Link to Contra Costa Times article

Posted on Tue, May. 09, 2006
A'S, FREMONT NEAR DEAL
Fans -- not city -- likely to feel biggest void
By Chris Metinko
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Doug Gillette of Rodeo looks into the distance as his friend, Frank Martinez of Vacaville, is reflected in his sunglasses before the start of game on Thursday at McAfee Coliseum in Oakland. Fans will be the biggest losers if the A's move.

The Seals were iced. The Silver and Black once found Los Angeles more enticing. Even the city's basketball team has refused to take its name. Through the past four decades, the one constant on the Oakland sports landscape has been the Athletics.

Now, that seems to be ready to fall.

"The A's have a wonderful history here in Oakland," said Oakland Councilman Larry Reid, a member of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority, which controls the stadium the A's call home. "However, there is not the political will to use public money to help finance a new stadium. The only option they have is to look at Fremont."

The A's are said to be in the final stages of negotiating to build a new ballpark in Fremont just off Interstate 880. Co-owner Lewis Wolff started his search outside Oakland after saying the city likely didn't have the land available to build a mixed-used development that would include a stadium, homes and retail.

However, not everyone in Oakland is ready to pack up the balls and bats quite yet.

"Oakland is committed to the A's," said Ignacio De La Fuente, Oakland City Council president and mayoral candidate. De La Fuente said he believes there are many problems with the A's planned site in Fremont, including transportation and environmental concerns. "At the end of the day, I believe the A's will stay here."

Experts say the move is unlikely to have much affect on the city's coffers, but instead will be felt by the fans who bleed kelly green and gold.

Frank Martinez, 48, of Vacaville grew up in Oakland and remembers when then-owner Charlie Finley brought the A's to town from Kansas City after the 1967 season. While known for his gimmicks and marketing -- Finley introduced orange baseballs, Charlie O. the Mule mascot and a mechanical rabbit that gave baseballs to the umpires -- Finley also made the A's into winners, claiming three straight World Series titles from 1972 to 1974 and cementing the teams' relationship with the city.

"It would mean a lot if they left," said Martinez, as he tailgated outside the Coliseum before an A's game this week. "I remember the Charlie O. days and the rabbit that would come out of the ground. ... It just doesn't seem right (if they leave). It would be a big deal if they went to Fremont."

Gary Commick, 54, of Pleasanton agreed a move out of Oakland would feel odd for a franchise that has such a strong tradition in the city.

"They're part of Oakland," Commick said. "I would still support them because I'm an A's fan, but I would prefer they stay in Oakland."

While the A's may be part of Oakland emotionally, experts question how much any professional sports franchise is part of a city's overall economy.

"I would expect any impact on Oakland's economy to be small," said Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College in Massachusetts and author of "In the Best Interests of Baseball?"

Zimbalist said a move such as the one the A's are contemplating -- where a team is going from a large city to a suburb half as populated -- is unusual. But, because of the proximity of the two cities, he would anticipate little effect on the local economy.

Phil Porter, a professor of economics at the University of South Florida, said little of what people pay for a ticket to go to a sporting event stays in the city itself. Using baseball as an example, he said approximately 60 percent of the price paid goes to pay players' salaries. Because most players don't live in the cities where they play, that money is lost to the community. The remaining 40 percent goes to the owner, who uses much of it to pay off large loans they have taken out from national banks, meaning again the money leaves the local market.

"Sports teams are not economic engines," Porter said. "Teams love to tell people they bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy. But the fact is there is no proof that is true. The money people spend on baseball is discretionary income. If they didn't spend it on baseball, they would spend it on other activities. Those other activities are likely to keep more of that money in the local economy than Major League Baseball is."

Even the jobs created by professional sports at stadiums are seasonal, unskilled and generally do not pay well, experts said. And unlike some teams and their parks -- like the San Francisco Giants and AT&T Park -- the A's play in an industrial area of Oakland with no foot traffic and little to do near the stadium after the game. All of that minimizes the impact the A's leaving would have even in the immediate neighborhood of the Coliseum.

Councilman Reid, whose district includes the Coliseum property, said he has not been contacted by any businesses in his district concerned about losing the A's.

Oakland could be the biggest winner of all if the A's actually do move to Fremont, according to Porter, the economics professor.

"If the A's keep the name 'Oakland' when they move, Oakland gets the best of all worlds," Porter said. "They don't have to spend millions to build a stadium, they don't have to give up land for a huge stadium that would be vacant for all but 81 days a year, and they would still keep the name recognition."

Some fans seem to understand the economic realities and even see potential benefits of a move.

"It would be nice to get to go to a new stadium," said Brian Wise, 27 of Concord, as he enjoyed a beer in the Coliseum parking lot before an A's game this week. While Wise said he'd prefer the A's stay where they are, he understands a new stadium would increase the team's revenue through luxury boxes and higher attendance. That would allow the team to stop losing star players such as Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon to big-market clubs like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox.

"They have to start signing their good, young talent," said Kevin Burgess, 26, of Antioch, who was getting ready to take in the game with Wise. "It happens year after year. They always lose somebody."

Reach Chris Metinko at 510-763-5418 or cmetinko@cctimes.com.

HISTORY OF THE A'S

The Athletics are one of baseball's more nomadic teams.

1901 -- The Philadelphia Athletics baseball club was founded as part of the brand new American Baseball League.

1955 -- The Athletics, just months after being sold to Chicago businessman Arnold Johnson, play their first season in Kansas City.

1968 -- After years of looking for a way out of Kansas City, Charlie Finley moves the team to Oakland. Even after landing in Oakland, Finley continued to shop the team around.

quote:

The money people spend on baseball is discretionary income. If they didn't spend it on baseball, they would spend it on other activities.

That patently-false statement again that is pure speculation with no hard facts to prove it --- I just got back from spending $200 to take my family to see a game in Boston, and I can GUARANTEE I would not have spent that much money to go to see a movie, or bowling, or to a restaurant!

I think that statement is generally true for locals, but it ignores (at least) three other realities:

1. It does not factor in money coming into the area that would otherwise be spent elsewhere (like Blair dropping $200 at Fenway rather than spending it in Newberg); and

2. It does not consider how much of the other entertainment dollars "stay local" (example - your local movie theater where most of the dough flows to movie studios elsewhere); and

3. It does not consider the fact that most of the taxes paid by players are proportionately higher than their share of local services used (especially visiting players).

If all sporting options in Portland ceased to exist, I'd just save a lot more money, rather than start going to movies more, or spending my money other places.

While I tend to agree with Zimbalist that franchises overstate the financial impact of a stadium in a community...it is ludicrous to assume there is minimal impact.

In Portland's case, half of the strip joints and adult bookstores would end up going out of business, which would be a nice start.

That statement is patently untrue I make good money but I dont enjoy the spending options PDX gives me so I either save it(probably wise granted) or I spend it in Seattle on the Mariners several times each summer instead of in our community!

Let me clarify. From an economist's standpoint, it is generally true for local spending overall (every study has shown little to no effect on overall savings and spending patterns from the addition of a sports team). From my personal point of view, and I suspect most others who visit in here, it is a false statement to some degree.

It's like when a new, fancy, different restaurant comes into a neighborhood. There will be a substitution effect that hurts other restaurants (maybe deservedly if they don't perform up to standards). There may also be an uptick in overall spending on dining out. And there will also be more money flowing into the area overall (people moving to the area because it is now more attractive, people driving into the area from elsewhere, etc.).

I mean, I love baseball and all, but I'm not going to stop giving to my church or funding my 401k for it.

Cactus your example is excellent, something like a restaurant has direct competition from another but baseball does not, as I pointed the money I would spend on a ticket package is partially just saved and partially spent on the Mariners, so yes the Mariners will be hit some but little to no effect in OUR community since their is no comparable entity in baseball season.

If I lived in Portland, the money not spent on a baseball team would go straight to Directv so I could watch baseball. I'll use me as a stimulant for the economy. Every friday night I go to a Yankee or Met game. I take public transportation ($16.50) buy a ticket ($20) and buy food ($25). That's about $60 a week, $8 of which would have been spent at a local restaurant if there was no baseball. Lets say Portland gets a team. I'm a huge Ducks fan, and that could be the last straw to convinve me to go to UO ($50,000?), plus I'd drive up to a game as many times as possible, lets say 5 weekends, buy 2 tanks of gas (by then, $200), buy a ticket ($10), eat food ($30) stay in a cheap hotel ($50), buy another ticket ($10), and eat more food ($50). Thats a lot of economic impact

That's a good one. We'll have to forward that one to the mayor. I have another one for you:

I have several friends who will move to Portland and buy downtown condos in the Pearl District if Portland gets MLB (they have sales jobs and fly all over the place, only needing easy access to a major airport). That's $1 million+ (or 4 years of tuition + living expenses for newyorkduck and 4 of his buddies).

Obviously some would spend the cash on other things but their are many I am sure like me that are not interested in anything else Portland has to offer, heck I just go fishing!