Copyright cleveland.com
Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb might want to send the Haslams a thank-you card, say the podcast hosts on Today in Ohio. Despite his initial fight to keep the Browns on the lakefront, a new financial analysis shows the team’s departure might be the terrific financial news. A comprehensive review by cleveland.com reporters Sean MacDonald and Rich Exner has revealed what many city finance experts have long suspected: the Browns stadium has been a consistent money-loser for Cleveland taxpayers. “Sean and Rich crunched the numbers, and they found that Cleveland spends about $19 million a year on costs tied to the stadium,” explained Leila Atassi. “And in return, the city only collects about $17 million a year in revenue that’s directly linked to the stadium, mostly from the admissions tax, the syntax, and a small share of income and parking taxes.” The financial drain doesn’t stop at direct costs. The analysis found the city is responsible for everything from “paying off the original construction loans to capital repairs, insurance, even police staffing on game days,” all while the revenue generated fails to cover the expenses. Expert economists who’ve studied football stadium economics across America confirm this isn’t unique to Cleveland. Victor Matheson, who specializes in the economics of professional sports, told cleveland.com reporters that stadiums typically create what he calls “a flash flood and then a drought” - a short burst of economic activity during games followed by vacant, unused facilities the rest of the year. NFL venues host far fewer games than their MLB or NBA counterparts. “With the Browns, it’s eight home games and a couple of preseason games. And they stink, so there’s very rarely post season play and then maybe a concert or two the rest of the year. The thing is not used the way the others are,” said Chris Quinn. “You just can’t make the case that a football stadium is good for the economy.” Urban planning expert Ned Hill put it bluntly: while diehard fans might “miss freezing their patooties off in December,” the city has effectively shed a massive financial burden. The Browns’ departure creates an unprecedented opportunity for Cleveland’s lakefront. The team has agreed to pay for demolition of the stadium and prepare the site for redevelopment, effectively gifting the city with 450 acres of prime lakefront real estate - double what was previously available for development. Instead of continuing to pour millions into subsidizing a team that plays just a handful of dates per year, Cleveland now has the chance to create a year-round destination that truly benefits residents and visitors alike. Mayor Bibb now frames the team’s departure as “a once in a generation opportunity,” and the financial data strongly supports this interpretation. After decades of subsidizing a money-losing venture, Cleveland can finally reimagine its waterfront without the constraints of accommodating an NFL stadium that sits empty most of the year. While the public debate continues about the team’s departure, the financial reality is clear: Cleveland just escaped a subsidy cycle that has trapped countless American cities, and its economic future looks brighter without the financial drain of maintaining an NFL stadium. Listen to the conversation here. Read more Today in Ohio news How Ohio murder suspects could escape justice by simply refusing to take their medicine Inside the increasingly nasty turf war between Cuyahoga County’s top elected officials “Day after day, this guy embarrasses Ohio:” Moreno skulks about for colleagues’ car data
