Week 3: The Economics of Baseball; or It's Called "Moneyball" for a Reason

Sports teams that push for new stadiums are ruining cities financially. This is an objective fact, and the benefits that new stadiums offer, e.g. construction jobs and supposed increases in sales for surrounding businesses, are heavily outweighed by the demands these teams make of the cities during the construction processes. One cannot tell me otherwise; these are, again, objective facts. We are not here to talk about that, though; we are here to talk about people who have written about it.

In "Major League Baseball, like the NFL, asks taxpayers for free money" by Jason Notte, the reader is given multiple examples of teams that are attempting to acquire new stadiums in their respective cities, the cases at hand being:

• Atlanta, Georgia and the Braves;
• Oakland, California and the Athletics; and
• Tampa / St. Petersburg, Florida and the Rays.

The thing is that, because we have been looking at this article from the beginning with the National Football League's behaviors in mind (due to the article's title), one already has a notion of what is going on in the MLB; of course, this was Notte's intention. It is a sad fact that the NFL holds a greater national presence than the MLB, but Notte uses this to his advantage; by using that as a reference point, a reader can better understand when told that Braves ownership is going over the heads of Atlanta citizens to get a new field (look at the crosstown football team for context), when told that the Athletics situation with Oakland is not being interferred with by the commissioner (unlike other leagues, wink wink), or when told that there is another city that is not too bent outta shape about losing their team to another city if it means not building a new stadium (which reminds me of a city whose name rhymes with "paint bluish").

You know what else helps in having this conversation besides really great framing, though? Facts. Really good facts. You know who has great facts in their article? Neil DeMause, in his article "The Nation: Stop The Subsidy-Sucking Sports Stadiums." Really clear facts that are really relevant do a great job of supporting one's argument.

• When I get told, "Owners of teams in the 'big four' sports leagues... have reaped nearly $20 billion in taxpayer subsidies for new homes since 1990," I get a great idea of how much money cities have lost to sports teams;
• When it is explained, "In one study of six Super Bowls, [they] found 'no measurable impact on spending,' which he attributed to the 'crowding out' effect of nonfootball tourists steering clear of town during game week," one really understands that nothing good comes of a new sports stadium outside of the stadium; and
• When DeMause reasons, "Why do new sports facilities have such a hold on local elected officials? The simplest explanation is fear: because team owners can choose new cities but cities can't choose new teams...," it is really clear just how much of a chokehold is had.

Simply put, excellent facts can make for an excellent article and argument.