See, I'm not so sure about this. I think the "message" has been controlled that it does, but I'm still very skeptical about the actual numbers. However, in your NFL example, you make a very valid point. The NFL rotates the superbowl, and the host cities see a spike from outside money coming into the town (unless of course you live in a cold-weather city). The NBA doesn't really have this (I guess they have the all-star game, though). But the NFL also has more profit sharing in the league (and player salaries are reigned in tighter), which gives each team more money to invest in their share of stadiums. Honestly, the whole arena issue probably wouldn't even be an issue of the NBA's business model was more like the NFL's.
The Super Bowl is like All Star Weekend, although the Super Bowl is probably waaaay more profitable for the host city. The NBA hasn't been building as many new arenas lately as the NFL has, so there hasn't been a clear pattern of awarding the festivities to a city that puts one up, but if Sacramento got a plan in place, it wouldn't surprise me if they got a kickback from Stern.
As for the NFL, they control the TV deals, which the NBA doesn't do. And they also provide a $150 million loan to each team involved in an arena project (New Meadowlands Stadium got two loans because both the Jets and Giants play there).
You also bring up a good point about the deal that the NBA owners strike with their cities. I think this is why some people are so furious with the Maloof's, because they see them as uncompromising. And I agree completely about other cities being willing to strike better deals, and you can count me in the group of people who consider that holding a host city hostage.
I can't comment on whether the Maloofs are uncompromising in this regard, but I doubt that they were unwilling to share the profits from non NBA events. I may be wrong, and if I am, then you're totally right. The city should benefit from non NBA events that are held in the arena if public funds are used on the project. No doubt about that.
It seems to me, however, that a lot of the "these rich people should build their own stadiums" naysayers (not really people on this board, but fans in every city, regardless of the sport) totally ignore the fact that the team probably uses the arena for events far less than the city does. This is particularly true in the NFL with only 8 home games (a maximum of 13 in a season, including preseason and playoffs). But it also holds true for NBA teams. Only 41 home games, and even with the playoffs, we can probably call it 70 games in a season max, plus a few team-related events. The city would be free to schedule other events practically 300 nights a year. And they should share in the profits, undoubtedly, if they contribute to the project. And even if they don't, they'll probably levy a surcharge on arena management for use of infrastructure (roads, police, etc.)
As to holding the city hostage, that may be true. But like I said, it's more and more starting to come down to whether the city values having that team or not, because whether you agree with it or not, that team can find a community willing to put together an arena deal for them. I hate to keep bringing up the NFL, but AEG is putting together a stadium project in SoCal without having a team. They have State Farm committed to a $700 million sponsorship deal, which is close to enough to get a stadium built. That goes up to $1 billion if they can get two teams. So if two teams want new arenas (for instance, San Diego and Minnesota), those cities don't have the luxury of calling the team's bluff. They already have a potential destination that the NFL has fully endorsed. It comes down to "if you can't/won't, someone else will." Sucks for a city that has been trying to build an arena for over a decade, but that's the black and white of it. That's why Orlando put together a $480 million project, based on what are now junk bonds, because they wanted to keep their team. May have ramifications down the line, but they keep their team. Pros and cons. I'm not arguing the merits, just saying that's how it is these days.
But, I would like to see some of the studies. The phrases "most studies suggest" and "trend lately toward a consensus that local economies benefit tremendously from having a sports team in the region" imply a level of certainty when I really don't think it's as unanimous as people make it out to be.
I'm acknowledging that there's a lot of back and forth. I don't mean to convey any kind of certainty, although my mind is clearly made up (and I doubt you really believe the city doesn't benefit from having a pro sports team). Either way, unanimous or not, I can't imagine how building a new arena isn't a boon for the local economy. Perhaps it takes a number of years to break even, depending on the amount of their contribution, but I just can't see how a city doesn't benefit from a new arena, if they take full advantage of it.
