For decades, scientific study has been obvious: Taxpayers almost never get their cash back on funded sports stadiums.
And still, over and over again, U. S. cities and states find themselves locked in uneven conversations with precious basketball, football and basketball team, hoping to keep them from jumping to a new business.
Kansas wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to entice the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs or the MLB’s Royals from their nearby, nearby, Missouri arenas. According to researcher Victor Matheson, who studies facility grants, it might be one of the most expensive stadium deals ever.
” This is wildly destructive”, he said. Because you’re only spending billions of dollars to simply walk economic engagement from one place in the subway area to another, this is in some ways considerably worse than interstate competition.
Mack, an economics professor at College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts, watched attentively in June as legislators in Topeka, Kansas, approved an expansion of an often-criticized tax reward program with the aim of subsidizing a new venue for one or both groups.
People who praised the Kansas and Missouri agreement, which some had hoped would establish a new model for states that may reduce business tax incentives, are viewed as especially reckless in the bidding war for the groups.
The so-called financial Border War, a practice that has been around for a long time, saw the Democratic governor of Kansas and the Republican government of Missouri observing the end of the so-called financial Border War. Because it paid businesses to relocate without fostering new growth for the local economy, the practice was perceived as useless.
Kansas and Missouri, two says whose rivalries date back to the bloody Civil War days, both benefited greatly from the ceasefire. However, it also received praise from liberals and conservatives, who said it was a blow to corporate security and the jaded practice of corporations pitting governments against one another.
But more powerful than the nonpartisan cross-border cease-fire, obviously, is the beauty of a new professional sporting facility.
” Absolutely every piece of public coverage that people said was awful before is being seen around”, said Kansas City, Missouri, Democrat Mayor Quinton Lucas.
Professional sports teams compete against each other across the nation on behalf of several local and state governments, a trend that will probably grow as the number of stadium leases that are currently in effect are canceled.
It’s a site from the professional sports handbook: Teams usually threaten to move to another markets — one without an NFL or NBA company, for example. But when those efforts do n’t work, team owners often seek to spark competition among local jurisdictions, Matheson said.
To bring that NBA franchise back to Camden, New Jersey, authorities are now in discussions with the Philadelphia 76ers ‘ user. And the NFL’s Washington Commanders, whose latest venue is in Maryland, are in discussions with leaders in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia as they look to establish a new service.
” If there’s not a credible threat to relocate”, Matheson said,” the only way to really get the money out of people’s hands is to play localities against one another”.
Lucas claimed that the Chiefs and Royals have more leverage in negotiations because of the bidding war between Kansas and Missouri and local governments in each. But it’s up to elected officials to keep from being outmatched.
” I do think some support is important”, Lucas said. The saying goes,” Giving away the Farm is not.”
The Kansas sales tax and revenue bond program, known as STAR, was expanded by the GOP-controlled legislature in Topeka to help pay off construction debt. If the teams were to hop the state line, they could benefit from an unprecedented level of taxpayer support: as much as 70 % of the costs of two stadiums, which could amount to billions.
The law allows the state to strike stadium deals with little to no public support, doubles down on a state incentive program with a weak track record of success, and could put the state’s finances in danger, all in exchange for the chance to lure a nearby sports team.
” I do not like this. At a June caucus meeting of House Democrats, Kansas state representative Jason Probst said,” It feels disgusting.” ” I find this entire show to be repulsive.” And it’s still the right course of action.
In an interview, Probst, who is from Hutchinson in central Kansas, said the reality of professional sports requires governments” to play the game” and offer public assistance, lest they risk losing teams altogether.
” You can stand on your principles. … But if another state is n’t playing by the same set of rules you are, then they’re going to make that investment and they’re going to take that away”, he said.
Reigniting the Border War
On a scorching summer day in 2019, hundreds of people gathered to applaud the removal of Missouri and Kansas’s tax incentives for moving businesses and jobs between states.
The Kansas City metro area, which spans both states, is estimated to have lost more than$ 300 million over the course of ten years and had hardly any new employment.
” Sometimes common sense does prevail”, Missouri’s Republican , Gov. At the time, Mike Parson said. Because no scientist is required to understand this, both states were in for a bad deal.
The Parson’s office did not respond to requesting comment on this story. However, the governor stated in July that he was certain that the NFL team would remain stationed at Missouri’s Arrowhead Stadium.
” I’m not too worried about Kansas at this point”, Parson said.
This spring,  , voters ‘ rejection of a 40-year sales tax , to help finance a new Royals stadium — and upgrades for Arrowhead — sparked a fear that the teams might leave if they do n’t get new facilities. Republicans in Kansas pushed to negotiate with the teams because they were concerned they might leave the area altogether after criticizing voters in the home county of the Chiefs and Royals.
The two states ‘ dormant competition was reignited by that fear.
” And then they said,’ Oh, but this is sports, that does n’t count,'” Matheson said. ” Bad economics with sports teams seems to have few boundaries”.
While some , Missouri officials have criticized Kansas ‘ overtures , to the teams, Kansas Democratic Gov. When she agreed to the Border War truce in June, Laura Kelly claimed that when she promised to leave the teams at home.
Last week, Kelly’s office declined to comment on the legislation, referring questions to the Kansas Department of Commerce, which would oversee any stadium deals. Although the organization did not respond to inquiries, a statement stated that such projects “require discretion and confidentiality.”
According to department spokesman Patrick Lowry, the department wo n’t give any information about the discussions that are raging in the near future.
Republican from Lee’s Summit in suburban Kansas City, Republican Jonathan Patterson, the leader of the Missouri House, also claimed that the truce was n’t intended to protect sports teams and that his state should keep the teams. He anticipates that the state will make a similar offer.
” Sports teams sort of belong in a unique category of their own,” he said. I do n’t think that’s what that legislation really was meant for”, Patterson said of the truce.
Kansas ‘ offer to the Chiefs and Royals strengthens a frequently criticized program aimed at promoting state-wide major tourist attractions.
But in most cases, the STAR bond program, according to a state audit, failed at its goal of increasing tourism. According to the audit, there may have been instances where Kansans were able to spend money in Kansas rather than move to Missouri.
However, the audit found that “local visitors frequently move existing economic activity from one area of Kansas to another.”
Prairiefire, a sprawling development in the Kansas suburb of Overland Park,  , defaulted on its STAR construction bonds , earlier this year because sales tax revenues from its restaurants, movie theater and museum came in far below projections.
The Chiefs or Royals would be able to pay off construction loans using the stadium’s increased sales and liquor tax collections, according to the proposal for the stadiums. In pushing for the legislation, lawmakers noted that the money for the stadium would come from spending in and around the stadiums, not general taxpayers.
And they asserted that bond investors would be held accountable if sales tax collections are subpar.
However, Geoffrey Propheter, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver’s School of Public Affairs, said it’s unclear how interested investors will be in paying for stadium projects that typically do n’t generate enough money to pay for them.
And if those state-issued bonds were ever at risk of failure, he said, lawmakers would feel implicit pressure to bail out the stadium.
” In the real world, there’s a huge risk to Kansas state taxpayers”, he said. They will have to choose to “bail out” the project or remain silent. And if they do nothing, their credit, the state’s credit worthiness, will take a hit. And that will increase the cost of all upcoming borrowing.
‘ Zero-sum’ game between states
The Kansas-Missouri truce was viewed by experts as a model for other states and cities.
The situation between Kansas and Missouri caught our attention because it provided a test for whether or not this will work, according to Marc Joffe, a think tank for the libertarian Cato Institute. ” Sports teams are just too big of a war, and they were n’t able to avoid the temptation,” said one player who commented,” And there have been some encouraging results since 2019.”
The institute , is studying , the Kansas-Missouri truce, in its larger effort to end bidding wars for factories and other major employers.
Joffe criticized such competition as wasteful, and said bidding for stadiums was no exception.
” It is at best a zero-sum game”, Joffe said,” and because of all the waste involved, it’s a really negative-sum game”.
Joffe cited the bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers known as the Coalition to Phase Out Corporate Tax Giveaways, which sponsored bills in more than a dozen legislatures between 2019 and 2021.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Christopher Rabb, a Democrat, has  , twice introduced legislation in Harrisburg , to end corporate subsidies. He said he was motivated by Amazon’s 2018 announcement that it was seeking a new corporate headquarters, a move that set off a national bidding war among cities.
He firmly believes that corporate sponsorship is wasteful, particularly for professional sports teams. The Philadelphia 76ers ‘ discussions of moving across the Delaware River to New Jersey are seen as a ruse to obtain government subsidies.
He compared pursuing the alleged economic benefits of stadiums and arenas to seeking “fool’s gold” because the majority of ordinary people ca n’t afford to watch professional games.
How does the overall quality of opportunity for regular Philadelphians actually change as a result? It does n’t”, he said. ” Let’s be honest: This is the sandbox of billionaires”.
Rabb argued that elected officials should concentrate on issues that benefit marginalized people rather than the “excessively wealthy,” like team owners.
After talks stalled over a new arena for the 76ers in Philadelphia, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said , he proposed the team relocate , just a few miles to Camden.
Murphy’s office declined to comment, but the Democratic governor , told a local television station , that the team’s interest was “legitimate”.
” We think we got an angle here. We’re taking it seriously. Where it lands? I ca n’t promise you”, he said. We shall see, I believe they are also taking it seriously. Do n’t get angry at me if I say this as a Boston Celtics fan.
However, according to Neil deMause, a journalist who has written a book about stadium subsidies, this kind of competition between states only benefits the teams. Taxpayers and fans, he said, stand to gain little, especially if game tickets become more expensive at new facilities.
The best thing you can do, according to deMause, is reject it for your state and allow the other state to construct the stadiums, according to all the economists I know. You do n’t have to pay for building the thing, but you still get to drive across the border and play the games the same way you would otherwise.
___
© 2024 States Newsroom
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
