Why Cities Keep Paying for Stadiums That May Not Be Worth It

Sports teams often act like they hold all the cards when cities talk about building new stadiums. If a town hesitates, owners threaten to leave—like the Oakland A’s did when they moved to Las Vegas instead of waiting for Oakland’s deal. Other teams have made the same move, from San Diego to Tampa, always finding cities desperate enough to pay the price. The real question isn’t just money. Teams bring pride and identity to places like Brooklyn, where fans still feel the loss of the Dodgers decades later. But after the thrill fades, what’s left? Often, it’s empty promises. Politicians and owners sell stadiums as economic saviors, but studies show most gains come from shifting money around—like spending on games instead of movies—rather than real growth.Some cities do benefit, though. San Diego’s downtown revival around Petco Park proves stadiums can spark change—but only when owners invest alongside taxpayers. Still, even then, the public usually takes on most of the risk. In Tampa, the Rays’ plan includes a $10 billion shopping and entertainment zone, raising eyebrows about who really wins in these deals. The heart of the issue? Teams have all the leverage. With only 30 MLB teams spread across 53 major cities, they can always shop for a better offer. Fans get stuck cheering for a moving target while politicians scramble to keep them happy. At what point does the game stop being worth the cost?