A new study suggests there's no shortage of cities that can take on an NFL franchise if one is interested in moving.
The study from Portfolio.com has a downside for Vikings fans. It reports that Los Angeles -- rumored to be a suitor for the Vikings if taxpayers don't build a new stadium for the team -- is number one of many possible cities.
The Web site used a calculation that factors in total personal income for an area, ticket prices, and the amount of money it takes to support a sports franchise.
It finds plenty of cities have the capacity to take on an NFL, NHL, or NBA team. They include San Jose, Louisville, Las Vegas, Austin, and Birmingham. But only two cities -- Montreal and Riverside, Calif. -- have the capacity to host a Major League Baseball franchise.
It found Denver, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Tampa are the most "overextended" cities with current franchises.
Minneapolis-St. Paul's total personal income of $154.59 billion is about $43.13 billion less than what is needed to support the area's four major professional sports teams, according to the Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal.
"Minneapolis-St. Paul's total personal income of $154.59 billion is about $43.13 billion less than what is needed to support the area's four major professional sports teams, according to the Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal."
Based on those figures, proponents of keeping the vikes should perhaps place a high priority on boosting the local economy (and thus personal incomes) in order to justify maintaining a full cadre of professional sports franchises.
Good riddance to the Vikings - don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm waiting for the study that clearly demonstrates that the Vikings have increased sales tax revenue to such an extent that primary education, Minnesota Care, etc can be properly funded. Without such clear justification there's no real reason for the state government to subsidize the construction of anything.
People who oppose the Vikings, and acting to keep them, omit the vitality - and business - they bring to the Twin Cities. Those of us who are old enough to remember our homeland prior to 1961, when the Twins and Viking arrived, recall with some bitterness the designation of us being nothing but "flyover land." The pro sports franchises have brought awareness, and business to our fair cities. That is not even mentioning the tax revenues from the team, their players, and using the stadium for other activies, such as concerts or even the monster truck rallies we see advertised. The Vikings want to build a complete complex that would be an asset throughout the year. I think we cannot afford to let the Vikings go. If we do, we will be seeking another team to replace them within a few years, just as happened when the North Stars left. Moneys that go to a stadium need not compete with other State priorities. Let the racino go forward, as well as license plates that fans could buy to support their team. (Note the Packer plates in Wisconsin.) There are other merchadising ideas that also could be used. But non-sport fans should be under no illusion that they would be exempt for the impact of a new stadium. They would benefit just as we jocks benefit from the Walker and the Guthrie and the SPCO. (Yes I have been to all three, frequently in fact.) Build the stadium and see the revenues coming in and the regional pride and identity continue.
The Colonel writes
"People who oppose the Vikings, and acting to keep them, omit the vitality - and business - they bring to the Twin Cities."
On the contrary; I don't dispute that there is an economic impact to having the team. However, I do question whether the return on that investment is the best we can do. When Mr Wilf proposes a development project, he makes sure he's going to get a return on his investment. People who want us to spend over half a billion dollars to keep the vikings ought to provide evidence that its a worthwhile investment. That doesn't seem like too much to ask.
Not to be too contrarian, but,
(1) what's so bad about being flyover country? Ever been to Eau Claire, Madison, Duluth, Mankato, Iowa City... They're all nice places without professional sports teams.
(2) The link between professional sports and cultural sophistication seems tentative at the very best. See also, Austin, Texas. If I had a choice over where to invest 50 bajillion dollars in order to spur economic growth and cultural enlightenment the University of Minnesota would be muy first and only choice.
Not a penny more to subsidize sports while we are cutting basic services, shorting our schools, crippling higher education, while there are homeless and hungry in our streets. It's an obscenity.
@nt: I find the your choice of Austin, Texas interesting. When I first came to Minnesota, to stay, in the mid 1980s a major Minnesota corporation (they used to have Minnesota in their name) was moving several components of their operation to Austin. I worked for a consulting company that did contract work for this company. I was approached by a competing consulting company to work for them on a project that would have me in Austin 2 weeks of every month. I chose not to switch.
So some others find Austin worthy of investment.