Is really interesting because the argument was always stadiums bring in business , create jobs, etc etc …. Seems now there’s plenty of studies that prove otherwise. Not sure why anyone would meet an owner half way on some of these expensive stadiums
Somewhat unrelated, but there's been articles about key state senators largely committing to voting against a stadium built in VA for the Commanders...
As it were, the topic of stadium deals for pro football franchises, I think, is somewhat regional, and largely depends on where you're building. For example, there's a reason why the Giants/Jets stadium isn't built in downtown NYC, or why they'll likely never build a new Commanders stadium in downtown DC. Obviously cities have land issues with building a complex of size, but most major cities already have tourism that generates significant enough revenue that they don't need pro football franchises to drum up demand.
That being said, most of the cities these stadiums are built in very much DO need that economic stability. Anybody want to go to bat that St Louis or Oakland look like booming, smart economies at the moment, since they refused to participate in subsidizing stadiums for those teams? Not too many people I know out there saying "yeah, I can't wait for my vacation or tourism trip to Oakland this year".
There are smaller cities or areas where pro football franchises represent a large portion of the economy, and therefore subsidizing makes all the sense in the world. Other areas don't need it.
Its geographical.