With the start of the EPL this weekend I thought it appropriate to look at something related to football. Teams in the EPL and other domestic leagues often look for funding from the government to build stadiums with the rationale that the investment will attract consumers and businesses to the local area. This suggests that a multiplier effect would be at work and the benefits to the area go beyond that of the football field.
The size of the multiplier is influenced by how much of extra income is spent on domestically produced products. The more that is passed on in the circular flow, the larger will be the multiplier. This means that the size of the multiplier varies inversely with the tendency for extra income to be withdrawn from the circular flow – the marginal propensity to withdraw. It is calculated by 1/marginal propensity to withdraw. In the case of a two sector economy, this is I divided by the marginal propensity to save (mps). For example, if people save $20 out of an increase in income of $100, the mps will be 0.2 and the multiplier will be 1/0.2 = 5.
Cities with new stadiums initially create jobs and growth but in the long-term there is little economic benefit. Why?
- For all their cultural significance, sports tams are not very big businesses and so their overall impact is small in most cities of any size.
- If local residents spend more at the stadium they are likely to reduce spending elsewhere which will impact on local businesses.
- A stadium may attract more visitors from outside the area who inject money into the local economy, but the multiplier effect is likely to be small because many of the services they consume will actually come from outside the area – e.g. food and beverages may be shipped in from elsewhere.
If you look at previous World Cups or European Championships there tends to be the same issues as mentioned above
The 2010 World Cup in South Africa saw Soccer City, the largest sports venue in Africa, undergo a £300 million renovation which costs £250,000 a month to maintain. It is the stadium for the Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates but is rarely full and has struggles to make revenue from other sources. See below:
Brazil spent about $3 billion building 12 new or heavily refurbished stadiums for the 2014 World Cup. Officials justified the expense by saying that the stadiums would generate revenue for years to come with Brazilian football premier league games and rock concerts but most stadiums are failing to generate any revenue. The most expensive stadium in Brasilia – 72,000 seater and a $900 million venue – is used a bus parking lot. A big issue here was that there was no major professional football team in the city so therefore limited crowds would be present. Although the organisers rationale was to improve facilities around the country there are white elephants evident – in some locations teams cannot afford the rental so will play at much smaller venues. A $600m stadium in Manaus was used for 4 World Cup games but is now empty which is not surprising as the city itself has a lower division football team who don’t have the finances. What people forget is that, although the stadiums might look good and are used to host the biggest sporting event in the world, a large number of people are displaced and neighbourhoods disestablished. But organisers say that it will add to the well-being of the population especially if the host side wins – however this has not been the case for Brazil – in fact as we know it turned out to be a bit of a trashing in the semi-final against Germany. It will be interesting to see the use of stadiums in Russia after the World Cup just gone but one cannot doubt that the morale of the Russian people was significantly boosted by their teams performance.