The Oakland Athletics Just Showed Why They Don't Need Taxpayers To Buy Their New Stadium
But it didn't matter, as Nevada lawmakers approved a $600 million handout to the team.

As the Nevada Legislature was considering a bill earlier this week that would give the Oakland Athletics about $600 million in public money for a new stadium in Las Vegas, the team inadvertently made a pretty good argument for why it doesn't need the handout.
Here's what happened: On Tuesday, Athletics fans in Oakland staged a "reverse boycott" in an attempt to demonstrate that the team—which has for years lagged near the bottom of the MLB in terms of attendance—actually could put butts in the seats if the on-field product was any good. The Athletics have one of the worst records in the majors this year and have posted an average attendance of about 9,000 per game, but more than 27,000 people showed up for Tuesday's reverse boycott, The Mercury News reported. That's still only about three-quarters of the capacity of their current home, Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum.
Perhaps not wanting to be seen as profiting from a protest staged against the team's owners, the Athletics announced that they would donate all ticket sale revenue from Tuesday's game to a local food bank. A noble gesture, sure, but a revealing one too. In a tweet, the team said ticket revenue from the game totaled $811,107.
That's over $800,000 in ticket revenue—a total that does not include sales of overpriced beers, $7.79 hot dogs, team merchandise, etc.—from a single not-sold-out game. Each team gets 81 home games in an MLB season. It's not hard to do the math.
There's nothing wrong with the Athletics potentially earning hundreds of millions of dollars in ticket sales every year, of course. Quite the opposite: It's a testament to America's prosperity that even a struggling professional baseball franchise is still, by any normal measure, a very lucrative business.
But it's more than a little awkward for the Athletics to broadcast that fact this week, after months of telling lawmakers in Nevada that the team—more specifically, team owner John Fisher—requires taxpayers to pick up a sizable portion of the tab for a new ballpark.
It didn't make much of a difference in the end. Nevada lawmakers approved the stadium bill this week, and Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, signed it. The bill provides $380 million in direct subsidies from the state to the team, but the actual tab for the public is $600 million once tax breaks and other financing are included. At his Field of Schemes blog, stadium subsidy critic Neil deMause estimates this to be the third-largest stadium subsidy ever awarded to an MLB franchise.
Even though it is common knowledge that the public never comes out ahead on stadium deals, the Athletics have hired consultants to promise that this time is different. It's true that there's no other city quite like Las Vegas—stadium backers say the 40 million annual tourists flowing through town make the math work in ways that it doesn't in other places.
Unfortunately for them, it's possible to check the math on those claims. Berry College economist E.F. Stephenson found that there is no statistically significant increase in hotel room occupancy rates when the Vegas Golden Knights, the city's NHL team, play home games. Maybe more visitors will flock to Las Vegas to see a bad baseball team play, but that seems unlikely. Instead, as is almost always the case, any economic activity directed toward the new ballpark will be shifted away from other entertainment options in the area.
"People will always say, 'Oh, but this one is different.' Every single stadium deal I've ever looked at the people who are supporting this say, 'This one will be different.' And when we look at it 15 to 20 years later, it's exactly the same as they always are," J.C. Bradbury, a sports economics professor at Kennesaw State University, told The Nevada Independent earlier this month. "There's always an excuse, and the reason is that there's a lot of money to be made by getting this stadium funded. And so the owner is going to benefit tremendously."
The Athletics don't need a handout. The public money being thrown at the stadium deal is a bad investment. All those facts are right out in the open, but lawmakers in Nevada didn't bother to notice.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Do these stadium grifts ever have clawback provisions?
Yeah. I live in Vegas. If the ticker take is $800k per game, then there should have been some kind of loan made, not a grant, stipulated to be paid back within 5 years from the ticket take.
As a local who isn't in the sports or casino scene, I resent "my tax dollars at work" when the team has means to purchase their own stadium!
I earn approximately $13,000 a month working part-time. I was curious to learn more after hearing from multiple people about the amount of money they were able to make online. Well, it all happened and totally bs-11 changed my life. Everyone must now use this website to try out this job.
.
.
Detail Are Here——————————>>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
to her dying day my grandmother was displeased the A’s left Kansas City
Did she have a problem with them leaving Philly?
never asked.
If you live in Philly, you shouldn't be allowed to leave.
I was a kid in KC when the A’s were there. Was old enough to vaguely remember going to the games, etc. The owner – Charlie Finley – was hated by the residents when they left. I believe that the attendance for the Athletic’s was among the highest in the league, hence part of the animosity.
The coolest thing I remember about the games was the way new balls were delivered to the umps. That chore was provided by an “animatronic” rabbit that popped out of the ground with a basket full of baseballs resting on his head. Harvey was the name I believe.
And, this time, they’ll get Socialism right as well.
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too.
HERE====)>>> https://www.apprichs.com
Ah, you see, "it's never properly been tried before", but TTID 🙂
3 pro teams have left in the last 5 years.
Oakland is a shithole.
That is all.
So are lots of major league cities. Why can't that side of the Bay support teams?
"Why can’t that side of the Bay support teams?"
Attendance at Raiders' games was always decent. During their hay-day, they were always sold out.
On the other hand, even when the A's were one of the best teams in baseball, their attendance was average at best. My feeling, after living in Oakland until I was twenty-five, is that Oakland just isn't a "baseball town."
Perhaps few Oaklandites are interested in buying a high-priced ticket to watch the grass grow while grown men occasionally spend a few seconds playing a children's game. Will the residents or tourists in Las Vegas be more interested?
The city of Oakland is the same size as the city of Miami and the city of Minneapolis. And the city of Long Beach and the city of Bakersfield.
The difference is Oakland started as a trolley-car suburb of San Francisco with only the port/transportation industries based there. Like Long Beach. The 'East Bay' may be a big MSA but it is not centered around Oakland. Miami and Minneapolis have large enough MSA's to support cartelized sports teams too - but those MSA's are centered around those cities.
Long Beach will never have a pro sports team as long as pro sports in the US are cartels. It'll always be LA's dingleberry. Bakersfield was always a city but its MSA is the 66th biggest in the US - so forget it for any sport that prohibits any more teams than that. And MLB wants to eliminate teams not expand them.
San Jose is the logical place for a second team in the Bay Area. The A's wanted to move there - and San Jose wanted an MLB team there. But that is legally Giants territory by the agreement of the MLB cartel and the Giants were NOT interested in that. And the Supreme Court has agreed to be MLB's puppet. That was the purpose of the MLB return to Washington in 2005. To buy off the federal government from talking about the anti-trust exemption.
For sound economic perspective please go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Quite simply, these local government entities cannot help it. It's reflexive.
The governor signed a terrible bill "protecting" sex change surgeries for minors to get this passed.
HUMANS ARE SICK. There should be a universal ban on subsidies for any company.
This story is more the usual ideological narrative from Reason than anything of value. They've become so fucking boring and predictable re economics.
What's going to be interesting imo is the economic change over the next decade or two between Oakland/East Bay v Las Vegas. Oakland has lost all their major pro sports over the last few years - two of them to Las Vegas. So they are now back to the 1960's when they last had zero pro sports teams. Did they accomplish (roughly) what they set out to accomplish way back via the path of getting pro sports? Does that now roll back with no sports?
Las Vegas now has three pro sports where a few years ago they had none. Obviously there's little/no economic or cultural similarity between Oakland of the 1960's and Vegas of now - except the strategy of using pro sports to achieve some civic purpose.
I am curious as to if there will be any real decline in revenues et al for Oakland.
afaik, they sold the colosseum to the A's in two separate transactions. So the city/county have paid off any debt and there is no financial tail.
They are always dishonest with these articles. They always make it look like the teams are ripping everybody off. Those $7.99 hot dogs and the $10 beers. What they don't mention is that most of these stadiums are run by the City, County or an Authority combining the two. That's who sets the prices for those and that's who gets most of the revenue from them. Then how about looking at the taxes. The perking lots for the baseball, football stadiums and the hockey arenas are used everyday even if there isn't a game or event. Those lots were built with the same funding as the venues. I live near Pittsburgh. The City has a 40% tax on parking. Somehow that revenue never gets entered into the equation. Then you have the amusement taxes and sales taxes imposed by the City, the Hotel tax by the County and others.
Let's face it the politicians wouldn't let the A's or any other team build their own venue. That would cut them out of everything except the taxes.
And Boehm says the math isn’t hard, while giving no data about costs.
A couple of good comments here about these types of articles being disingenuous… and this one is definitely that. Why no mention of the $15M per year lease that the A’s pay to use the coliseum (someone erroneously posted that the A’s own it; they do not – they own 50%, and lease the other half), or, as others have stated, the costs involved?
Here’s a bit of that: the per game lease on the Coliseum is $185,185 ($15M per year for 81 games), and their payroll is over $370,000 per game for the players alone.
And let's not forget that the local fans planned and promoted this single-day event for months, only to reach the league average in attendance. They average about 9K per game
I’m not a huge fan of public subsidies for ballparks, but to try to paint a picture that ticket sales are pure profit is tantamount to a lie.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
When looking to buy pull-out couches, there are several options to consider. You can check furniture stores such as IKEA, Ashley HomeStore, and Wayfair. Online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay also offer a wide range of choices. Additionally, consider local classifieds, thrift stores, and online classified websites like Craigslist for potential deals.
HERE——➤ http://www.Puloutcouch.com