Pure emotion’ frequently drives debates on sports stadium deals

Irwin Kishner, co-chair of Herrick's Sports Law Group and co-chair of Herrick's Corporate Department, spoke to the Alabama Reflector and Stateline about the emotional components that play into sports stadium funding debates. The article notes that "[e]xperts nearly unanimously agree that public subsidies for stadiums are a poor investment, but that hasn’t slowed a wave of local and state spending for billionaire team owners."

"But cities and states have more at stake than raw economics," said Irwin.

Irwin "likened the stadium debate to those surrounding the Olympics: Research has found that host cities generally spend well in excess of the revenue generated by the games. But cities and nations still fiercely compete for the chance to host the high-profile event."

“It elevates the status of venues,” Irwin said. “And I think it’s very much the same thing with stadiums and arenas.”

In addition, Irwin noted that cities also face potential economic consequences of lost jobs and tax revenues if teams relocate.

By way of example, Oakland, California lost both its pro football and baseball teams to Nevada after local stadium talks fell apart. “What happened in Oakland is a classic example of what happens when a team doesn’t get their building in the way they want it,” Kishner said.

"And those sorts of relocations can leave lasting marks," Irwin noted, "pointing to the sour feelings that still persist in Brooklyn decades after MLB’s Dodgers left for Los Angeles. Other cities have similarly iconic teams, such as the NFL’s Chicago Bears."

“When push comes to shove, municipalities would be embarrassed to lose a team. I mean, could you imagine the Bears playing in St. Louis as an argument?” Irwin said. “I think Chicago would have something to say about that in a very emotional way. And by the way, these things take generations to get past.”

Read the full article in the Alabama Reflector here. Access may require a subscription.