Indiana Pacers nab $30 million in stadium subsidies

Indiana paid the Pacers to keep the team in the state. But what does the state gain?

By , Guest blogger

  • close
    Indiana Pacers Solomon Jones #44 and Danny Granger #33 box out Bucks Kurt Thomas in a March game against the Milwaukee Bucks. Indiana has given the team $30 million to stay in the state for three years.
    View Caption

The stadium game refers to the prisoners’ dilemma-type game played by cities in their quest to attract/keep sports teams, a subject frequently touched on here at TSE.

In a comment to this TSE post on planned vs. spontaneous order and a subsidy given to keep the Power and Light district in Kansas City up and running, Don Coffin alerts us to another in an infinite series of gifts given to sports teams. This one involves the NBA’s Indiana Pacers who were in negotiations with the city of Indianapolis on a new lease for Conseco Fieldhouse.

According to the article, Pacers officials had hoped to get a 20-30 year agreement with the city, but were unable to come to terms on such a lengthy agreement. The negotiations ended with a short-term agreement in which the Pacers will receive a $10 million arena operating subsidy per year for the next three years as well as money for capital improvements to the arena.

Recommended: Could you pass a US citizenship test?

Given the weakness of the national economy, this deal is atrocious. The state of Indiana ranked 39th out of the 50th states in June 2010 unemployment rate and this helps in what way? If the Pacers are such a great boon to the Indianapolis economy, why do the Pacers need a public subsidy (I ask that rhetorically)? Next they’ll be selling this as part of the national economic recovery package complete with orange road signs proclaiming as such.

You can argue that the Pacers generate an intangible benefit to the city of Indianapolis – civic pride or a source of commonality, for instance. – that justifies some subsidy of some size. I don’t deny the intangibles as a possible reason for a subsidy. But I am not convinced that the value of the intangibles isn’t somehow captured by the Pacers. For example, the Pacers may capture some of the intangible benefits when they sell Pacers gear that fans can proudly wear wherever they may roam. The same goes for every sports team, pro and supposedly amateur. If so, then the argument for public subsidies loses much of its steam.

Add/view comments on this post.

------------------------------

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.

Share this story:

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...