Instead of focusing just on the Thunder Arena I thought might better to open up the discussion to the entire idea of public financing for sports arenas.

I watched this video earlier today regarding the Bears potential relocation to suburban Chicagoland. Well worth the time to watch.

https://youtu.be/ksyeJF4-LVo

I'm sure someone will be able to explain this better than I can, but my opinion is that the smaller your metropolitan area is, the more it makes sense to use public funding. So, it would make more sense for OKC to use public funding for a new basketball arena than Los Angeles, Philadelphia, etc. due to the fact that no one is going to move a team out of a large metro area and forfeit that local television revenue. Additionally, the more an arena is used, the more it makes sense to use public funding. So, it would make more sense to use public funding for a baseball park (used for 81 games/year) or a basketball/hockey arena (used for 41 games/year + TBD concerts/year) than it would be for a football stadium (used for 8 games/year with limited concert opportunities).

SoFi stadium was discussed at length in the video.
Inglewood California is much smaller than Oklahoma City. Market size is important to the team, but of zero interest to municipality paying for it. They can only tax their citizens, not everyone in LA.

The Rams gave Inglewood a loan of $250,000,000 to cover the cost of infrastructure improvements around SoFi. The City of Inglewood keeps there first $25,000,000 in annual sales taxes generated at SoFi and any surplus is returned to the Rams to pay off the loan.

SoFi stadium was discussed at length in the video.
Inglewood California is much smaller than Oklahoma City. Market size is important to the team, but of zero interest to municipality paying for it. They can only tax their citizens, not everyone in LA.

The Rams gave Inglewood a loan of $250,000,000 to cover the cost of infrastructure improvements around SoFi. The City of Inglewood keeps there first $25,000,000 in annual sales taxes generated at SoFi and any surplus is returned to the Rams to pay off the loan.

lol this is so far off i don't even know where to start ..

lol this is so far off i don't even know where to start ..

Maybe you should watch the video and then take it up with NBC Sports and the Rams - because that is what happened.

I'm sure someone will be able to explain this better than I can, but my opinion is that the smaller your metropolitan area is, the more it makes sense to use public funding. So, it would make more sense for OKC to use public funding for a new basketball arena than Los Angeles, Philadelphia, etc. due to the fact that no one is going to move a team out of a large metro area and forfeit that local television revenue. Additionally, the more an arena is used, the more it makes sense to use public funding. So, it would make more sense to use public funding for a baseball park (used for 81 games/year) or a basketball/hockey arena (used for 41 games/year + TBD concerts/year) than it would be for a football stadium (used for 8 games/year with limited concert opportunities).

SLC was funded publicly 18%, Portland was 0% publicly funded. Both small market teams and both with only NBA like OKC. What say you?

SoFi stadium was discussed at length in the video.
Inglewood California is much smaller than Oklahoma City. Market size is important to the team, but of zero interest to municipality paying for it. They can only tax their citizens, not everyone in LA.

The Rams gave Inglewood a loan of $250,000,000 to cover the cost of infrastructure improvements around SoFi. The City of Inglewood keeps there first $25,000,000 in annual sales taxes generated at SoFi and any surplus is returned to the Rams to pay off the loan.

Dude just stop. Are they the Inglewood Rams?

Dude just stop. Are they the Inglewood Rams?

I'm confused by this post. What does the name of the team have to do with where they play and the cost/benefit of where they actually play?

Dude just stop. Are they the Inglewood Rams?

You should watch the documentary I posted. If nothing else just as a football fan.

I'm not a fan of California politics but the Mayor of Inglewood knocked it out of the park on this one.

One thing we know for sure...the Rams are NEVER leaving this stadium...EVER.

SLC was funded publicly 18%, Portland was 0% publicly funded. Both small market teams and both with only NBA like OKC. What say you?

Not sure where you are getting 0% public funding in Portland? A quick Wikipedia scan suggests the city donated the land, operation of the city owned parking garages, and participated in a financing package that wound up in bankruptcy.

Not sure where you are getting 0% public funding in Portland? A quick Wikipedia scan suggests the city donated the land, operation of the city owned parking garages, and participated in a financing package that wound up in bankruptcy.

https://www.phoenix.gov/piosite/Documents/Arena/NBA-Arenas-Funding-and-Operations.pdf#search=nba%20arena

https://www.phoenix.gov/piosite/Documents/Arena/NBA-Arenas-Funding-and-Operations.pdf#search=nba%20arena

quick google search shows the Moda center opened in 1995 not 2015 (which is what your document shows). The date on the document must be the last renovation made. It also shows paycom opening in 2011. Which everone in OKC knows it opened way before then

Instead of focusing just on the Thunder Arena I thought might better to open up the discussion to the entire idea of public financing for sports arenas.

I watched this video earlier today regarding the Bears potential relocation to suburban Chicagoland. Well worth the time to watch.

https://youtu.be/ksyeJF4-LVo

Great piece of journalism and telling the story. Interesting approach for the Rams and their stadium in California. Their owner had deep pockets, built an entire complex with revenue generating opportunities with the stadium as the center piece.

Jerry Jones comes to mind with how big of a difference Cowboys stadium was compared to the basic design (other than the roof) of the formerTexas Stadium in Irving. However, I believe the city of Arlington gave a good portion of money towards the project in addition to Jones. Since then, the stadium has seen not only Cowboys games, but sold out A-List concerts, major college football events, NBA, etc. With the addition of the Rangers new ballpark still next door, I'm sure the city of Arlington appreciates the amount of revenue in hotels, retail, and food spent on events at these locations.

I understand the public frustration of financing an arena or stadium when you have an billionaire owner. However, if you are the owner, and the city is offering to pay millions of dollars, why wouldn't you take it? In California, and the Los Angles metro, you can use the leverage of the TV market size and political attitudes to go against the normal model of a city paying out millions of dollars. I don't think that approach works in a market like OKC, or Jacksonville, or Memphis.

I assume there is a benefit for the city of OKC being the owner of Paycom Center, however, I can also see advantages to the Thunder ownership group for owning 100 percent of a new space and controlling all revenue aspects and events in the space.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Royals and Chiefs in Kansas City. It's a comparable market to OKC with demographics versus a place like Los Angeles or Chicago. The Royals are looking to move downtown to a new stadium and the Chiefs, while they absolutely love the atmosphere and fan experience at Arrowhead, know that the skeleton of the stadium is aging. Both stadiums when built were unique in that KC did not build the cookie cutter multipurpose stadium of the 1970's, due to this, the Truman Sports Complex in KC outlasted every multipurpose stadium built during the same era. Their citizens voted for stadium improvements at both about a decade or so ago, but as this video about Chicago mentioned, the overall additional revenue streams simply do not exist in stadiums that were built for the purpose of packing fans in, and then going home after the game.

On a similar note both OU and Oklahoma State are making significant improvements in their athletic facilities well beyond the WOW factor of essential needs, these are being financed by private donations correct?

You learn something new everyday. For those that think publicly funded stadiums "pay for themselves", it turns out it is actually illegal for public debt spent on a sports venue to be paid off using money generated by the venue.

https://youtu.be/xNRTjSmfAPg

You learn something new everyday. For those that think publicly funded stadiums "pay for themselves", it turns out it is actually illegal for public debt spent on a sports venue to be paid off using money generated by the venue.

https://youtu.be/xNRTjSmfAPg

do you have an actual link to that legal opinion ?? or are you just making stuff up

do you have an actual link to that legal opinion ?? or are you just making stuff up

Watch the video. That is why I posted the link.

Now for a humourous take in the subject.

https://youtu.be/xcwJt4bcnXs

Watch the video. That is why I posted the link.

a random youtube video doesn't prove something is illegal ..

now if i say not saluting the flag is illegal .. that would be factual ... and if someone asked I could produce the law

a random youtube video doesn't prove something is illegal ..

now if i say not saluting the flag is illegal .. that would be factual ... and if someone asked I could produce the law

If you don't want to educate yourself, that is your call. Ignorance is bliss.

The video is from CNBC, but what do they know about finance.

If you don't want to educate yourself, that is your call. Ignorance is bliss.

The video is from CNBC, but what do they know about finance.

i watched the video ... even what they said the law is is not what you said ..

You learn something new everyday. For those that think publicly funded stadiums "pay for themselves", it turns out it is actually illegal for public debt spent on a sports venue to be paid off using money generated by the venue.

https://youtu.be/xNRTjSmfAPg
Wow….that amazing.

So, is that illegal in the universe,

Illegal on the internet?

Illegal on earth?

Illegal in the United States?

Illegal in Oklahoma?

Illegal in sovereign nations in Oklahoma?

i watched the video ... even what they said the law is is not what you said ..

So tell me what I got wrong.

Municipal bonds are tax free. Under the 90-10 rule it is illegal to repay tax free municipal bonds with revenue generated by the facility, including using rent collect from the team. It is why Cities have to use hotel taxes and other sources.

Here is Robert Reich explaining the same thing.

https://youtu.be/vLkyULxrWiE

So tell me what I got wrong.

Municipal bonds are tax free. Under the 90-10 rule it is illegal to repay tax free municipal bonds with revenue generated by the facility, including using rent collect from the team. It is why Cities have to use hotel taxes and other sources.

Here is Robert Reich explaining the same thing.

https://youtu.be/vLkyULxrWiE
Can you list for us the facilities being illegally funded and the court rulings affirming that?

I haven’t watched the video JTF posted but I want to point to JTF maybe you know or don’t know but a massive multi billion dollar private development adding high rise apartment towers as well as an APM mover to the connect to the K Line is underway. That APM may be extended south one day to connect to the G line.

Can you list for us the facilities being illegally funded and the court rulings affirming that?

To my knowledge no stadiums are being illegally funded. I think state and local governments are well aware of the law and abide by it. However, there are a number of people who claim that stadiums pay for themselves in increased tax revenue and rent charged to the team. That is not only false, but not even possible.

Think about it for a minute. If bonds could be paid back by taxes and rent collected on the stadium then why do cities use hotel taxes?

To my knowledge no stadiums are being illegally funded. I think state and local governments are well aware of the law and abide by it. However, there are a number of people who claim that stadiums pay for themselves in increased tax revenue and rent charged to the team. That is not only false, but not even possible.

Think about it for a minute. If bonds could be paid back by taxes and rent collected on the stadium then why do cities use hotel taxes?

this is such a circular argument ..

stadiums do increase tax revenue and that is used to pay for bonds ..

TIF dollars are used to pay off bonds ...

this is such a circular argument ..

stadiums do increase tax revenue and that is used to pay for bonds ..

TIF dollars are used to pay off bonds ...

They don't increase tax revenue according to every economist that has studied it. You might think it does, but that doesn't make it true.

https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/#:~:text=Stadium%20advocates%20often%20argue%20tha t,record%20of%20producing%20such%20benefits.

Question: Are publicly funded stadiums good investments for cities to make?

St. Louis Federal Reserve: No.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/april-2001/should-cities-pay-for-sports-facilities#:~:text=Public%20funds%20used%20for%20a ,that%20would%20not%20have%20been

The use of public funds to lure or keep teams begs several questions, the foremost of which is, "Are these good investments for cities?"

The short answer to this question is "No." When studying this issue, almost all economists and development specialists (at least those who work independently and not for a chamber of commerce or similar organization) conclude that the rate of return a city or metropolitan area receives for its investment is generally below that of alternative projects. In addition, evidence suggests that cities and metro areas that have invested heavily in sports stadiums and arenas have, on average, experienced slower income growth than those that have not.

New A's Stadium in Las vegas is a done deal. Not so fast. New lawsuits and public reaction have put it on hold. A poll conducted by the Nevada Legislature found that 87% of the public oppose the taxpayer funding. The Nevada Teachers Union has filed a petition to put funding to a public vote and with 87% already being opposed that would not be good for MLB or the A's

https://www.si.com/mlb/athletics/news/as-las-vegas-ballpark-facing-new-hurdles

New A's Stadium in Las vegas is a done deal. Not so fast. New lawsuits and public reaction have put it on hold. A poll conducted by the Nevada Legislature found that 87% of the public oppose the taxpayer funding. The Nevada Teachers Union has filed a petition to put funding to a public vote and with 87% already being opposed that would not be good for MLB or the A's

https://www.si.com/mlb/athletics/news/as-las-vegas-ballpark-facing-new-hurdles

lol would you like to wager on it getting done or not ??

lol would you like to wager on it getting done or not ??

Nope. I fully expect State government to vote against the will of the people. I am happy to see the majority of citizens are finally wise to the scam though.

Btw - the A's have yet to secure their portion of the funding, haven't hired an architect, nor a construction management firm, but they do have time. The Tropicana isn't even scheduled for demo for 2 more years.

If interested, here is a Youtubers take on the recent development.

https://youtu.be/W3bydP9GSo0

They don't increase tax revenue according to every economist that has studied it. You might think it does, but that doesn't make it true.

https://globalsportmatters.com/business/2022/06/15/so-your-city-wants-sports-stadium/#:~:text=Stadium%20advocates%20often%20argue%20tha t,record%20of%20producing%20such%20benefits.

My two cents:

I'll use Denver and Coors field as an example. The Colorado Rockies are one of the least successful teams in MLB yet draw well over 2 million fans each year. They generate around $280 million in revenue annually, so very conservatively, they generate at least $15 million in sales tax revenue directly.

The stadium was one of the first new structures in that part of downtown. Before Coors field was built, the area was a decrepit rail yard and has been completely redeveloped with office buildings, mid and high rise apartments/condos, restaurants, bars, actual real retail including grocery stores all of which generate property and sales tax revenue. Just last year, a large parking lot next to the stadium was developed into a multi-use complex with a large hotel, office buildings, housing and more entertainment venues all of which generate even more tax revenue.

When Denver held the MLB All-star game a couple of years ago, the tax revenue from that one game was estimated at $100 million.

Then there is "goodwill." Goodwill is not a benefit that is tangible but includes the publicity a city will receive from the sports team. If you watched TNT & other networks with NBA coverage when the Thunder vied for the title a few years ago, the broadcasts showed many vid clips of the downtown area and the new attractions. The same is true for Denver. Free, nationwide publicity like that is priceless and goes miles to create or change the perception people have of a city.

So, you can choose to adhere to your confirmation bias and believe only tangible numbers accountants and sports-hating academics give that ignore surrounding development that a major league sports venue can encourage and ignore the huge benefit of "image" and "goodwill" - which l'm sure you will. Between Coors field, the Ball arena and the convention center, there are events drawing thousands of people nearly every night of the year. Throw in the football stadium a dozen or so times a year and it's easy to see that Denver reaps hundreds of millions in total tax revenues annually. This inclues sales taxes, hotel taxes, thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of traveling visitors, parking and transit revenue, Uber/Lyft/taxi rides, hotels, restaurants/bars .... the benefits are endless.

Oklahoma City has only the Thunder but their benefit is still huge to the city as a whole but directly to the downtown area. Toss in the FAM/OKANA development and millions in new tax revenues that will create.

Nope, you can live under a rock believing sports teams and facilities don't benefit a city but the obvious reality is they do.

Do you have any actual numbers to back up what you believe, because economists that do have the numbers say none of that is happening.

But think about this, for the All-Star game to generate $100 million in tax revenue it would take over $1billion in new local spending by people not from Denver in just 3 days. Does that sound reasonable?

According to the City of Denever the All-Star game had almost no impact on the tax collections in the City, and when you compare July 2021 to July 2019 (2020 was a COVID year) Denver actually LOST sales tax revenue in spending impacted by the All-Star game.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/all-star-game-100-million-denver-economy-colorado/73-d0a788b3-a10e-4dcf-b487-925246faeae1

It's really an academic question when you consider that if OKC or Las Vegas don't offer up money to satiate whatever sports franchise or business wants the free money, someone else will do it. The only real solution would be for some sort of federal ban on these sorts of subsidies, but doing so would only ensure that U.S. cities are less competitive on the global stage.

It might work for baseball and football as there are really no international competitors. And cities like OKC couldn't compete for any kind of sports franchise as we wouldn't be able to bribe them to come here and other cities would present better opportunities.

Other countries usually don't offer public funding for sports venues. They aren't even doing it for the Olympics anymore, instead just using existing facilities.

Other countries usually don't offer public funding for sports venues. They aren't even doing it for the Olympics anymore, instead just using existing facilities.

Don't want to beat a dead horse with this guy - but he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. I've responded to him before posting legitimate sources then he starts new threads spewing nonsense.

I again implore you or anyone in this thread to read "Reversing Urban Decline, How and Why Sports, Entertainment, and Culture turn Cities into Major League Winners"

Other countries usually don't offer public funding for sports venues. They aren't even doing it for the Olympics anymore, instead just using existing facilities.

I shouldn't do this because I vowed to stop responding to you for my own mental health, but do you even know how to Google?

Now, you'll just go off on another easily disprovable diatribe, and then another, then another...


RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — An analysis by The Associated Press shows that the cost of putting on last year’s Rio de Janeiro Olympics was $13.1 billion, paid for with a mix of public and private money.

Officials of Brazil’s Public Authority for Olympic Legacy said at a news conference Wednesday, the cost for “sports-related venues” was 7.23 billion reals ($2.06 billion).

https://apnews.com/general-news-d1662ddb3bae4d2984ca4ab65012be78

Do you have any actual numbers to back up what you believe, because economists that do have the numbers say none of that is happening.

But think about this, for the All-Star game to generate $100 million in tax revenue it would take over $1billion in new local spending by people not from Denver in just 3 days. Does that sound reasonable?

As l stated, goodwill and image are not tangible. Accountants try to do it when valuing a company but is purely subjective. Tax numbers are simple and readily available. I'm not here to change the minds of people who dislike sports and wouldn't be convinced even when presented with numbers. You can take it or leave it.

I shouldn't do this because I vowed to stop responding to you for my own mental health, but do you even know how to Google?

Now, you'll just go off on another easily disprovable diatribe, and then another, then another...



https://apnews.com/general-news-d1662ddb3bae4d2984ca4ab65012be78

Yes, 3rd world countries do it but Paris and LA aren't. Brazil also lost $2 billion hosting the Olympics.
https://olympics.com/ioc/news/new-report-shows-85-per-cent-of-all-permanent-olympic-venues-still-in-use


As part of Olympic Agenda 2020, the IOC now requires Olympic organisers to make the most of existing and temporary venues, and to build new ones only when there is a proven long-term need. New materials and technologies allow increased use of temporary facilities, thus reducing emissions from construction, for example.

“Olympic hosts now have more flexibility to design the Games so that they meet the long-term development plans of a city or region,” said Marie Sallois, IOC Director for Corporate and Sustainable Development. “Today, it is the Games that adapt to their host and not the other way around.”

Upcoming editions of the Games Paris 2024 and Milano Cortina 2026 have reduced their planned construction so that new venues will account for, respectively, just 5 and 7 per cent of the venues used. And with a wealth of world-class assets at its disposal, Los Angeles will host the Olympic Games in 2028 without building a single new permanent venue.

As l stated, goodwill and image are not tangible. Accountants try to do it when valuing a company but is purely subjective. Tax numbers are simple and readily available. I'm not here to change the minds of people who dislike sports and wouldn't be convinced even when presented with numbers. You can take it or leave it.

Someone can like sports and also want the owners to pay for their venue, but lets talk about the intangibles.

I hear people say there is value in seeing the OKC skyline and Scissortail Park on TV during commercial breakaways. Okay, what is that intangible value? What is the expected result of someone in Boston seeing the OKC skyline?

Someone can like sports and also want the owners to pay for their venue, but lets talk about the intangibles.

I hear people say there is value in seeing the OKC skyline and Scissortail Park on TV during commercial breakaways. Okay, what is that intangible value? What is the expected result of someone in Boston seeing the OKC skyline?

Brand recognition and identity.

Former OKC Mayor Mick Cornett put together a documentary called "The Boom, The Bust, The Bomb" One of the topics covered was the United Airlines repair center that OKC competed with against Indianapolis. At the time, United apparently sent their search committee to OKC on the weekend downtown, and found out that it was a ghost town. United didn't want to build here, despite the incentives, because they viewed it as undesirable for their employees. This was one of the catalyst for MAPS and a penny tax to improve civic projects for quality of life in OKC.

30 years later and we have an NBA team thanks to an arena, a much more desirable downtown with parks, entertainment, museums, ballpark, etc, and lots of private investment to compliment it.

United Airlines didn't come to OKC, but other companies have, and many people have relocated here which is evident of our population boom compared to other cities since the 1990's. Tulsa has had similar civic projects, but they have not been propped up on the same national and international stage as OKC. The skyline shots shown during NBA games can change perceptions on quality of life in OKC.

Yes, 3rd world countries do it but Paris and LA aren't. Brazil also lost $2 billion hosting the Olympics.
https://olympics.com/ioc/news/new-report-shows-85-per-cent-of-all-permanent-olympic-venues-still-in-use

Right on cue. Of course now you are adding qualifiers and posting random crap that doesn't begin to match your original assertion.


For the 100th time, I am reminding myself to ignore you.

Right on cue. Of course now you are adding qualifiers and posting random crap that doesn't begin to match your original assertion.


For the 100th time, I am reminding myself to ignore you.

Pete, stop editing my comments. If you are going to reply to me use what I said.

You cited Rio as an example of foreign countries using public funds to build Olympic facilites. I posted the IOC requirement from 3 years ago telling host cities to stop building new venues.

Don't want to beat a dead horse with this guy - but he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. I've responded to him before posting legitimate sources then he starts new threads spewing nonsense.

I again implore you or anyone in this thread to read "Reversing Urban Decline, How and Why Sports, Entertainment, and Culture turn Cities into Major League Winners"

I guess I missed that. I'm a New Urbanist so I would probably find that interesting. Can you provide the link again?

Brand recognition and identity.

Former OKC Mayor Mick Cornett put together a documentary called "The Boom, The Bust, The Bomb" One of the topics covered was the United Airlines repair center that OKC competed with against Indianapolis. At the time, United apparently sent their search committee to OKC on the weekend downtown, and found out that it was a ghost town. United didn't want to build here, despite the incentives, because they viewed it as undesirable for their employees. This was one of the catalyst for MAPS and a penny tax to improve civic projects for quality of life in OKC.

30 years later and we have an NBA team thanks to an arena, a much more desirable downtown with parks, entertainment, museums, ballpark, etc, and lots of private investment to compliment it.

United Airlines didn't come to OKC, but other companies have, and many people have relocated here which is evident of our population boom compared to other cities since the 1990's. Tulsa has had similar civic projects, but they have not been propped up on the same national and international stage as OKC. The skyline shots shown during NBA games can change perceptions on quality of life in OKC.

If sports teams have an impact on corporate relocations how come these don't show up in economic analysis? The intangibles never seem to make their way into the tangibles.

Team owners have for decades tried to use this argument to support public funding, but in every single economic analysis this impact never materializes, which leads to the question, if a City is going to spend $500 million on brand recognition, is a sports stadium the best way to do it, or is there a better way to spend $500 million?