NFL and New Stadium Funding

NFL and New Stadium Funding

San Diego NFL officials announced a financing plan requiring the NFL and Chargers to set aside $750 million and $350 million being drawn from public funding. However, the NFL circles were not pleased with the idea because it had an overreliance on team money and would take a lot of time and processes to complete. An ideal location for the stadium was another issue that the circles could not agree on. The proposed locations were the National City, Waterfront Convadium, 10th Avenue Marine Terminal replacement, Downtown San Diego, Outside San Diego City, East Village, and the Oceanside. Besides the internal issues affecting the project’s success, such as differences in stakeholders’ perspectives on the construction and funding of the project, there were major external issues, such as citizens of San Diego voting against the proposed new stadium.

The Basic Elements of the Stadium Project Including the Proposed Sources of Funding

According to Weisberg & Mcswain (2016), the primary source of funding for the construction of the stadium was the Chargers. They would have acquired the funds from the profits of adjacent developments. One of the requirements for the project was a large piece of land donated to the team for free or purchased at an agreed low cost to enhance its economic feasibility. The adjacent development would have been a blend of residential, retail, and commercial buildings by considering the selected site. The Chargers would have mainly depended on mass transit to transport match spectators to and from the stadium when there were major games. Accordingly, it is improbable that any of the suggested locations would have offered sufficient space for developing real estate structures, stadiums, and ground-level parking lots. Additionally, the project included a projected golf site located in Oceanside, measuring roughly 71 acres.

Various Stakeholder’s Perspectives on the Funding and Construction of the Arena

One of the stakeholder’s perspectives was that constructing the stadium would have exposed San Diego to the threat of losing Comic-Con since the suggested site would be located far from the convention center by more than half a mile. Officials representing Comic-Con argued that the large distance apart made the stadium unreliable to Comic-Con and stated a need for a contagious extension of the convention center. The president of Comic Con’s board argued that Comic-Con officials opposed the extension that was not contagious with the existing convention center (Lewis, 2022). Financial advisors questioned the project’s economic feasibility because it would have required the public to contribute approximately $2.3 billion for 30 years, which was more than double the $1.1 billion estimated contributions by the Chargers.

Furthermore, a consulting firm in Chicago’s entertainment and sporting sector argued that the stadium would only produce around $2.3 million more in addition to revenue generated from hotel tax annually but projected that the yearly public costs would amount to $67 million for the running and construction of the project (Johnson & Hall, 2019). They also argued that efforts to combine a football stadium and convention center in other cities had failed. Similarly, the Taxpayers Association was against the construction and claimed that constructing the stadium could cost the city a minimum of $400 million and, most likely, more. Consequently, the city would probably have to pay the balance through public funds.

The Rationale for San Diego’s Vote Against the Proposed New Stadium

One of the reasons why the citizens of San Diego opposed the construction of the stadium is because it would have limited tailgating and paring space. The team had also threatened to leave San Diego before, and the citizens thought they had no obligation to be good to a team with displaced loyalties. The citizens also argued that the project would negatively affect the hotel businesses. For instance, they argued that it would create a surge in the taxes charged for hotel rooms because it was one of the factors under consideration for repaying the funds used in constructing the stadium. The tax increase would repay 1.15 billion dollar bonds, and the NFL would finance the 650 million balance, thus transferring the burden to taxpayers. According to Raij & Chester (2017), teams influence the community where their stadium is located by generating increased spending on meals, lodging, and other entertainment and travel outside the arena or stadium. Sequentially, the hoteliers against the project indicated that constructing the stadium would have led to a surge in the rate charged per room, making the city categorized among the most expensive factors and undesirable for tourists. The project was also opposed because it was considered to overlook the impact on the environment.

Conclusion

The San Diego stadium project drew a lot of controversy from the citizens and financial advisors outside San Diego. The officials who had proposed the project had only considered its short-term impact and ignored the economic damage it would bring to the city. The officials were also rushing to construct a stadium regardless of how it could have affected major industries such as the tourism industry, which relied on hotel rooms to generate revenue. Therefore, poor planning was the main factor contributing to the project’s failure. Lastly, the officials failed to conduct a feasibility study when planning for the project, hence being unable to see the long-term negative impact the project would have created.

References

Johnson, C., & Hall, J. (2019). The public choice of public Stadium financing: Evidence from San Diego referenda. Economies, 7(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies7010022

Lewis, S. (2022, March 16). A convention center expansion is still years and several court battles away. Voice of San Diego. https://voiceofsandiego.org/2021/08/25/a-convention-center-expansion-is-still-years-and-several-court-battles-away/

Raij, I. P., & Chester, A. (2017). Public development for professional sports stadiums. Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190465957.013.34

Weisberg, L., & Mcswain, D. (2016, August 22). Chargers unveil NFL Stadium financing plan. San Diego Union-Tribune. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-chargers-release-stadium-initiative-financing-2016mar29-htmlstory.html

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

The question of NFL teams and stadium funding has been addressed several times in many of the major cities, city town halls, and various forms of media outlets over the years. One of the most recent cities and stadium projects involved the City of San Diego and the San Diego Chargers.

NFL and New Stadium Funding

Based on the related readings in the San Diego Tribune, The New York Times, CBS Sports, and the San Diego Chargers’ project document, in a four- to five-page paper, complete a review of the basic elements of the stadium project, the proposed sources of funding, the various stakeholders’ perspectives on the funding and construction of the arena, and the reasons why the citizens of San Diego voted against the proposed new stadium.

In your paper,

Appraise the basic elements of the stadium project, including the proposed sources of funding and the various stakeholders’ perspectives on funding and construction of the arena.
Explain why the citizens of San Diego voted against the proposed new stadium.

http://search.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/san-diego-voters-reject-funding-new-chargers/docview/1837205089/se-2?accountid=32521

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&authtype=shib&custid=s8856897&db=eoh&an=0760959&site=ehost-live

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/chargers-could-be-moving-after-san-diego-voters-reject-stadium-funding/

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&authtype=shib&custid=s8856897&db=n5h&an=2w64153388948&site=ehost-live

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&authtype=shib&custid=s8856897&db=eoh&an=0808681&site=ehost-live