In its latest issue The Economist takes a look at the economics of stadiums in the UK and the US. It points out that in the States clubs extract money from local officials, whereas the opposite is the case in the UK.
In the National Football League the number of teams is strictly restricted so clubs can threaten to leave if cities won’t build or refurbish their stadia. That is a blow to a city’s prestige and profile and doesn’t go down well with voters who support the team.
In its latest issue The Economist takes a look at the economics of stadiums in the UK and the US. It points out that in the States clubs extract money from local officials, whereas the opposite is the case in the UK.
In the National Football League the number of teams is strictly restricted so clubs can threaten to leave if cities won’t build or refurbish their stadia. That is a blow to a city’s prestige and profile and doesn’t go down well with voters who support the team.
In Britain local councils can extract money from clubs. The article looks at the case of Manchester City (although it fails to mention that the club got the former Commonwealth Games stadium on favourable terms). However, the club did pay for new lighting in primary school playgrounds which doesn’t sound like a big pay back.
In the case of Arsenal the club spent £60m on a rebuilding on a waste recycling plant when it moved to the Emirates and also spruced up neraby train stations. The club is currently building a sports centre which can be used by local people.
Clubs are, of course, keen to promote stadiums as ‘catalysts for regeneration’. Whether they are depends on the local circumstances, although the more underlying prosperity there is in the area, the greater the chances of success.