SAP Center lease expiring in 2025 UPD new agreement to be approved by city council in June 2025

[LinkGaetz23]

Tell that to the economists who study this stuff. I'm just going by what my interest in the subject led me to find. Tourism is one of the major arguments for people who like to argue for an economic benefit and I have yet to find any study or claim that that is in fact true.

Re: events. The city could still have concerts and such, they don't need a permanent tenant.

One trend I seem to notice is arenas are built, a sports team is anchored there and then used as a basis for drumming up pedestrian traffic for an entertainment district (as done in Nashville and Columbus and the basis for new arenas in Altanta, Ottawa, Phoenix, and others). More or less used as a foundation to a redevelopment real estate project

And a side tidbit: I've always had a soft spit for the Sharks. In fact, one of the first jerseys I ever bought was a Sharks/Link Gaetz jersey. Are you old enough to know and remember him?

Who? Never heard of him.

 

[timekeep]

Never mind the Sharks consistantly sold out SAP when they were competitive. Did you ask ChatGPT for your answer?

Thanks for coming around a year later? Did you just finish grade 7? They haven't been competitive lately, are the fans only going to support a winning team?

 

[Tawnos]

To your point, one has to look at both revenue and expenses to the city. I remember when SF hosted the Americas Cup (sailing). The high end of the estimated to be huge - and it may have been when considering the benefit to local businesses - but the city lost ~$10M if memory serves.

So this is a great example to build on. That ~$10m could be considered by the city to be worth the cost for a whole variety of reasons. Promoting the city's international profile, community engagement, cultural exchanges, etc. It's not simply a transactional view of "did the city make money?"

 

[Tawnos]

They haven't been competitive lately, are the fans only going to support a winning team?

Despite low attendance, the Sharks wouldn't have lost a lot of money. Forbes, for exactly the amount it's worth, put them in the black last season by a little bit... so even if they overshot, it doesn't give any impression of a team that could be in trouble.

 

[timekeep]

Despite low attendance, the Sharks wouldn't have lost a lot of money. Forbes, for exactly the amount it's worth, put them in the black last season by a little bit... so even if they overshot, it doesn't give any impression of a team that could be in trouble.

Thats good to hear, I hope they stick around and get more competitive with their young stars.

 

[Tawnos]

Thats good to hear, I hope they stick around and get more competitive with their young stars.

Yeah... the NHL is in an interesting place right now IMO. It's almost like large profits are gate driven, but financial stability isn't. No organization is struggling financially, no matter what their attendance is.

 

[PistolPete]

Maybe one group is rational and the other emotional, but one of those things isn't inherently better than the other. The proof you're looking for doesn't fully exist because perception is too subjective to accurately quantify in a research study. There are just too many factors to incorporate. People have tried at times, but many of those studies have concluded that it's too difficult to do well.

Very true. It is hard to measure and take account. This is why I give leeway to the quality of life argument, if having a pro team makes someone happy then go with it.

I also don't agree that economists are entirely rational about this topic. Ties into what I edited in as you were responding to my last post. "Economists also tend to believe that money spent should bring more money in, but that’s simply not the way government services work. Not everything is going to be a net positive. Cities need to keep their budgets in line in order to be able to keep providing services, but not every single thing they do needs to result in surplus. Even if arenas truly don’t, the calculation has been made by politicians that it’s ok take a deficit on them if necessary." That's because it's something their constituents want their city to have. It's arts & culture spending, and that spending pretty much always runs a deficit on paper. Major museums get big subsidies and favorable lease terms all the time from their cities, but few bat an eye at that.

I don't have a problem with this per se, where I get annoyed I'd if the public spends the money but a pro team sports owner reaps all of the-or at least more than his contribution jusrifies- financial benefits.

Yes, having a pro sports team really is a factor in attracting people/businesses like all of those other things. Is it as big of a factor? Maybe not, but it's still contained in the overall perception of a city.

Do cities need to do a better job negotiating these deals? Probably, yes. Not just in dollars spent, but access to the facility as needed. Is it off-putting when a billionaire who doesn't ABSOLUTELY need it asks for government assistance? Absolutely it is. There's no doubt about that, but I don't think it negates the value in a city having a financial stake in such a major piece of its identity.

I have no dog in these fights so to me it's.always an issue for s given city and it's citizens to figure out. The part that bugs me too is that sports owners take advantage of this because of a closed system and a monopoly. If the government passed laws forcing them to be more open to competition via a relegstion system or something of kind, a lot of their leverage would be gone.

 

[PistolPete]

Who? Never heard of him.

Yeah, not surprised. He only lasted for a cup of coffee.

 

[awfulwaffle]

Thanks for coming around a year later? Did you just finish grade 7? They haven't been competitive lately, are the fans only going to support a winning team?

Let's be fair, there are a lot of fanbases throughout all of the sports leagues that will only support when the team is winning.

 

[PistolPete]

Let's be fair, there are a lot of fanbases throughout all of the sports leagues that will only support when the team is winning.

And I would argue as they should

Very few owners are interested in winning, it's just a business for them. If fans blindly support them no matter how bad they get, then they have no incentive to put a better team together

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yes, having a pro sports team really is a factor in attracting people/businesses like all of those other things. Is it as big of a factor? Maybe not, but it's still contained in the overall perception of a city.

I would add that this is especially a factor for cities like San Jose and Anaheim which have a hard time distinguishing their identity within their metro areas. I’m guessing that a lot of people (like… millions) would not know San Jose exists if not for the Sharks. The same could be said for the old Oakland teams, especially the Raiders whose brand became well known in the general culture. What else do you associate with Oakland? Personally, now that they don’t have sports… nothing.

A lot of this stuff is very localized. I would guess without evidence that Winnipeg benefits from having the NHL a lot more than LA benefits from having a second NBA team.

 

[Tawnos]

Very true. It is hard to measure and take account. This is why I give leeway to the quality of life argument, if having a pro team makes someone happy then go with it.

I don't have a problem with this per se, where I get annoyed I'd if the public spends the money but a pro team sports owner reaps all of the-or at least more than his contribution jusrifies- financial benefits.

I have no dog in these fights so to me it's.always an issue for s given city and it's citizens to figure out. The part that bugs me too is that sports owners take advantage of this because of a closed system and a monopoly. If the government passed laws forcing them to be more open to competition via a relegstion system or something of kind, a lot of their leverage would be gone.

The main point, for me, is that there's a division of benefits. The fact is that you need a lot more than an arena/stadium to operate a professional sports team. The owner is providing the financial wherewithal to operate the team, and so reaps the bulk of the financial benefits. The city, by its very existence, is providing a viable place to operate said professional sports team, as well as occasional funding for the arena/stadium. They reap the civic and cultural benefits, as well as at least some economic benefit even if it doesn't outweigh the expenditure. It's a pretty symbiotic relationship that I don't see a real problem with, so long as the city isn't overextending itself if it provides any funding for the arena/stadium.

I would add that this is especially a factor for cities like San Jose and Anaheim which have a hard time distinguishing their identity within their metro areas. I’m guessing that a lot of people (like… millions) would not know San Jose exists if not for the Sharks. The same could be said for the old Oakland teams, especially the Raiders whose brand became well known in the general culture. What else do you associate with Oakland? Personally, now that they don’t have sports… nothing.

A lot of this stuff is very localized. I would guess without evidence that Winnipeg benefits from having the NHL a lot more than LA benefits from having a second NBA team.

This is why I never really understood why the Angels have been so resistant to just going with Anaheim.

 

[LadyStanley]

Other than arena, the only multi-thousand venue in SJ is the CPA. Civic auditorium isn't very condusive to modern needs. (I moved coming up on a decade ago so don't know current status of those other venues. I believe SJSU has something, but not sure of capacity.)

The arena is THE venue for large events.

 

[varsaku]

The economic and non-economic benefits arenas/stadiums do provide are connected to things like civic pride and attractiveness of the city to bringing in new residents and businesses. You can quantify some of that to a certain level, but never completely.

Economists, being economists, don’t like to acknowledge things that can’t be completely quantified. But city officials, and by extension the residents who vote them into office, clearly don’t see this the same way.

Economists also tend to believe that money spent should bring more money in, but that’s simply not the way government services work. Not everything is going to be a net positive. Cities need to keep their budgets in line in order to keep providing services, but not every single thing they do needs to result in surplus. Even if arenas truly don’t, the calculation has been made by politicians that it’s ok take a deficit on them if necessary.

I think the main argument is that people will still spend the disposable income regardless of a stadium. They will probably shop or eat out more instead. This just changes who benefits from the governmental spending.

 

[Tawnos]

I think the main argument is that people will still spend the disposable income regardless of a stadium. They will probably shop or eat out more instead. This just changes who benefits from the governmental spending.

That is true, that they will. And that reallocation probably has a larger economic benefit overall, but my point is that economics is not the only consideration and that it shouldn't be.

 

[varsaku]

That is true, that they will. And that reallocation probably has a larger economic benefit overall, but my point is that economics is not the only consideration and that it shouldn't be.

Net you are still flat if not worse since you are spending to change who is benefiting.

 

[PistolPete]

I would add that this is especially a factor for cities like San Jose and Anaheim which have a hard time distinguishing their identity within their metro areas. I’m guessing that a lot of people (like… millions) would not know San Jose exists if not for the Sharks. The same could be said for the old Oakland teams, especially the Raiders whose brand became well known in the general culture. What else do you associate with Oakland? Personally, now that they don’t have sports… nothing.

A lot of this stuff is very localized. I would guess without evidence that Winnipeg benefits from having the NHL a lot more than LA benefits from having a second NBA team.

Having a pro sports team does make smaller msrkets known, but I wonder how far that extends to the general public? Is someone who is not a sports fan going to get enough exposure to teams that they become aware of Anaheim, Winnipeg, San Jose?

Hard for me to guess since I am both a sports fan and geography nut (I can spend hours looking at maps)