Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46
Large stadiums in general do not cover their costs very well. I can think of a handful of ones that have the usage required to defray their costs.
In the case of multisport ones, they did a better job simply due to the fact that you could make baseball and football work in the same facility (or Aussie rules footfall and cricket).
With the dedicated sport ones now being built, the economic case weakens further. Maybe Yankee Stadium or whatever can justify the prices required to offset the costs, but in general, large stadiums are poorly used relative to their costs.
The Big O is pretty bad though. If we defray the costs of the new roof and improvements over another 40-50 years of light use, maybe the case looks better?  |
I can understand why sports owners wanted to persuade fans that multipurpose stadiums were terrible (and they succeeded in a big way, to their tremendous financial benefit), but it's an economic tragedy when you consider how much public money has been poured into sport-specific venues over the last 25 years.