Cheyenne, Santa Fe, Virginia Beach, Louisville, Hartford, and a number of other cities all have nice things. Only 32 cities have an NBA team, 52 cities have a professional sports franchise, 41 have a big 3 franchise...which group would you rather OKC be mentally associated more closely with: those places or a group that includes Denver, LA, Chicago, Salt Lake City, NYC, Miami, Dallas, Indianapolis, San Francisco, Boston, New Orleans, San Antonio, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, etc?

All of that is why I almost want to fight people who act like we don't need the team, don't need an arena, etc. and I'm far from alone in that. Many of us who care take it very personally. The Thunder have had a massive impact on the city, even if some people here don't care whether we have a team or have a vendetta against wealthy people or whatever. If you don't want to continue to pay the same tax we have for 30 years to help build a better arena and ensure the team stays here...there are plenty of cities without professional sports that you're welcome to move to.

Just wait until we get Olympic events in 2028 and every single shot shows the whitewater facility, Boathouse Row, and the skyline in the background.

There is simply nothing other than big-time sports that create that type of exposure and immeasurable goodwill.

I know it won't matter to you one bit, but vibes and intangibles are exactly why this will pass in a landslide.

It's not about numbers and the bottom line... It's about civic pride and community self-esteem. And when you are Oklahoma City with very little to hang your hat on, that matters a lot.

I was living in L.A. when the Thunder got to the NBA finals and from that point forward nobody I met ever kidded me about being from a cowtown or thought there were still teepees everywhere. And I hate to tell you that when I went to graduate school at Pepperdine and people found out I went to the University of Oklahoma, the reaction was somewhat reverential because absolutely everyone had heard of OU and assumed it was a big, good school. And that was totally due to the football team, of course.

You simply cannot buy that type of PR, and almost everyone voting in this election understands that.


You are 100% entitled to your opinion and can post all the studies you want, but it seems you are missing the point.

In my experience, it’s still pretty popular for outsiders to think Oklahoma City is a cowtown without much to do if you don’t like the rodeo or going to a klan rally. That’s not to say I don’t come across people that genuinely have a good perception of Oklahoma City and it’s great when people are able to identify the Thunder as something notable mostly because I love the NBA so I can talk about that a lot, but it still doesn’t change what many folks apathetic to the NBA think since Oklahoma City is still tied to Oklahoma as a state in many people’s minds. Tornadoes and Native American’s, in my anecdotal experience, are brought up more than the Thunder, which are interesting subjects to talk about and I’m always happy to discuss it, but they carry baggage in their own right.

I support the arena and your insights into the finances have been great per usual, but I feel like you kind of made PoliSci’s point with the OU example. All that perception of the University of Oklahoma being a big, good university due to its football or softball or gymnastics, etc, yet there are still many ways it fails to satisfy those perceptions for many. Of course, then it has to be acknowledged how the perception around OU’s athletics has benefited the university that it otherwise wouldn’t if not for prestigious athletics.

I’m probably just stating the obvious but it seems like that’s the biggest disconnect when I see this debate in various mediums; one side is interested in the perception of how money spent can make a city or program appear and bring in outside interest, whereas the other side is interested in how the finances work in the operational sense to improve the material conditions of the citizens. It reminds me a lot of the “form (ever) follows function” in architecture that was popularized by modernist architects looking to cease the excessive ornaments of past architecture in favor of a minimal architecture that could improve the living conditions in a post-WWII society. Should a building be designed to include functionless details for visual appeal, or should the building be designed solely for the function of those living in or using the building? Interesting stuff to think about.

^

But almost everyone knows OKC has an NBA team, so even though many don't know the difference between Tulsa, Wichita, and any number of fly-over cities, they absolutely know cowtowns don't get top-flight pro sports franchises.

Mayor Holt loves to go into excessive hyperbole about all this be he is right about one thing: You are either a Big League City or you are not. And since we only have one Big League team, losing it would be catastrophic to our reputation and our own self-esteem.

I say all that while being pretty indifferent about the NBA; I just care about what the Thunder means for the city I love.

The increased valuation is directly tied to the increase in revenue/cash flow/profit. The owners are making money and substantially more money than they were in 2006.

That isn’t the entire story. Several posts about how the new arena increases the value of the team. The increased value doesn’t solely come from increased sales (tickets/suites/concessions) it comes from a new arena period.

Just wait until we get Olympic events in 2028 and every single shot shows the whitewater facility, Boathouse Row, and the skyline in the background.

There is simply nothing other than big-time sports that create that type of exposure and immeasurable goodwill.

The Olympics will be absolutely insane.

Pretty much the response was "you can't pay us to come there, because there's nothing to do."

This is simply a continuation of the response to that. Like Pete said, it is the next step in the MAPS progress.
The response, when Mayor Norick challenged United on why they chose Indianapolis over OKC - despite OKC offering clearly better incentives during their pitch - was (I’m paraphrasing) “yes, you indeed offered the best incentives, but at the end of the day we don’t want our employees to be forced to live in your city.”

The Chamber commissioned a study in the 90s to see what the perception was of OKC from outsiders. They didn’t really find that the perception was bad so much as they found that there was literally ZERO impression of OKC to outsiders. Within that perception vacuum they generally assumed we still rode around in buckboard wagons.

If you asked people from elsewhere to name the largest city in Oklahoma they almost invariably would say “Tulsa.” Recruiters from our major corporations would visit universities throughout the country and they couldn’t even get visits, because college graduates couldn’t even IMAGINE living in a place they’d barely heard of. Consultants like Richard Florida told OKC’s leaders that the only way forward was to appeal to the creative class, who cluster around places with broad lifestyle and entertainment choices.

OKC was virtually flatlining prior to the start of MAPS. And has witnessed explosive growth since, ESPECIALLY since the Thunder arrived. In nearly every metric that matters. Population growth. GDP growth. Sales tax collections. If you want data, there’s your data.

Comparing the impact the Thunder has had on OKC vs the impact teams have on cities like Seattle, Chicago, LA, NYC, is an apples and oranges comparison. It’s disingenuous. OF COURSE a team has less impact on cities with multiple teams, ample entertainment options and already-established national and international identities. We never had such an identity, and the presence of the Thunder has moved that needle more than anything that’s happened in decades. Anyone who lived in OKC prior to MAPS and the arrival of the Thunder knows EXACTLY what I mean, even if they don’t love basketball.

Quality of life maintenance and improvements has been the focus of OKC ever since MAPS first passed. It has in fact BECOME our identity. The ENTIRE POINT of MAPS was “vibes and intangibles.”

Just wait until we get Olympic events in 2028 and every single shot shows the whitewater facility, Boathouse Row, and the skyline in the background.

There is simply nothing other than big-time sports that create that type of exposure and immeasurable goodwill.

We talk about this and, like I’ve said elsewhere on the forum, I love to think about these things, but it has to be asked what happens after that? What does the exposure achieve? There’s likely commercial interest that brings in added revenue and development to the city, which is always good. Is it guaranteed that the return will outweigh the expense? If it’s a long term deal, what happens in the short term to citizens that could benefit now versus waiting generations to see it pay off, assuming the local government is competent?

Again, I know I’m just stating the obvious and it’s all cherry-picked hypothetical thought experiments from me that aren’t tied to the new arena, but if sports and the exposure provided more than a vague promise of immeasurable goodwill, we shouldn’t have to overlook the immediate things that benefit a city and its citizens that can’t be observed by outsiders.

^

But almost everyone knows OKC has an NBA team, so even though many don't know the difference between Tulsa, Wichita, and any number of fly-over cities, they absolutely know cowtowns don't get top-flight pro sports franchises.

Mayor Holt loves to go into excessive hyperbole about all this be he is right about one thing: You are either a Big League City or you are not. And since we only have one Big League team, losing it would be catastrophic to our reputation and our own self-esteem.

I say all that while being pretty indifferent about the NBA; I just care about what the Thunder means for the city I love.

I actively talk to people that also actively follow the NBA on various forums and these are largely the people I hear these remarks from, though when in person like restaurants or public transit and they ask where I’m from or I’m walking in a city and they see my Westbrook jersey, they might not be as direct. I can’t take a survey to tell you what everyone thinks about Oklahoma City, but people being aware that Oklahoma City has a professional team doesn’t erase their other perceptions about the city. If anything it seems to confuse them how a place so backwards could get a team.

Funnily enough, my best “outsider” interactions in regards to Oklahoma City and the Thunder have been while in Seattle. I’ve had some good ones while in Los Angeles and San Francisco as well.

Edit to say: to be fair, most of those I talk ball with both online and in person are my age (28) or younger, occasionally older, and much less likely to be educated and rounded in critical thinking, so it probably should be expected that they’d have a distorted caricature of what Oklahoma City is.

This will pass easily and OKC will get a new arena.

Not much else to say. I had a long, drawn out post in response to things but it’d just be a waste of time.

*shrugs*

This will pass easily and OKC will get a new arena.

Not much else to say. I had a long, drawn out post in response to things but it’d just be a waste of time.

*shrugs*

It will definitely pass but i would also hope it is an objectively good deal for the city. The ownership group will get at least $200M in expansion fees. And honestly it could end up being a lot more than that.

So they can chip in more than $75M. Kaiser wipes his a$$ with that type of cash.

This will pass easily and OKC will get a new arena.

Not much else to say. I had a long, drawn out post in response to things but it’d just be a waste of time.

*shrugs*

It’s tenable to talk about things that have a predictable outcome. Shoot, I’m making (basic) arguments against something that I’m actually in favor of. Most topics are broader than “this isn’t decided so let’s discuss.”

It’s tenable to talk about things that have a predictable outcome. Shoot, I’m making (basic) arguments against something that I’m actually in favor of. Most topics are broader than “this isn’t decided so let’s discuss.”

I mean, I never said you couldn’t discuss it. Go for it.

I mean, I never said you couldn’t discuss it. Go for it.

Sure, I didn’t misread. My response was out of interest about the thoughts you considered sharing and to encourage you or others that adding thoughts to a doubtless topic can still be vital for important discussions.

I’ll tell you when I knew the Thunder was worth it: July 28, 2010.

The night before I’d seen the Flaming Lips in Central Park, on the Summer Stage. As I was waiting in line at the entry to the venue, the dude behind me lost his mind because I was wearing a Thunder T-shirt with Thabo Sefalosha’s name and number on the back.

“Dude!! Are you REALLY from Oklahoma City?!” he asked. He was a dejected Knicks fan who was living vicariously through the Thunder. He said it was his favorite team, so long as the Knicks were so bad. He could name every player, down to the 2-ways. We talked for a while, then wished each other well and went our separate ways. And I got the distinct impression that he believed that HE had just had the coolest experience of both of ours. He was straight up THRILLED to have met a living, breathing, Oklahoma City Thunder season ticket holder.

The next day, I was walking through the NYC Financial District, and on the sidewalk I spotted a family who simply MUST have been from OKC. They had a tow headed kid about ten years old, and the kid was wearing a Thunder swingman jersey with KD’s name and number on it. So I said, “hey! I’m from OKC too!!” They looked at me in puzzlement. I pointed to the kid’s jersey, and explained that I’d assumed they were from OKC because of it. They still seemed a bit puzzled, but explained to me in heavily-accented English that they weren’t from OKC. Or Oklahoma. They were from Paris. France.

You can tell me ‘til you’re blue in the face that there is no tangible benefit from being a major league city and I won’t believe you. You’re wrong.

Plus 100 ^^^^^

I actively talk to people that also actively follow the NBA on various forums and these are largely the people I hear these remarks from, though when in person like restaurants or public transit and they ask where I’m from or I’m walking in a city and they see my Westbrook jersey, they might not be as direct. I can’t take a survey to tell you what everyone thinks about Oklahoma City, but people being aware that Oklahoma City has a professional team doesn’t erase their other perceptions about the city. If anything it seems to confuse them how a place so backwards could get a team.

Funnily enough, my best “outsider” interactions in regards to Oklahoma City and the Thunder have been while in Seattle. I’ve had some good ones while in Los Angeles and San Francisco as well.

Edit to say: to be fair, most of those I talk ball with both online and in person are my age (28) or younger, occasionally older, and much less likely to be educated and rounded in critical thinking, so it probably should be expected that they’d have a distorted caricature of what Oklahoma City is.

Distorted caricature - yes. When I lived in Los Angeles in the late 90’s there were two questions people would ask me when they found out I was from Oklahoma City- 1. Did I know anyone that died in the bombing (tacky tacky) and 2. Did more people ride horses than drive cars (asked more than I would have ever imagined). Fast forward to this past fall when we were in SoCal for two separate trips and when people asked us about OKC- it was all about the Thunder, loss of KD, or Westbrook, and USC stealing coaches/players from Ou. The Thunder have def helped our place in the national conversation. If the arena comes to a vote of the people my wife and I will of course vote yes.

I can’t take a survey to tell you what everyone thinks about Oklahoma City, but people being aware that Oklahoma City has a professional team doesn’t erase their other perceptions about the city. If anything it seems to confuse them how a place so backwards could get a team.

You are talking about people on a discussion forum being negative and critical... To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

I can tell you I lived in Los Angeles for 25 years -- where people think California is the center of the universe -- and when the Thunder started to do well and get attention, attitudes completely changed about OKC.

You are talking about people on a discussion forum being negative and critical... To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

I can tell you I lived in Los Angeles for 25 years -- where people think California is the center of the universe -- and when the Thunder started to do well and get attention, attitudes completely changed about OKC.

Curious in what way?

Pre-Thunder when I traveled and mentioned being from OKC I usually just got the comment, "friendly people" or "never been there." While I'll still hear those comments today, I definitely get comments about the Thunder as well. In my mind, that's just added small-talk content, not a shift in attitudes.

I've already described how perception changed.

This is a pretty fruitless discussion because it's all anecdotal and nothing said is going to change anybody's mind and it's certainly not going to change the fact this project is going to sail through the public vote.

I’ll tell you when I knew the Thunder was worth it: July 28, 2010.

The night before I’d seen the Flaming Lips in Central Park, on the Summer Stage. As I was waiting in line at the entry to the venue, the dude behind me lost his mind because I was wearing a Thunder T-shirt with Thabo Sefalosha’s name and number on the back.

“Dude!! Are you REALLY from Oklahoma City?!” he asked. He was a dejected Knicks fan who was living vicariously through the Thunder. He said it was his favorite team, so long as the Knicks were so bad. He could name every player, down to the 2-ways. We talked for a while, then wished each other well and went our separate ways. And I got the distinct impression that he believed that HE had just had the coolest experience of both of ours. He was straight up THRILLED to have met a living, breathing, Oklahoma City Thunder season ticket holder.

The next day, I was walking through the NYC Financial District, and on the sidewalk I spotted a family who simply MUST have been from OKC. They had a tow headed kid about ten years old, and the kid was wearing a Thunder swingman jersey with KD’s name and number on it. So I said, “hey! I’m from OKC too!!” They looked at me in puzzlement. I pointed to the kid’s jersey, and explained that I’d assumed they were from OKC because of it. They still seemed a bit puzzled, but explained to me in heavily-accented English that they weren’t from OKC. Or Oklahoma. They were from Paris. France.

You can tell me ‘til you’re blue in the face that there is no tangible benefit from being a major league city and I won’t believe you. You’re wrong.

This just reminded me of a time I was at a Music Festival in Arkansas and it brought so many types of people from all over. I was wearing a shirt from Tree & Leaf Clothing, RIP, and it was the design with the Oklahoma Map and the word Okla-Home. They were shocked at how I would wear that and be proud to tell people I was from Oklahoma. Not because it was Oklahoma, but because they didn't feel the same about their state. This was after the Thunder had a great season and people started realizing Oklahoma isn't what everyone else thought it was.

There is a ton you can say about Oklahoma that isn't great and sometimes downright embarrassing, but the Thunder have always been a positive in all my conversations with out-of-state peeps.

This just reminded me of a time I was at a Music Festival in Arkansas and it brought so many types of people from all over. I was wearing a shirt from Tree & Leaf Clothing, RIP, and it was the design with the Oklahoma Map and the word Okla-Home. They were shocked at how I would wear that and be proud to tell people I was from Oklahoma. Not because it was Oklahoma, but because they didn't feel the same about their state. This was after the Thunder had a great season and people started realizing Oklahoma isn't what everyone else thought it was.

There is a ton you can say about Oklahoma that isn't great and sometimes downright embarrassing, but the Thunder have always been a positive in all my conversations with out-of-state peeps.

Good point here. It’s not just OKC who’s perception it helps…it’s the entire state. Obviously helps the city the most but it’s one more thing that sets us apart from the 24 states without professional sports and lumps us in with the group that does.

Sports are also one of the few things that, for the most part aside from a few instances, bridge the political gap and anything that can do that right now is a good thing.

I’m living proof. I was born and raised just outside of Atlanta. Sports has always been a huge part of my life so my first thought of any city is the skylines and pro sports teams (what I’ve seen on TV). Watching the Thunder make the finals as a teen and be competitive every single year without a doubt put OKC on the map in my eyes. I saw a loud, passionate fan base. I saw downtown aerial shots and the Bricktown canal on ABC’s commercial cuts. I saw just enough that I thought of OKC as a big league town. When the time came and I moved out here I felt an appreciation for the town. I loved this city before I even moved out here. The Thunder are a big reason why.

Good point here. It’s not just OKC who’s perception it helps…it’s the entire state. Obviously helps the city the most but it’s one more thing that sets us apart from the 24 states without professional sports and lumps us in with the group that does.

Sports are also one of the few things that, for the most part aside from a few instances, bridge the political gap and anything that can do that right now is a good thing.

Not to mention that it also helped OKC get better Music tours and concerts. Haha! I haven't had to drive to Tulsa as much anymore! Thanks Thunder!

I’m living proof. I was born and raised just outside of Atlanta. Sports has always been a huge part of my life so my first thought of any city is the skylines and pro sports teams (what I’ve seen on TV). Watching the Thunder make the finals as a teen and be competitive every single year without a doubt put OKC on the map in my eyes. I saw a loud, passionate fan base. I saw downtown aerial shots and the Bricktown canal on ABC’s commercial cuts. I saw just enough that I thought of OKC as a big league town. When the time came and I moved out here I felt an appreciation for the town. I loved this city before I even moved out here. The Thunder are a big reason why.
This.

I’m living proof. I was born and raised just outside of Atlanta. Sports has always been a huge part of my life so my first thought of any city is the skylines and pro sports teams (what I’ve seen on TV). Watching the Thunder make the finals as a teen and be competitive every single year without a doubt put OKC on the map in my eyes. I saw a loud, passionate fan base. I saw downtown aerial shots and the Bricktown canal on ABC’s commercial cuts. I saw just enough that I thought of OKC as a big league town. When the time came and I moved out here I felt an appreciation for the town. I loved this city before I even moved out here. The Thunder are a big reason why.

That is an amazing soul story to your learning of Okc. We aren’t dumb hicks, “okies” as the term started derogatorily to meant. Thank you for sharing.

This made me want to see fan interview of people who became Thunder fans. Would be a cool series.

I’m living proof. I was born and raised just outside of Atlanta. Sports has always been a huge part of my life so my first thought of any city is the skylines and pro sports teams (what I’ve seen on TV). Watching the Thunder make the finals as a teen and be competitive every single year without a doubt put OKC on the map in my eyes. I saw a loud, passionate fan base. I saw downtown aerial shots and the Bricktown canal on ABC’s commercial cuts. I saw just enough that I thought of OKC as a big league town. When the time came and I moved out here I felt an appreciation for the town. I loved this city before I even moved out here. The Thunder are a big reason why.

Thank you for sharing this! #TTFU!

Already seeing the, “this city has more pressing needs than basketball” posts on social media. I mean, I get why people say that, but people who do are ignoring the hundreds of millions that are already committed to being spent to address these concerns from two bond issues and MAPS 4.

A lot of the folks are seemingly smart but obviously clueless about city government, our budget, and aforementioned bonds and MAPS.

Anyone who thinks locking down an NBA team in OKC for 25 more years won’t improve our tax collections and growth and also elevate OKC’s profile is a dunce.

The irony is that an increasing employment and tax base resulting from this infrastructure investment will give OKC more resources to address these problems. Conversely, losing our only major league franchise would devastate this city’s morale and plague our city’s reputation.

Good point here. It’s not just OKC who’s perception it helps…it’s the entire state. Obviously helps the city the most but it’s one more thing that sets us apart from the 24 states without professional sports and lumps us in with the group that does.

Sports are also one of the few things that, for the most part aside from a few instances, bridge the political gap and anything that can do that right now is a good thing.

Absolutely. So from those of us that don't live in OKC and can't vote don't screw this up for the rest of us!

I've already described how perception changed.

This is a pretty fruitless discussion because it's all anecdotal and nothing said is going to change anybody's mind and it's certainly not going to change the fact this project is going to sail through the public vote.

Well okay, I supposed I missed that.

I’m living proof. I was born and raised just outside of Atlanta. Sports has always been a huge part of my life so my first thought of any city is the skylines and pro sports teams (what I’ve seen on TV). Watching the Thunder make the finals as a teen and be competitive every single year without a doubt put OKC on the map in my eyes. I saw a loud, passionate fan base. I saw downtown aerial shots and the Bricktown canal on ABC’s commercial cuts. I saw just enough that I thought of OKC as a big league town. When the time came and I moved out here I felt an appreciation for the town. I loved this city before I even moved out here. The Thunder are a big reason why.

So then I'm curious since you replied, did you even think of Oklahoma or OKC before in any capacity before us having the Thunder. I know OU football was also about the only other thing people would ever comment on.

This made me want to see fan interview of people who became Thunder fans. Would be a cool series.

That is a very cool idea. I know occasionally I've seen the Thunder do something on BallySports highlighting a fan or 2 that maybe have traveled long distances. I always enjoy hearing the random story about someone from overseas making this way to watch a game. I'm fascinated with the reasons people choose that aren't, "well I live in Oklahoma."

Anyone who thinks locking down an NBA team in OKC for 25 more years won’t improve our tax collections and growth and also elevate OKC’s profile is a dunce.


This really isn't fair and misses the mark. Can you show me that the Thunder have brought in $1b in tax collection and revenue over the last 15 years? Or anywhere close to that amount?

Detractors aren't saying it won't bring in any money at all; rather, that it won't bring in anywhere close to the investment we're pouring in, and that the biggest beneficiaries of this massive outlay of public money will be the billionaire private owners of the Thunder, not the public, as research shows.

This really isn't fair and misses the mark. Can you show me that the Thunder have brought in $1b in tax collection and revenue over the last 15 years? Or anywhere close to that amount?

Detractors aren't saying it won't bring in any money at all; rather, that it won't bring in anywhere close to the investment we're pouring in, and that the biggest beneficiaries of this massive outlay of public money will be the billionaire private owners of the Thunder, not the public, as research shows.

Except they have been bringing in over 60 million directly to the OKC economy so over a 15 year period that equates to 900 million. That doesn't take into account for the additional developments that will come specifically from the Thunder. and if the Thunder left, it would directly have an impact on downtown / Bricktown nights at hotels by guests. You continue to make all these claims about how the money should be spent elsewhere but you fail to realize the money wont even be there if the Thunder leave. Increased funds for parks, trails, roads, low income housing etc all benefit by having the Thunder in OKC. Nothing else to say. Thunder in OKC allows those other needs to benefit and would not be simply the beneficiary if the Thunder left.

This really isn't fair and misses the mark. Can you show me that the Thunder have brought in $1b in tax collection and revenue over the last 15 years? Or anywhere close to that amount?

Detractors aren't saying it won't bring in any money at all; rather, that it won't bring in anywhere close to the investment we're pouring in, and that the biggest beneficiaries of this massive outlay of public money will be the billionaire private owners of the Thunder, not the public, as research shows.

But our $70 million dollar Ford Center got us an NBA team. And our reinvestment in the building helped keep the team. Building is paid for with cash. Are you saying it was a bad investment or negative value asset? Now we have the chance to make a bigger facility that will generate more revenue. Built here and staying here. With cash.

I recall seeing the Burns Hargis quote in the Boom, Bust & the Bomb documentary when he mentioned the eastern bankers said to him after the Penn Square Bank failure, but before rock bottom "Wait until we take the rest of those billions out of Oklahoma and back to New York. Then it will get really bad for you". This billion is going to be spent in OKC and stay in OKC. Nothing is leaving for New York, etc. We are investing in ourselves. We have a good track record the last 30 years.

There is a saying: scared money don't make money.

Except they have been bringing in over 60 million directly to the OKC economy so over a 15 year period that equates to 900 million.

Where'd you get that number from?

Where'd you get that number from?

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/nba/thunder/2018/08/11/how-10-years-of-thunder-basketball-has-helped-shape-oklahoma-city/60508289007/#:~:text=According%20to%20data%20provided%20to,the %20city's%20as%20a%20whole.

This article is old, but $1.5 million a game to OKC...

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/nba/thunder/2018/08/11/how-10-years-of-thunder-basketball-has-helped-shape-oklahoma-city/60508289007/#:~:text=According%20to%20data%20provided%20to,the %20city's%20as%20a%20whole.

This article is old, but $1.5 million a game to OKC...

That's "economic impact", not money directly to the city. That measure has been widely abused by chambers of commerce and sports owners to overinflate the impact of sports on cities (https://www.cairn.info/revue-finance-et-bien-commun-2007-1-page-99.htm). As other studies show, that $1.5m doesn't just disappear when the Thunder aren't playing, folks end up spending that money elsewhere in the economy. It's why OKC did just fine when the NBA lockout in 2011-2012 resulted in a late start. The city actually made more money in 2011 than they did in 2010, even with 15 or so fewer Thunder games. This pattern plays out whenever there's a work stoppage in a major sport (https://userpages.umbc.edu/~coates/work/lockout200.pdf) - folks just spend their money elsewhere and the local economy isn't really adversely impacted (https://business.time.com/2011/11/07/the-nba-lockout-and-the-economy-an-overstated-impact/).

That's "economic impact", not money directly to the city. That measure has been widely abused by chambers of commerce and sports owners to overinflate the impact of sports on cities (https://www.cairn.info/revue-finance-et-bien-commun-2007-1-page-99.htm). As other studies show, that $1.5m doesn't just disappear when the Thunder aren't playing, folks end up spending that money elsewhere in the economy. It's why OKC did just fine when the NBA lockout in 2011-2012 resulted in a late start. The city actually made more money in 2011 than they did in 2010, even with 15 or so fewer Thunder games. This pattern plays out whenever there's a work stoppage in a major sport (https://userpages.umbc.edu/~coates/work/lockout200.pdf) - folks just spend their money elsewhere and the local economy isn't really adversely impacted (https://business.time.com/2011/11/07/the-nba-lockout-and-the-economy-an-overstated-impact/).

What is it you want, other than to argue? Where do you think that money that is going to be spent anyway is going to? A Blazers hockey game with $5 tickets and $2 beer? Everyone going to Chili's? Where are they going in the economy of Oklahoma City?

What are the other places you think the money should be spent on and what are the amounts? How is that spending going to improve the city? And give me numbers, not "Homelessness is a city wide embarrassment and sign of an uncaring city".

Where do you think that money that is going to be spent anyway is going to? A Blazers hockey game with $5 tickets and $2 beer? Everyone going to Chili's? Where are they going in the economy of Oklahoma City?

Yes, exactly, those places and others. It’s not like folks just didn’t spend money or not go out when the NBA lockout happened or when the Thunder didn’t allow fans in the stadium post-COVID, they just went and did other things. The Thunder is a great destination for folks to spend money at, but they spend that money at other places year-round and all of that has an equal economic impact, as the studies I linked to show.

As for alternatives, there are numerous so I’ll just pick one as an example. Studies show that investments on public transit yield a 4x return on investment and can generate up to 50,000 jobs per $1b invested (https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/economic-impact-of-public-transit/). Can the Thunder do that?

Yes, exactly, those places and others. It’s not like folks just didn’t spend money or not go out when the NBA lockout happened or when the Thunder didn’t allow fans in the stadium post-COVID, they just went and did other things. The Thunder is a great destination for folks to spend money at, but they spend that money at other places year-round and all of that has an equal economic impact, as the studies I linked to show.

As for alternatives, there are numerous so I’ll just pick one as an example. Studies show that investments on public transit yield a 4x return on investment and can generate up to 50,000 jobs per $1b invested (https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/economic-impact-of-public-transit/). Can the Thunder do that?

Short term issues with the assumption (and reality) that Thunder games would resume. Give us real spending and entertainment alternatives that OKC residents could (and would) attend if the Thunder were gone.

Yes, exactly, those places and others. It’s not like folks just didn’t spend money or not go out when the NBA lockout happened or when the Thunder didn’t allow fans in the stadium post-COVID, they just went and did other things. The Thunder is a great destination for folks to spend money at, but they spend that money at other places year-round and all of that has an equal economic impact, as the studies I linked to show.

As for alternatives, there are numerous so I’ll just pick one as an example. Studies show that investments on public transit yield a 4x return on investment and can generate up to 50,000 jobs per $1b invested (https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/economic-impact-of-public-transit/). Can the Thunder do that?

They very obviously won’t do this (given the pr campaign and survey), but would your opinion change if the Ownership Group agreed to chip in 225M or so?

For sure. They pitch in 25% of the cost, my grumbling level decreases significantly