Yesterday, I saw an opinion piece in the Sports Business Journal. The point of the piece was just how great the World Cup will make our stadiums look for future events. The article claims that the current stadiums that are hosting World Cup matches shortly are all in top-notch form and can handle any future “World Cup (matches), Super Bowl(s) & specialty events, concerts, and more.” About here is where I started to wonder whether this was an actual opinion piece or essentially an advertisement by a financially biased individual/group. It is the latter. Before we go into that, let’s finish up the slanted article opinion piece.
Overall, it has four parts to it…
1. Successful Mixed-Use Developments?
According to this piece, “Many teams have created successful sports-anchored mixed-use developments.” The article mentions how the Atlanta Braves have been at the “forefront” of this trend with their own successful mixed-use development. There is no evidence of the development growing or making money in the piece. I assume the author ran out of space, or else he would have pointed out that the successful Braves development, called The Battery, in 2026 continues to lose “around $15M” yearly. One Braves executive promised that The Battery would “create tons of jobs…and…(produce) year-round tax revenues.” It hasn’t.
What did grow were the Braves’ financial numbers, but outside a small increase in spending, the development continues to lose money for Cobb County, Georgia.
2. Clear Data Needed
The article then mentions how a successful World Cup would ultimately mean that we now have “clear data on economic impacts.” Interesting. If only there were three decades of research that show a “near-universal consensus (of) evidence that sports venues do not generate large positive effects on local economies.” Maybe we should look at the economic impact reports paid for by the teams wanting a new venue? Just forget the years of research that also show how team-subsidized economic impact reports “are frequently criticized for using unrealistic assumptions and misleading conclusions.”
These games will produce clear data! It is stated as a fact and then talked about as if everyone knows it to be true.
3. Help the venue owners
Next, the article then discusses how city officials and neighbors close to a venue can help make the event even better. Everyone should stop being so selfish and ask themselves whether they can help the owners of the nearby stadium.
No, really, these are what the piece says should be done:
- We should be “asking venue operators what else they need”.
- Property owners near a venue should always make sure their property looks great so that people can see “how their sites fit into future districts.”
- Nearby property owners should also “consider creating temporary activities” in the hopes that “permanent facilities could be developed in the future.”
Let’s recap…
- Always ask the billionaire owners if they require any help or can do anything for him/her.
- Always spend money to make sure your property looks incredible. Who knows if it could be bought by the nearby stadium owner?
- Put some money into events so that people can think that you possibly are connected to the nearby stadium owner.
4. Hardship on the venues
The article makes a point of telling its reader how tough stadium owners have it in today’s world. First, whenever teams give their proposed lease agreements to cities/counties, all the local jurisdictions just talk and talk about irrelevant things. We hear the same things…are you sure these numbers are correct? Or why does the agreement have taxpayers funding the entire thing? I agree.
Let’s assume the World Cup goes off without any issues. Sports owners will finally not be bogged down with all of those approvals or feedback. Instead, stadium proposals will just be met with automatic approval! Who needs feedback or dissent?
“Many districts need approvals from several levels of municipal authorities, including zoning approvals, easements, and the use of eminent domain. By showing the value of future events and related development, teams can help smooth the path for future approvals” – 04/29/26, SBJ. Paul Levin
Next, when will cities/counties stop being so challenging to work with? The author points out what a pain in the ass Foxborough, Massachusetts, officials were being when it had a “prolonged dispute with the group organizing the World Cup.” Venue owners require “smooth coordination” and not pain-in-the-ass demands. If you don’t remember or never heard about it, the town of Foxborough refused to grant a license to FIFA (which is mandatory if games were to be played at the New England Patriots stadium). Why? Apparently, FIFA wanted the city to pay for the extra police and firefighters, and FIFA pinky promised they would pay them back. But wouldn’t guarantee it.
Who in the **** wrote this?
Who wrote this pile of crap? Literally, every single point that he made is wildly incorrect. At the bottom of the page it says:
“Paul Levin is a partner at Venable LLC and represents developers, corporations, nonprofits, and cultural and educational institutions in a wide range of real estate projects.” – 04/29/26, SBJ
Now, this is an opinion piece. I get that. However, opinion pieces are still supposed to include some facts. I see none. Instead, I see an incredibly slanted piece done by someone at Venable LLC/LLP. If you look at the history of Venable, then you can understand why someone at their firm would write this type of article. Venable LLC (or LLP, as their website states) has clients around the country, including sports teams and sports authorities.
Just take a look at their current and past clients and ask yourself whether they have an actual investment in new arenas, ballparks, or stadiums being built:
- The chairman of the Maryland Stadium Authority is a partner at Venables. The MSA is the state-run group that dictates whether the local teams (Orioles and Ravens) get millions and millions of taxpayer dollars for venue upgrades.
- For many years, a board member at Events DC was William Hall, a partner at Venable LLC. Events DC is the official sports authority for DC. They manage the Washington Nationals ballpark and the entertainment district around it. As of 2026, I don’t see his name mentioned on the Events DC website, so I assume he stepped down.
- In 2024, Venable announced that they had finished a lease agreement for a stadium in New York called Etihad Park. This is where the Major League Soccer team will eventually play.
- Venable was a registered lobbying firm for the Qatari government for the 2022 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup was deemed by some as the “worst-performing host country in World Cup history.” There are various reasons, but the main issues involve the numerous allegations of bribery along with 6500+ deaths of migrant stadium workers due to unsafe working conditions.
- Venables represented the Oakland A’s when the team sued California’s regulators over toxins that were close to a proposed new ballpark site.
- Venables has gone to Capitol Hill with the NFL to talk to Congress about disability benefits.
- Venables has been sued by an NFL player (Venables won the case, it should be noted).
- I know this isn’t proof, but when I asked AI about Venables and sports leagues, I got this: “Venable LLP provides legal services across various aspects of the sports industry, including advising professional leagues and teams.”
Why would Sports Business Journal not tell us this?
SBJ allowed Venable to put a generic overview of their firm on the site in the hopes that most readers would see this article as an actual unbiased news piece. But this is common. Whenever I read about a sports venue, I usually want to tear my hair out of my head from frustration. There are many reasons why reporting on venues can be a challenge for the media.
- Forgetting to mention the actual source
Many times, major news sources will simply repeat what a report says without also telling their readers that the sports team paid for the report or influenced the results. In 2018, a management group called Portland Diamond Project (PDP) was actively pushing for an MLB team to move to the area. The group paid for an economic impact study. To nobody’s surprise, the results were precisely what PDP wanted from a new ballpark…it “would create 800 construction jobs and 4,500 new permanent jobs…with an economic impact of nearly $10 billion over 30 years.”
Yet when OregonLive mentions the impact report, it fails to mention who paid for and influenced the results. Instead, we are left with quotes like this: “The Portland Diamond Project’s plan includes 8,000 apartments….The economic impact of the stadium alone is being estimated at $10 billion over 30 years. That includes 800 construction jobs and another 4,500 permanent jobs.”
- Information from the report is considered secret
Anyone who writes actual economic impact reports will tell you that data is the most important part of the report. Where did the data come from? How was it used to come to the conclusions? But in today’s world, sports teams will provide data for an economic impact report only if everyone agrees to sign an NDA. The San Antonio Spurs made sure city officials signed an NDA before negotiating with them on a new arena.
Teams will also refuse to state what data they gave or where they got it. In 2023, Pinellas County and St. Petersburg split the cost of a new ballpark report that estimated economic impact amounts. The report also included the Tampa Bay Rays, who provided some information to Victus Advisors, the group that was picked to write up the report. The report found that a new ballpark would create 17k jobs; construction alone would pump $1B into nearby areas, allow for $2B in combined salary and wages, and have St. Petersburg receive $185M in new tax collections over 30 years.
What data did the Rays give Victus Advisors? We aren’t sure. Victus signed a nondisclosure agreement with the Rays to obtain their plans and projections. So, we don’t know what data was given? Or how it was used? Or what it said? In the report’s conclusion, Victus stated that although they did use data from the Rays in their analysis, they “could not share the majority of the information in its report.”
- Pay for positive coverage
Other times, news sources will favor one side if that side is willing to pay the news site. If anyone reads FloridaPolitics.com, they will notice quite a strange theme when talking about the Tampa Bay Rays and their pursuit of a new ballpark. First, a note on the website. NPR wrote a story on FloridaPolitics.com and found that the owner, Peter Schorsch, pushed for payments from political people in return for positive press. As one political strategist stated…“He is only covering the story if you’ve written a check.” When that same strategist declined to buy advertising from Schorsch, “the site abruptly stopped covering” the strategist’s issue. Four former employees at FloridaPolitics.com told NPR that the owner “repeatedly distorted coverage at the behest of corporate interests and political campaigns.” But when you go to FloridaPolitics.com for updates on the Tampa Bay Rays’ quest for a new ballpark, the headlines seem to point one way.
Can you figure out who has possibly given the site money?
- The Rays’ stadium development team lays out a plan for a ‘world-class destination’ amid stadium excitement
- With the Rays stadium project now in focus, many will be peeved, but they should instead be pleased
- Hillsborough College president embraces Rays ballpark plan, says it could transform Dale Mabry campus
- What the Rays stadium deal means for Tampa Bay families
- In quest for a new stadium, the Tampa Bay Rays hit a huge home run
- New independent poll shows overwhelming support for Rays stadium deal
- Is the Tampa Bay Times going to bat against the Rays? It certainly looks like it
- Jeff Vinik offers glowing endorsement for Trop site redevelopment ‘ambitious vision‘
- The question was asked, and I’m answering it. It’s worth a whole lot to keep the Rays
- When a group came out against the Rays’ ballpark plans, FloridaPolitics.com was ready to pounce with “Anti-Rays stadium group touts flawed push poll, continues to mislead.” Don’t you dare say anything bad about the deal!
- Local Sports Commission officials
Please understand that the job of people who serve on a local sports commission is to get as many sporting teams and events to their area. They aren’t looking out for taxpayers. They have never been and never will be looking out for the wallets of residents. Yet, every time a new sports venue is being proposed, we will see someone from the local sports commission (or authority) writing pieces to the local newspaper claiming that a new venue will be a hit for taxpayers.
Other examples include:
- The state of Indiana is currently trying to get the Chicago Bears to relocate to their state. One city in Indiana, Hammond, is a possible relocation spot for the Bears. The mayor of Hammond is on the local sports commission, and they are currently “in the process of raising funds from Lake County and local municipalities to put together a…plan to attract a professional sports franchise.”
- The CEO of the Kansas City Sports Commission told local officials that she supports new venues for both teams because she knows “both owners personally” and “their hearts are…in the Kansas City region.”
- The Chicago Sports Commission touted for months the benefits of hosting the Olympics. They actively tried to bring the games to their area. When the mayor got the proposal, he saw a tiny problem: “Taxpayers would have been liable for unlimited cost overruns,” and FIFA demanded a “blank check.” So what? Nothing bad could happen from giving FIFA a blank check.
- The Greater Rochester Sports Authority was created to “oversee construction of a soccer stadium.” The former mayor claimed that the authority was supposed to “be this nonpartisan, objective body.” As the Democrat & Chronicle wrote, “None of that happened.” Even though it was funded by residents, it instead “existed largely as a pass-through,” was “regularly questioned,” and ended up being “more cost than benefit for taxpayers.”
- The Greater Cleveland Sports Commission pretends to exist so that they can “measurably improve the economy of Greater Cleveland and enrich the community” through sports events. They do the opposite. In 2020, the city of Cleveland gave the GCSC $250,000 of taxpayer money and framed it as “an investment in the local economy.”
Conclusion:
Let me say something that is rarely said. Every single piece of actual study done on sports venues shows that new stadiums do not contribute significantly to overall economic growth. The only studies that show a massive economic impact from a new venue continue to come from studies initiated by a team or person/group that has something to gain from the venue being built. Two actual economists wrote a report showing how a team-funded study in Phoenix, Arizona, praised the Arizona Diamondbacks’ new ballpark as the primary reason for an increase in consumer spending.
However, when the economists looked closely at this report, they found several pretty significant errors:
- The study got their spending increase from “restaurants, bars, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, and other establishments.”
- The spending numbers from the places above were taken from a study that was completed BEFORE the ballpark was even built.
- The authors did not factor in the substitution effect…at all. Therefore, the new venue is given all credit for any business activity in the area, without considering any lost business elsewhere.
As the economist noted in their report, these errors meant that if gas sales increased near the ballpark, that would be attributed as new spending thanks to the new venue. We can just pretend as if those people would not have gotten gas if the new ballpark had not been built. Makes sense!