Do Major League Cities Really NEED Major League Sports Teams?

[1kingzfan]

www.hoopsworld.com/article_18362.shtml

The stats below were originally cited in a great piece by C. Sawyer of hoopsworld.com (see above link or full text in Kingsgurl's thread) about the choice now before the people of Sacramento County.

He comes up with some good stuff every now and then. But I feel that his list could be appended to drive home a point more clearly. So I added major league teams (not minor league entries or farm clubs) that are stationed in each of these major metro areas.
__________________________________________________

CITY POPULATION (2005 est.) NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL TEAMS
New York, NY 8,143,197 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
Los Angeles, CA 3,844,829 NBA/MLB/NHL
Chicago, IL 2,842,518 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
Houston, TX 2,016,582 NBA/NFL/MLB
Philadelphia, PA 1,463,281 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
Phoenix, AZ 1,461,575 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
San Antonio, TX 1,256,509 NBA
San Diego, CA 1,255,540 NFL/MLB
Dallas, TX 1,213,825 NBA/NFL/NHL
San Jose, CA 912,332 NHL
Detroit, MI 951,270 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
Indianapolis, IN 784,118 NBA/NFL
Jacksonville, FL 782,623 NFL
San Francisco, CA 739,426 NFL/MLB
Columbus, OH 730,657 NHL
Austin, TX 690,252 No major pro sports (locked out in the middle of HOU, SA [80 miles away], DAL, but they have UofT...hook 'em horns!)
Memphis, TN 672,277 NBA
Baltimore, MD 635,815 NFL/MLB
Fort Worth, TX 624,067 No major pro sports (but near Arlington [15 miles] and Dallas [30 miles])
Charlotte, NC 610,949 NBA/NFL/NHL
El Paso, TX 598,590 No major pro sports (no respect, just lowly UTEP and a daily wave of new residents from the south of town)
Milwaukee, WI 578,887 NBA/MLB
Seattle, WA 573,911 NBA/NFL/MLB
Boston, MA 559,034 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
Denver, CO 557,917 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY 556,429 No major pro sports (105 miles from Cincy, but they have UofL)
Washington, DC 550,521 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
Nashville-Davidson, TN 549,110 NFL/NHL
Las Vegas, NV 545,147 No major pro sports (gambling restrictions)
Portland, OR 533,427 NBA
Oklahoma City, OK 531,324 NBA (temp.)
Tucson, AZ 515,526 No major pro sports (115 miles from Phoenix, but they have UofA)
Albuquerque, NM 494,236 No major pro sports (middle of nowhere, but so is OKC)
Long Beach, CA 474,014 No major pro sports (giant burb of LA, 25 miles from downtown)
Atlanta, GA 470,688 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
Fresno, CA 427,652 No major pro sports (after all, it's Fresno)
Sacramento, CA 456,441 NBA (for now)
New Orleans, LA 454,863 NBA/NFL
Cleveland, OH 452,208 NBA/NFL/MLB
Kansas City, MO 444,965 NFL/MLB
Mesa, AZ 442,780 No major pro sports (close to Phoenix, 20 miles from downtown)
Virginia Beach, VA 438,415 No major pro sports (kinda close to WDC [200 miles], mobile military population)
Omaha, NE 414,521 No major pro sports (middle of nowhere, but so is OKC)
Oakland, CA 395,274 NBA/NFL/MLB
Miami, FL 362,470 NBA/NFL/NHL/MLB

Tulsa, OK 382,457 No major pro sports (middle of nowhere, but so is OKC)
Honolulu, HI 377,379 No major pro sports (too busy hangin' loose for pro sports, travel logistics)
Minneapolis, MN 372,811 NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL
Colorado Springs, CO 369,815 No major pro sports (only 60 miles south of Denver)
Arlington, TX 362,805 MLB
__________________________________________________

See a trend in the big-time cities of the US, boys and girls???

Why would that be if professional sports franchises were not really needed for big-time cities?

Notice, too, that almost all of the major cities without a major league team have either: 1) a major college in town that has had historic success in sports or 2) geographic proximity to another major city with pro sports teams.

Telling, ain't it?

 

[Jkbiker]

Plus using population of less than 500,000 for Sacramento is deceiving, when you include surrounding towns, CH,Carm,Ovale,Roseville,Elk Grove etc i bet the population is probably between 1-2 Million

 

[1kingzfan]

The point here is that laying claim to a major league sports franchise is not a nicety but rather a necessity in the continuing evolution of a big-time US city.

If SAC loses the Kings and has no major events arena, the evolution of the city will be interrupted.

It will send a negative signal to individuals and big business contemplating a move to a progressive, growing community.

It will send a signal to the world that SAC is really not a big-league city.

It will send a crystal-clear signal that Phil Jackson was right all along.

 

[mcsluggo]

that list is fairly silly.

San antonio is the 7th biggest city in the US? Colombus is 14th?

Washington DC is 30th?

perhaps in a strict sense, but the majority of "Washingtonians" live in virginia and maryland. I live in virginia, but I live a HELLUVA lot closer to the center of DC than most new yorkers or angelinos live to their respective city-centers.

it doesn't make ANY sense unless you agglomerate cities together, somewhat. (but not too much, Stockton is NOT part of Sacramento. Sorry. If that was the case, then Baltimore would be the 3rd biggest city in teh country, since the greater washington DC, and Philly areas would be ITS suburbs.)

 

[kupman]

I believe that in terms of square mileage, Jacksonville Florida may be the biggest city in the nation. I am still trying to figure out who their MLB team is though.

 

[1kingzfan]

Details. The list Sawyer used were populations of the actual cities.

See if any of these lists strike your fancy. The order is really not important, and there are some additional entries.

Tampa, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City, Raleigh-Durham...Nevertheless, the original point of my post is still made, regardless of which list you use.

http://home.nc.rr.com/planetzeb/citysize.htm

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

 

[1kingzfan]

I believe that in terms of square mileage, Jacksonville Florida may be the biggest city in the nation. I am still trying to figure out who their MLB team is though.

Good catch. It's been edited. The NFL Jaguars are still in there.

 

[kupman]

Your point is well taken. If you would like, you can go to ballparks.com where they list not only how much each venue cost, but also how big of a population the venue draws from.

 

[1kingzfan]

Thanx, kupman.

They're working on the NBA arena portion of the site now, so you can't see anything. ARCO Arena was missing from their indoor arenas of the world list.

 

[kupman]

You can just go to the left and click on "arenas present" and then just click on the arena that you would like to leanr more about. It is working - for me at least.

 

[1kingzfan]

You're right...it does work...didn't see those little links at the far left. Thanx. I was looking for some kind of summary list on the main page.

 

[uolj]

I don't understand the point. There is a correlation between population and the existence of sports franchises. That tells me that maybe cities with larger populations are better able to support professional sports. That doesn't tell me anything about whether "Major League" cities need sports teams.

To answer the question of whether major league cities need sports teams, you'd have to create a definition of "major league city", then tell me which cities fit that description and which don't, and then somehow show the correlation with the existence of a major league franchise without using circular logic.

 

[1kingzfan]

I don't understand the point. There is a correlation between population and the existence of sports franchises. That tells me that maybe cities with larger populations are better able to support professional sports. That doesn't tell me anything about whether "Major League" cities need sports teams.

Sure it does.

If they didn't need them, they wouldn't have them and professional sports leagues would not be flourishing as much as they have.

We'd have 4, 5 or 6-team leagues established for ONLY those rich cities that just happened to want them and had a little extra cash lying around to provide a place to play and the infrastructure to support a pro team.

Instead, we have 30 teams each in the NBA, MLB, and NHL, and 32 teams in the NFL. That's a heck of a lotta teams that cities support, just because they can. Those cities could pour ALL of their available money from supporting a pro franchise into other City areas and programs, but they have decided that part of their investments should be in maintaining professional sports franchises in their cities.

For maintaining growth, the economy, reputation to attract more people and businesses to their cities...is this a nicety or a necessity?

Have these 122 pro sports teams evolved solely from cities' being able to afford a team, or from contrived efforts by local leaders (investors, politicians) to have major league sports because of what it means to the quality of life and growth in a city? Or maybe both?

 

[uolj]

If they didn't need them, they wouldn't have them and professional sports leagues would not be flourishing as much as they have.

We don't need doughnuts, but doughnut shops are still flourishing (mostly a joke, I miss Winchells ). The existence and success of sports teams in many cities doesn't mean those cities need the teams.

For maintaining growth, the economy, reputation to attract more people and businesses to their cities...is this a nicety or a necessity?

Good question. That is in fact, one of the questionskk. My own opinion is that it is somewhere in the middle but closer to the nicety side. My original point, though, was just that the fact that most cities with large populations have major league franchises doesn't really help me answer that question.

 

[1kingzfan]

We don't need doughnuts, but doughnut shops are still flourishing (mostly a joke, I miss Winchells ). The existence and success of sports teams in many cities doesn't mean those cities need the teams.

With ALL the other pressing needs in big-time cities, from feeding the poor to fighting crime to having adequate fire protection to transportation infrastructure improvements to fixing city streets to provision of low-income housing to landscaping and parks to EVERYTHING, then how in the world did these cities and their residents PAY to have these sports franchises in their cities?

Why would they do it?

Why would the civic leaders allow it, much less campaign to support it, if it is not a need? If it does not further the goals of running and improving the city?

Do we have just a bunch of politicians across the US that are rabid sports fans that will supoport paying ANYTHING to have a pro sports team?

Do we have just a bunch of city-dwellers across the US that are rabid sports fans that will pay ANYTHING to have a pro sports team to go watch in person and represent their communities?

Is sports fanaticism causing local city residents and their leaders to make terrible decisions in deciding where precious tax dollars are funneled or passed over in their cities (when it comes to new arena construction, tax incentives for sports franchises, no-rent arena occupation, etc)?

The existence and success of sports teams in many cities DOES mean those cities need the teams.

There is a reason that 122 pro teams exist and that they are in the biggest US cities to the extent that they are, and there is a reason that people in these cities have historically been willing to pay in some way to support their presence there.

There IS a reason. It's not happenstance.

 

[ShatteredVision]

There is also some corporate backing in most cities with a lot of the Professional Sports.

Some of the cities are small in population, but the satellite communities around it are able to support said teams.

 

[uolj]

I don't think you are using the term "need" correctly. For something to be a "need" for a city, that would mean that the city would not function properly without it, or would have some other major issue. For example, I would characterize functioning law enforcement as a "need" for a city.

To show me that a major league sports franchise is necessary for a large city, you have to show me that without it the city would fail in some way. Has Las Vegas failed? Has Louisville failed?

All of your statements are going towards proving the point that large cities have major league sports franchises. They do nothing to back up the claim that large cities need sports franchises. To me, all that means is that a major league franchise is a common nicety, not a necessity.

Of course, if you look at the more accurate list of markets in the link above, you will see that if Sacramento were to lose the Kings, then they would be the largest market in the U.S. without a major league franchise. In other words, I think you could argue that this is evidence that Sacramento should be able to support a major league franchise without problem, and to not have one would be some form of embarrassment.

 

[1kingzfan]

All of your statements are going towards proving the point that large cities have major league sports franchises. They do nothing to back up the claim that large cities need sports franchises. To me, all that means is that a major league franchise is a common nicety, not a necessity.

That's too easy, take a shot at answering the questions I placed in my previous post.

Politicians and residents of those cities are paying for these teams.

Why in the world would you fork out YOUR bucks for a nicety when there are so many NEEDS in a city that could be funded, like BETTER LAW ENFORCEMENT?

And, while you're at it, why is it that SAC would be the largest city in the US without a major pro sports team, if this measure fails? What does that say about the importance of major league teams to major league cities?

BTW, I'm using the term "need" correctly, in my view. Another person could say that all she/he really NEEDS is food and water, and police are really not necessary (maybe they'll add a gun to their list).

I refer to NEED as something that a city has to have to meet its goals and objectives for the future (Sacramento's is growth), and create the best community in which to live that they can, so that people/businesses want to stay, people/businesses want to move in, growth continues (and, growth=more opportunities), and everyone's quality of life gets better over time.

I believe that this is what is going on in all those other major league cities (and what has happened in SACTown up to this point).

They all GET it.

They know that they must invest in a variety of programs, facilities, and services in order to have the best possible quality of life. A state of the art arena to house a pro sports franchise is one of those things that contributes mightily to making a city great and improves the quality for life for reasons discussed in other threads.

Do SAC County residents GET it???

 

[VF21]

Guys, you seem to be arguing the same points but just using a little different focus.

I think you could argue that this is evidence that Sacramento should be able to support a major league franchise without problem, and to not have one would be some form of embarrassment.

I agree it would be some form of embarrassment. And it would also be a fact that some companies, some future residents, etc. take into consideration when trying to decide whether to come to Sacramento or not.

The larger cities have a wider diversity of entertainment options. A major sports franchise is a pretty good indication of a community's willingness to grow.

 

[BigWaxer]

I think another way to look at this is in total TV market area. Similar to population but as shown above, 400,000 residents in Sac City really doesn't show the overall market for the Kings, locally at least.

http://www.mediainfocenter.org/compare/top50/#tv

In 2004 we were ranked the 19th largest TV market. I have heard numbers as high as 10 but haven't found anything to back that up. In fact everything I found says we are 19th.

Anyway the only top 30 TV market cities without a pro team are ranked 28 and 29. So I would agree that if the Kings fly the coop it would be an embarrassment for the city.

I speculate... but I think it's not that someone doesn't' "get it". The feel rushed and a deal being crammed down their throats. The city basically waited until the last possible minute (BTW as we all called it 2 years ago here.) If this goes down in flames the City Council IMO is to blame not the residents.

 

[uolj]

That's too easy, take a shot at answering the questions I placed in my previous post.

I was trying to be succinct since the answers will all pretty much be the same, but I don't mind answering them individually either. I'll skip around a little to make everything flow a little better. Note to others: there isn't much new in the first half of this post that isn't in my other ones.

With ALL the other pressing needs in big-time cities, from feeding the poor to fighting crime to having adequate fire protection to transportation infrastructure improvements to fixing city streets to provision of low-income housing to landscaping and parks to EVERYTHING, then how in the world did these cities and their residents PAY to have these sports franchises in their cities?

Why would they do it?

Why would the civic leaders allow it, much less campaign to support it, if it is not a need? If it does not further the goals of running and improving the city?

Because it is a nicety? Because it brings entertainment, pride, and recognition to the city? Who said it does not further the goals of improving the city? Isn't that what a nicety does, not a necessity?

Politicians and residents of those cities are paying for these teams.

Why in the world would you fork out YOUR bucks for a nicety when there are so many NEEDS in a city that could be funded, like BETTER LAW ENFORCEMENT?

Because it doesn't really hurt either. In general, there is debate about whether having a professional franchise in your city helps the bottom line more than hurts. In my mind it could go either way. Perhaps the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this arena will be recouped due to all the benefits it creates. Perhaps it will generate more income for the city and county than will be spent. Perhaps it will not, and the county will be paying for the nicety of having a pro sports franchise. Many people, including both of us, wouldn't mind any of those outcomes. They are all relatively harmless, and in many ways worth the risk of taking money out of people's pockets. That is still far different than a necessity.

With ALL the other pressing needs in big-time cities, from feeding the poor to fighting crime to having adequate fire protection to transportation infrastructure improvements to fixing city streets to provision of low-income housing to landscaping and parks to EVERYTHING, then how in the world did these cities and their residents PAY to have these sports franchises in their cities?

Repeating what I said above, the amount of money that a professional sports franchise costs a city when you include all the benefits is most likely somewhere between a relatively small cost, a break even deal, or a relatively small gain (monetarily). Not only that, but in cases like this one, that money is not being taken away from a city's other responsibilities. (An argument probably could be made that it is if you consider potential future tax increases that might not pass if this one does, but neither one of us wants to make that argument).

Do we have just a bunch of politicians across the US that are rabid sports fans that will supoport paying ANYTHING to have a pro sports team?

Do we have just a bunch of city-dwellers across the US that are rabid sports fans that will pay ANYTHING to have a pro sports team to go watch in person and represent their communities?

Is sports fanaticism causing local city residents and their leaders to make terrible decisions in deciding where precious tax dollars are funneled or passed over in their cities (when it comes to new arena construction, tax incentives for sports franchises, no-rent arena occupation, etc)?

Obviously not, but that is irrelevant to whether something is a nicety or a necessity. A nicety can be a good choice for a city. A necessity must be. A professional sports franchise can be a good choice for a city. There's no evidence it must be.

The existence and success of sports teams in many cities DOES mean those cities need the teams.

Why? That statement makes no sense to me and is the reason for my posting in this thread. It is just not true and not supported by any facts or reasoning, in my opinion.

There is a reason that 122 pro teams exist and that they are in the biggest US cities to the extent that they are, and there is a reason that people in these cities have historically been willing to pay in some way to support their presence there.

There IS a reason. It's not happenstance.

That reason is that a professional sports franchise is a nicety that brings positive benefits to a community. It is not happenstance. It is not necessarily a necessity, though.

And, while you're at it, why is it that SAC would be the largest city in the US without a major pro sports team, if this measure fails? What does that say about the importance of major league teams to major league cities?

Nothing. It shows a correlation, it doesn't say anything about why that correlation exists. You have to use reasoning and other facts to attempt to identify why the correlation is there. The ability of a large metropolitan area to support a franchise seems to be the most likely reason in my mind. The idea that the cities need the franchises to exist as large cities or to be "major league" just doesn't make logical sense as a reason.

BTW, I'm using the term "need" correctly, in my view. Another person could say that all she/he really NEEDS is food and water, and police are really not necessary (maybe they'll add a gun to their list).

Yes, one can define "need" in many different ways. In my opinion, your definition that includes a sports franchise for a major league city is an absurd one.

I refer to NEED as something that a city has to have to meet its goals and objectives for the future (Sacramento's is growth), and create the best community in which to live that they can, so that people/businesses want to stay, people/businesses want to move in, growth continues (and, growth=more opportunities), and everyone's quality of life gets better over time.

Since when is Sacramento's goal growth? That may be your goal for Sacramento, but it isn't necessarily everybody's. I'd say that creating the best possible community in which to live is a much more valid goal for a city. Whether doing that includes growth or not, and whether that includes a sports franchise or not is up for debate.

I believe that this is what is going on in all those other major league cities (and what has happened in SACTown up to this point).

They all GET it.

They know that they must invest in a variety of programs, facilities, and services in order to have the best possible quality of life. A state of the art arena to house a pro sports franchise is one of those things that contributes mightily to making a city great and improves the quality for life for reasons discussed in other threads.

Do SAC County residents GET it???

I don't really have a problem with any of this. I'm not a big fan of terms like "know" or "must". I think a more accurate statement might be, "They think they should invest in a variety of programs, facilities, and services in order to have the best possible quality of life." Regardless, that is a very different statement than "Major League cities need Major League sports franchises." And you'll probably want to back it up with more than "see, all the other cities are doing it so obviously we need to as well."

By the way, I thought your second post in this thread (post #3) was excellent, and I very much agree with it. I just wish it wasn't lost behind the initial claim.

 

[1kingzfan]

Thanx, uolj. I actually agree with most of what you said, and you brought out some points that I had hoped would be made in the course of this thread.

I guess what we can say for now is that NEED is in the eye of the beholder. By your definition of need, we don't really need parks or light rail or decent roads or most other things that government spends on. We can get by without them.

However, all of these things and much more are in the "recipe" for a successful, growing, vibrant city that people want to live in. A new downtown arena and keeping a city's only major league sports team are dominant ingredients in the recipe for a great city.

 

[kennadog]

In the strictest sense, I wouldn't call an arena or pro sports team a need, myself. But either are libraries, parks, museums, zoos, golf courses, marinas, historic preservation, ballet, theater, symphonies, convention centers, county fairs, etc. Yet Sacramento City/County invests in all of these.

We don't have much corporate presence in the Sac Metro area. And we won't if we don't invest in amentities that will attract them. Of course, businesses won't be attracted unless there is adequate infrastructure, housing and transportation, either.

Because Sacramento is so close to the Bay area, it has to work really hard to bring bigger businesses in. And it will always be hard to compete with San Diego, LA and SF/Oakland/San Jose. Because those cities have natural geographic amentities built in that are more attractive than what the central valley has to offer (much as it pains me to say that about my beloved Sacto).

To me, the bottom line is that even if I only go to a few events a year, I don't want to go to the Bay Area anymore, like I once did. As a matter of fact, I likely won't. So some of the positives of a venue in Sacramento: gas savings, cleaner air, less gridlock, the value of the time lost, and people spending their money supporting things in Sacramento County instead of the Bay Area, which doesn't really need our money.

One last thing. Some things you just can't place a monetary value on, tho some economic researchers try. What is the value to a City of a sense of community, unity and civic pride? There are not many things that bring a community together anymore, except maybe tragedies. There aren't many things, period, that cut across racial, social, economic lines, either. Its nice to have something positive to rally around. And even my non-sports friends were talking about and cheering on the Kings during their playoff runs.

Don't tell me that it makes no difference beyond financial to the people of Green Bay. There is something of civic value to that City to have the Packers. And I have no doubt it attracts some businesses and people to locate there, instead of say, Des Moines, Iowa.

A need...no. Likely a wise investment for a City....yes.

(Sorry if this is rambling, I'm in a hurry.)