http://skift.com/2014/11/27/arizona-businesses-hope-the-home-team-doesnt-make-the-super-bowl/
The businesses of Arizona hope the playoff bound Arizona Cardinals does not make it to the Super Bowl, which will be played in Glendale this year, the team's home stadium... Sounds weird, right? Financially though, the businesses right the right to be concerned if the Cardinals get the NFC title, and that is a lack of income from tourism.
The NFL and local organizing committees estimated that the Super Bowl brings in $500 million of economic impact to the host community. If the Cardinals go to the Super Bowl, that $500 million could easily turn into only $50 million. That is because there would be way fewer tourists, and they are the only people to spend significant amounts of money on an event like this, not the locals. Some of the loss in Super Bowl revenue would be made up in extra Cardinals' playoff games, so the lost income will not be as bad as it could have been without considering that.
I think the Super Bowl will be extremely profitable at the stadium. I do not agree that tourism will bring the $500 million to only $50 million. Locals fans and businesses will support their hometown team and spend some money they would not have done in the regular season; however, assuming the estimates would be accurate, the best possible scenario would be the the Cardinals lose in the NFC Championship game.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
A (Football) Tale of 2 Universities
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/12/16/one-universitys-decision-drop-football-should-be-model-others-essay
The college football frenzy, where schools are in an athletic arms race, feeling it necessary to send spend ridiculous funds on high coaches' salaries and fancy facilities to not suffer athletic humiliation and the wrath of angry alumni and fans, is taking full force as bowl season is right around the corner. Despite this, University of Alabama Birmingham has ended the school's football program after the regular season came to a close.
Its stadium, Legion Field, which seats 72,000 people, could barely hold an average attendance of 15,000 people per game since Alabama and Auburn takes the spotlight. UAB lost $18 million on athletics annually, mainly because of football, so cutting the sport help eliminate some of the loss without having to spend millions of dollars on new facilities.
Contrasting the UAB experience is Ohio University. Their average attendance is the same, but the stadium's capacity is just 24,00. Ohio State University takes fans from OU, just like UAB has been experiencing. The school also losses $18 million on athletics annually. Despite of the loss in money, OU has a different plan; they will had a study hall for athletes costing $5 million.
From the schools here (UAB and OU), I think UAB will be better off in the long hall. They know that they cannot compete financially in athletics in the state of Alabama, so the college would be saving themselves a ton of money.
OU might be making a mistake in taking their football program active and spending millions on extra dollars on unnecessary libraries. The university is just wasting their money on sports instead of spending money on necessary fine arts programs and scholarships on striving students.
The college football frenzy, where schools are in an athletic arms race, feeling it necessary to send spend ridiculous funds on high coaches' salaries and fancy facilities to not suffer athletic humiliation and the wrath of angry alumni and fans, is taking full force as bowl season is right around the corner. Despite this, University of Alabama Birmingham has ended the school's football program after the regular season came to a close.
Its stadium, Legion Field, which seats 72,000 people, could barely hold an average attendance of 15,000 people per game since Alabama and Auburn takes the spotlight. UAB lost $18 million on athletics annually, mainly because of football, so cutting the sport help eliminate some of the loss without having to spend millions of dollars on new facilities.
Contrasting the UAB experience is Ohio University. Their average attendance is the same, but the stadium's capacity is just 24,00. Ohio State University takes fans from OU, just like UAB has been experiencing. The school also losses $18 million on athletics annually. Despite of the loss in money, OU has a different plan; they will had a study hall for athletes costing $5 million.
From the schools here (UAB and OU), I think UAB will be better off in the long hall. They know that they cannot compete financially in athletics in the state of Alabama, so the college would be saving themselves a ton of money.
OU might be making a mistake in taking their football program active and spending millions on extra dollars on unnecessary libraries. The university is just wasting their money on sports instead of spending money on necessary fine arts programs and scholarships on striving students.
Monday, December 15, 2014
A good deal? Other teams have paid more than Rays to break lease
/http://tbo.com/news/politics/a-good-deal-other-teams-have-paid-more-than-rays-to-break-lease-20141213/
St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman and Tampa Bay Rays officials jointly announced a deal that would let the baseball team break its Tropicana Field contract. This give the Rays the chance to move out of Tampa Bay for just $24 million over the next 12 years, but sports economists have been confused and just a bit baffled about why this deal would have been okay-ed. Here are some examples why the economists do not agree with this potential deal.
1) After the Supersonics moved out of Seattle and into Oklahoma City in 2008, the team payed a $45 million out-of-court settlement to Seattle.
2) The city of Pontiac in 2000 sued the Detroit Lions for damages totaling more than $100 million when the team broke its lease and left the Silverdome.
The main reason why the city of St. Petersburg and Tampa Bay would be okay with this deal is because the stadium is losing the area $1.4 million per year. This is due to $1 million of property insurance annually and $1.8 million which covers Tropicana Field's game days or other hosting events.
If the Rays leave, the area would demo the stadium to avoid having to maintain an empty building. This would give the 84-area site much needed development and add millions of tax dollars as a result.
I think this is a good potential move by St. Petersburg and Tampa Bay officials. The stadium is a useless $300 million + money pit that is not helping the cities.
St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman and Tampa Bay Rays officials jointly announced a deal that would let the baseball team break its Tropicana Field contract. This give the Rays the chance to move out of Tampa Bay for just $24 million over the next 12 years, but sports economists have been confused and just a bit baffled about why this deal would have been okay-ed. Here are some examples why the economists do not agree with this potential deal.
1) After the Supersonics moved out of Seattle and into Oklahoma City in 2008, the team payed a $45 million out-of-court settlement to Seattle.
2) The city of Pontiac in 2000 sued the Detroit Lions for damages totaling more than $100 million when the team broke its lease and left the Silverdome.
The main reason why the city of St. Petersburg and Tampa Bay would be okay with this deal is because the stadium is losing the area $1.4 million per year. This is due to $1 million of property insurance annually and $1.8 million which covers Tropicana Field's game days or other hosting events.
If the Rays leave, the area would demo the stadium to avoid having to maintain an empty building. This would give the 84-area site much needed development and add millions of tax dollars as a result.
I think this is a good potential move by St. Petersburg and Tampa Bay officials. The stadium is a useless $300 million + money pit that is not helping the cities.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Seattle gridlock slows down NHL expansion plans
http://seattletimes.com/html/hockey/2025238270_bakercolumn15xml.html
The NHL's expansion plans have been mostly stalled because of Seattle; however, the city does want a hockey team. The main reasons for the stall are:
1) Seattle does not have a proper venue since the Seattle Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City.
2) The approval of the Sodo arena project is not likely until after 2016, and Seattle's Department of Transportation and the city counsel would have to approve other grants and regulations which would take another four or five months for approval.
The Florida Panthers and Arizona Coyotes would have been candidates for moving to Seattle in 2018 or 2019, but that does not seem overly likely right now.
I always wanted an NHL team in Seattle. The city loves sports and would be very willing to spend money to see hockey and basketball games. Anyhow, I would think the Florida Panthers would have been more likely to move to Seattle than Arizona since the Coyotes could have moved to Canada for the short-term.
Also, I want my Supersonics back!
The NHL's expansion plans have been mostly stalled because of Seattle; however, the city does want a hockey team. The main reasons for the stall are:
1) Seattle does not have a proper venue since the Seattle Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City.
2) The approval of the Sodo arena project is not likely until after 2016, and Seattle's Department of Transportation and the city counsel would have to approve other grants and regulations which would take another four or five months for approval.
The Florida Panthers and Arizona Coyotes would have been candidates for moving to Seattle in 2018 or 2019, but that does not seem overly likely right now.
I always wanted an NHL team in Seattle. The city loves sports and would be very willing to spend money to see hockey and basketball games. Anyhow, I would think the Florida Panthers would have been more likely to move to Seattle than Arizona since the Coyotes could have moved to Canada for the short-term.
Also, I want my Supersonics back!
Friday, October 31, 2014
Players, Teams Strike Hoops Gold As NBA Nearly Triples Prior Media Deal
http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2014/10/06/players-teams-strike-hoops-gold-as-nba-nearly-triples-prior-media-deal/
My last blog (How TV's Sports Addiction Could Destroy Its Business) was about this update, so to recap...
This deal is a win-win for the NBA since the players and owners will be making more money. This is a good thing for the league. There will be no way for this deal to backfire. The NBA is too popular.
My last blog (How TV's Sports Addiction Could Destroy Its Business) was about this update, so to recap...
- ESPN and Turner Sports have completed a 9 year deal worth $24 billion to renew their NBA media rights through the 2024-2025 season (starts with 2016-2017 season).
- This happened because of basketball's growth, mega-superstars (LeBron James, Kevin Durant...), and the NBA's global marketability .
This deal is a win-win for the NBA since the players and owners will be making more money. This is a good thing for the league. There will be no way for this deal to backfire. The NBA is too popular.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
How TV's Sports Addiction Could Destroy Its Business
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/how-televisions-sports-addiction-could-ultimately-destroy-its-business/381147/
Over the weekend, the NBA signed a deal with ESPN and TNT worth $24 billion between 2016 and the 2024-2025 season. The association got this deal for a couple of reasons.
I think this deal is good for the NBA even if expanded basic cable keeps getting more expensive and unaffordable. ESPN is strong enough to handle any threat to pay-TV's business by directly charging its core fans. Consumers and potential consumers will purchase TV bundles because of live sporting events.
Over the weekend, the NBA signed a deal with ESPN and TNT worth $24 billion between 2016 and the 2024-2025 season. The association got this deal for a couple of reasons.
- The decisive leadership of the new commissioner Adam Silver, most known for the handling of the Donald Sterling racism issue, is making the NBA something fans can watch and respect at the same time.
- The league's superstars (LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul) are international stars that can make the NBA more marketable globally.
- The NBA's rating have grown in the last ten years.
I think this deal is good for the NBA even if expanded basic cable keeps getting more expensive and unaffordable. ESPN is strong enough to handle any threat to pay-TV's business by directly charging its core fans. Consumers and potential consumers will purchase TV bundles because of live sporting events.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Can rich countries afford the Olympics?
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/07/news/olympics-norway-cost/index.html
Norway has pulled out of the race to host the 2022 Winter Games, leaving only Being, China and Almaty, Kazakhstan in the running.
Norway is a wealthy nation and passionate about winter sports. The logical explanations on why the country declined hosted are...
1) "There's too much wining and dining... It doesn't fit with Norwegian culture," said a government source from Norway. The fanciness of the Olympics was too much for them. They rather keep it simple and just hold good events.
2) The Norwegian citizens were not convinced that the money spent would have been too much and decided it was not worth holding the 2022 Winter Games. Norway is one of the developed nations that is struggling with ballooning debt and voter opposition, that opens the door for more developing nations, who are more likely to gain from showing themselves to the world.
Despite of the trend of developed nations dropping Olympic bids since 2000, rich countries will still participate holding the games. Salt Lake City (United States) might bid for the 2026 Winter Games.
The more reasonable reason for Norway not holding the games is '2)'. National debt is limiting developed nations' ability to hold big global events and share their culture and gain revenue.
Norway has pulled out of the race to host the 2022 Winter Games, leaving only Being, China and Almaty, Kazakhstan in the running.
Norway is a wealthy nation and passionate about winter sports. The logical explanations on why the country declined hosted are...
1) "There's too much wining and dining... It doesn't fit with Norwegian culture," said a government source from Norway. The fanciness of the Olympics was too much for them. They rather keep it simple and just hold good events.
2) The Norwegian citizens were not convinced that the money spent would have been too much and decided it was not worth holding the 2022 Winter Games. Norway is one of the developed nations that is struggling with ballooning debt and voter opposition, that opens the door for more developing nations, who are more likely to gain from showing themselves to the world.
Despite of the trend of developed nations dropping Olympic bids since 2000, rich countries will still participate holding the games. Salt Lake City (United States) might bid for the 2026 Winter Games.
The more reasonable reason for Norway not holding the games is '2)'. National debt is limiting developed nations' ability to hold big global events and share their culture and gain revenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)