NBA Teams Provide No Economic Benefits, Says NBA Team

The Seattle Times' Jim Brunner points out a head-exploding irony in the Sonics' legal case to escape their Key Arena lease.

For a lifetime, we've heard professional sports owners trot out the argument that we ought to pay for their arenas because they provide an economic benefit to the community. Think of the waiters, the parking attendants, the ushers and all the people that make money when the team plays.

Or don't--they'd be getting their money anyway, according to Sonics' lawyers. One of their arguments to get out of their Key Arena lease is that a pro sports team provides no economic benefit at all:

The financial issue is simple, and the city's analysts agree, there will be no net economic loss if the Sonics leave Seattle. Entertainment dollars not spent on the Sonics will be spent on Seattle's many other sports and entertainment options. Seattleites will not reduce their entertainment budget simply because the Sonics leave.

We're interested to see how this will play out in Oklahoma City, where they are supposed to vote on taxes to expand their arena in an effort to land the Sonics. If there's no economic benefit...why would you spend tax dollars on it?

The economic-benefits argument was settled by economists long ago. There is none. The benefit is intangible and cultural...we don't expect economic benefits from the arts or from libraries, yet taxes go there, too.

Still, it's rather incredible for the Sonics to be arguing exactly the opposite of what they were arguing to the Legislature just a few months ago, and what pro sports teams have been arguing since the beginning of pro sports.