DOCSLIB.ORG

(SMA XVII) Chicago, IL November 6-8, 2019 Exploring Attitudes Toward Naming-Rights A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(SMA XVII) Chicago, IL November 6-8, 2019 Exploring Attitudes Toward Naming-Rights A 2019 Sport Marketing Association Conference (SMA XVII) Exploring Attitudes toward Naming-rights and Jersey Sponsors for an NBA Team Terry Eddy, University of Windsor Jean-Francois Scraire, University of Windsor Keifer Bell, University of Windsor James Caron, University of Windsor Wednesday, November 6, 2019 25-minute oral presentation 4:30-4:55 PM, Chi. River (A, B, C) (including questions) Naming-rights and jersey sponsorships are two forms of activation that have become important revenue streams for sport organizations across the globe. The naming-rights market is highly developed in North America (Eddy, 2014), with over 80% of the facilities used by the four major professional sport leagues bearing corporate names. On the other hand, although jersey/shirt sponsorship is omnipresent globally, it is relatively new in North America (Jensen et al., 2012). In 2007, the MLS became the first North American professional league to place corporate logos on jerseys (Jensen et al., 2012), and the NBA became the first of the four major leagues to allow jersey sponsorship in 2017. Interest in becoming naming-rights or jersey sponsors from new and existing league partners, as well as continued price escalation, suggests these forms of activation are considered premium marketing vehicles. For example, the San Antonio Spurs’ jersey deal represented an upsell to Frost Bank, a Spurs sponsor since 1973 (Wolkenbrod, 2018). Similarly, State Farm, a long-time NBA sponsor, only recently enter the naming-rights space, purchasing naming-rights to the Atlanta Hawks’ arena in 2018 (Sunnucks, 2018). Current NBA jersey sponsorships have cost brands in the range of $5-20 million annually (Lefton & Lombardo, 2019), which is comparable to the figures for naming-rights of NBA venues. Despite this growth, resistance from fans have been frequent themes for both naming-rights (Woisetschlager et al., 2014) and jersey sponsorships (Block, 2016). As such, the purpose of this study is to examine individuals’ attitudes and behaviors toward naming-rights and jersey sponsors and determine if there are differences in how people respond to the two activation strategies. Although activation is considered a critical element in sponsorship processing, it has received little focused study (Dreisbach, in press; Kim et al., 2015). Since it has been found that certain products may better fit a different type of activation between venue or team (Martinez & Janney, 2015), this work is a timely addition to the literature. Numerous attitudinal/cognitive factors, including team identification, involvement, and fit, have been identified as positive predictors of important sponsorship outcomes, which include brand image and behavioral intentions (Kim et al., 2015). However, past research on naming-rights has found team identification to be a non- significant (Eddy, 2014) or negative predictor (Chen & Zhang, 2012; Woisetschlager et al., 2014) of sponsor outcomes. Increased resistance from fans and concerns about over-commercialization with naming-rights, compared to other forms of sponsorship, has been one factor that has driven these results. Due to this divergence, it has been argued that naming-rights require focused research attention – the same has also been said for jersey sponsorship (Jensen et al., 2012). However, studies on jersey sponsorship have been limited. Even in European settings, brands that appear on shirts are often the research context (Zaharia et al., 2016), but perceptions/attitudes toward the practice of jersey sponsorship are generally not assessed. Early research on MLS/WNBA jersey sponsorship indicated fan reactions were generally positive, due to perceptions of the ‘need’ for revenue for league survival (Jensen et al., 2012). As such, it was noted that similar acceptance might not occur for a league with less perceived need for revenue. Theory from the advertising literature, particularly brand placement and prominence, will frame this study. Brand prominence is the extent to which the brand is the focus of attention within media programming (Gupta & Lord 1998). Prominence is affected by numerous elements of brand placement, such as location, product/logo size, Chicago, IL November 6-8, 2019 2019 Sport Marketing Association Conference (SMA XVII) integration into programming, and frequency/duration on screen (Choi et al., 2018). In past research on television, prominent placements of brands had a negative effect on brand attitudes (Matthes et al., 2007). Subtle, or more natural, placements were less likely to cause negative shifts in brand attitude (Cowley & Barron, 2008). Within the context of sponsor activations, naming-rights and jersey sponsorships are highly prominent, due to their integration within the core product. However, jersey sponsorship is arguably more prominent since the brand usually appears simultaneously with the team brand/players. Further, North Americans may view corporate facility names as being more natural, since the practice has been mainstream for several decades. As such, the following hypotheses were created: H1: Attitudes toward naming-rights sponsorship will be more positive than attitudes toward jersey sponsorship, when controlling for team identification. H2: Image of the naming sponsors will be more positive than the image of the jersey sponsors, when controlling for team identification. H3: Behavioral intentions toward naming sponsors will be more positive than intentions toward jersey sponsors, when controlling for team identification. The Toronto Raptors provide an appropriate setting for this research because the jersey (Sunlife) and arena naming (Scotiabank) sponsors are both relatively new (2017 and 2018, respectively). Thus, the public has been exposed to each sponsor for similar times. Recruitment began in November, 2018 using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk continues to grow as a recruitment platform for sport marketing research as it has been found to provide valid and reliable results, especially when targeting diverse populations (Casler et al., 2013; Weiner & Dwyer, 2017). Since a Canada-wide sample was desired for the study, using MTurk was appropriate. Recruitment is ongoing, with 235 usable responses already received. To ensure data quality, geographical restrictions, minimum worker ratings, and IP limiters were utilized (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Timed knowledge questions and attention checks were also inserted throughout the survey (Peer et al., 2014), and any incorrect responses removed the participants from the survey immediately. A two group, post-test only, quasi-experimental design was employed, with workers randomly assigned to either a naming-rights or jersey sponsor survey. Both questionnaires were identical except for contextual differences (e.g. sponsor names). Sponsor image and behavioral intentions were adapted directly from Alexandris and Tsiotsou (2012), and attitude toward sponsorship items were minimally altered to suit the activation context. A one-way MANCOVA, with team identification included as a covariate, will be used to address the hypotheses. The findings will help brands better understand how activation can affect how their partnerships are perceived, and inform the decision-making process on leveraging strategies. References Alexandris, K., & Tsiotsou, R. H. (2012). Testing a hierarchy of effects model of sponsorship effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 26(5), 363-378. Block, J. (2016, April 19). Why ads on NBA jersey aren’t the end of the world. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/why-ads-on-nba-jerseys-arent-the-end-of-the-world-according-to-a soccer-fan_n_57112ae7e4b0060ccda32e05 Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156-2160. Chen, K.K., & Zhang, J.J., (2012). To name it or not name it: Consumer perspectives on facility naming rights sponsorship in collegiate athletics. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 5, 119-148. Choi, D., Bang, H., Wojdynski, B. W., Lee, Y. I., & Keib, K. M. (2018). How brand disclosure timing and brand prominence influence consumer's intention to share branded entertainment content. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 42, 18-31. Cowley, E., & Barron, E. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: The effects of program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 89-98. Chicago, IL November 6-8, 2019 2019 Sport Marketing Association Conference (SMA XVII) Dreisbach, J., Woisetschlager, D. M., Backhaus, C., & Cornwell, T. B. (2018). The role of fan benefits in shaping responses to sponsorship activation. Journal of Business Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.041 Eddy, T. (2014). Measuring effects of naming-rights sponsorships on college football fans’ purchasing intentions. Sport Management Review, 17(3), 362–375. Gupta, P. B., & Lord, K. R. (1998). Product placement in movies: The effect of prominence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20(1), 47-59. Jensen, R., Bowman, N., Wang, Y., & Larson, B. (2012). New league, new market and new sponsorship: An exploratory study of attitudes towards shirt sponsorship in Major League Soccer. Soccer
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Value Capture Quick Facts
    CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE FINANCE SUPPORT VALUE CAPTURE QUICK FACTS Naming rights involve selling the right Naming Rights to name transportation assets to the Naming rights generate revenue by selling the right to name transportation assets to the private private sector. sector. Naming rights are an alternative means to generate revenue for transportation agencies One of the most common applications of that are looking for new sources of funding other than taxes and fees. One of the most common naming rights within the transportation examples of selling naming rights is within the context of professional sports. Because most sector involves transit stations. professional sports arenas, stadiums, fields, and tracks are publicly owned, there are many instances where they have been renamed by banking, telecom communications, and other private Naming rights is strategy to help firms. For example, MetLife, Inc. pays $16 million per year to name the football stadium used by the transportation agencies generate additional New York Giants and New York Jets, and Citibank and AT&T each pay $20 million per year for the revenue to support their operations. stadiums used by the New York Mets and the Dallas Cowboys, respectively. THE SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AT&T STATION In June 2010, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) approved a 5-year contract to change the name of Pattison Station on the Broad Street line to AT&T Station, generating over $5 million. The agreement expands AT&T’s partnership with SEPTA as the only wireless carrier that provides cell phone coverage underground on the Broad Street and Market– Frankford lines.
    [Show full text]
  • National Hockey League
    NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE {Appendix 4, to Sports Facility Reports, Volume 18} Research completed as of August 7, 2017 Anaheim Ducks Principal Owner: Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC & Anaheim Arena Management, LLC; headed by Henry and Susan Samueli Year Established: 1992 Team Website Twitter: @AnaheimDucks Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): $75 (2005) Current Value ($/Mil): $415 Percent Change From Last Year: +4% Arena: Honda Center Date Built: 1993 Facility Cost ($/Mil): $123 Percentage of Arena Publicly Financed: 100% Facility Financing: Publicly Funded; Ogden Entertainment is assuming the debt for the city- issued bonds. Facility Website Twitter: @HondaCenter UPDATE: In June 2017, Lottogopher Holdings, Inc. entered into a sponsorship agreement with the Anaheim Ducks. Lottogopher will focus on offering promotional giveaways to Ducks’ fans during the 2017- 18 season. The cities of Anaheim and Long Beach have been added to Los Angeles’s bid for the 2024 Olympics. The Honda Center and multiple Long Beach facilities would stage various Olympic events in an effort to spread the games across southern California. NAMING RIGHTS: In October 2006, American Honda Motor Co. agreed to pay $60.45 million over fifteen years for naming rights that expire in 2020. © Copyright 2017, National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School Page 1 Arizona Coyotes Principal Owner: Andrew Barroway became the sole owner after Barroway bought out the team’s minority owners on June 12, 2017. Year Established: 1979 as the Winnipeg Jets and moved to Phoenix in 1996 where it became the Coyotes. Team Website Twitter: @ArizonaCoyotes Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): $170 (2013) (In 2014, Barroway purchased a majority share of the franchise for $152.5 million.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Perspectives on Facility Naming Rights Sponsorship in Collegiate Athletics ______
    Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 2012, 5, 119-148 119 © 2012 College Sport Research Institute To Name it or not Name it: Consumer Perspectives on Facility Naming Rights Sponsorship in Collegiate Athletics ____________________________________________________________ Kenneth K. Chen University of Georgia James J. Zhang University of Georgia ____________________________________________________________ Collegiate athletics have become increasingly attractive for sponsorship investments, a trend that has also created some potentially negative side effects. How university stakeholders, such as students, perceive and respond to stadium naming rights sponsorship is a major concern to administrators of both athletic programs and business corporations. This study investigates students’ beliefs about naming rights sponsorship, their attitudes toward commercialization, team and stadium identification, and perception of financial status, as well as how these factors affect naming rights sponsorship outcomes regarding attitude toward sponsor, purchase intention of sponsor’s product, and willingness to attend sporting events. A theoretical model was proposed and tested, where the hierarchical paradigm of belief-attitude-behavior intention was confirmed to be relevant and applicable. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed significant (p < .05) influences of beliefs about naming rights, attitude toward commercialization, stadium identification, and perception of financial status on attitudes toward sponsor; attitudes toward sponsor and team identification on purchase intention of sponsor’s product; and team identification, stadium identification, attitudes toward sponsor, and beliefs about naming rights sponsorships on willingness to attend sporting events. Stadium identification was identified as playing an important role in evaluating the effectiveness of a naming rights sponsorship. The study provides preliminary insight into the potential viability of naming rights sponsorships for intercollegiate athletics.
    [Show full text]
  • Major League Baseball
    Appendix 1 to Sports Facility Reports, Volume 4, Number 1 ( Copyright 2003, National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School) MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL Note: Information complied from Sports Business News, Forbes.com, Lexis-Nexis, and other sources published on or before June 6, 2003. Team Principal Owner Most Recent Purchase Price Current Value ($/Mil) ($/Mil) Percent Increase/Decrease From Last Year Anaheim Angels Walt Disney Co. 183.5 (2003) $225 (+15%) Stadium ETA Cost % Facility Financing (millions) Publicly Financed Edison 1966 $24 100% In April 1998, Disney completed a $117 M renovation. International Field Disney contributed $87 M toward the project while the of Anaheim City of Anaheim contributed $30 M through the retention of $10 M in external stadium advertising and $20 M in hotel taxes and reserve funds. UPDATE In May 2003, the Anaheim Angels made history by becoming the first American based professional sports team to be owned by an individual of Latino decent. Auturo Moreno, an Arizona businessman worth an estimated $940 million, bought the Angels for $183.5 million. Moreno, one of eleven children, is the former owner of a minor league baseball team and was once a minority owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks. NAMING RIGHTS The Anaheim Angels currently play at Edison International Field of Anaheim. On September 15, 1997, Edison International entered into a naming-rights agreement that will pay the Angels $50 million over 20 years with an average annual payout of $2.5 million. The naming-rights agreement expires in 2018. Team Principal Owner Most Recent Purchase Price Current Value ($/Mil) ($/Mil) Percent Increase/Decrease From Last Year Arizona Jerry Colangelo $130 (1995) $269 (-1%) Diamondbacks Stadium ETA Cost % Facility Financing (millions) Publicly Financed Bank One Ballpark 1998 $355 71% The Maricopa County Stadium District provided $238 M for the construction through a .25% increase in the county sales tax from April 1995 to November 30, 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • The City of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Levi's Stadium
    2015-2016 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, LEVI’S STADIUM, AND MEASURE J Background The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) received a complaint concerning possible nonconformance with certain requirements of The Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act (Measure J). Allegations were also brought to the Grand Jury’s attention concerning the accuracy of time charged by City of Santa Clara (City) employees for stadium business. The City, with a population of approximately 126,000, is located in Silicon Valley and has a convention center, hotels, the Great America amusement park, and Levi’s Stadium (Stadium). The City has an appointed City Manager and part-time elected Mayor and City Council. In addition to serving as members of City committees and agencies, the Mayor and City Council also serve as the voting board of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (Stadium Authority). In June 2010, voters of the City passed Measure J, which authorized the formation of the Stadium Authority to oversee the design and construction of the Stadium, to be its owner/landlord, and to oversee all business related to Stadium maintenance and operation. It was also intended to insulate the taxpayers of the City from financial burdens beyond those specified in the ballot measure. The Stadium Authority entered into a project management agreement with the Forty Niners Santa Clara Stadium Company LLC (StadCo) in accordance with Measure J. The agreement authorized StadCo to direct and manage the design and construction of the new 68,500-seat stadium on City-owned land subject to oversight by the Stadium Authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Miscellaneous
    MISCELLANEOUS CARDINALS CHARITIES Founded in 1990, Cardinals for Single Moms, the Ronald Charities mission is to sup- McDonald House, Communities port programs designed to in Schools, The Wellness improve the quality of life Community and UMOM New and enhance opportunities Day Centers. for children, women, and One of the biggest pro- minorities in Arizona. grams that financially sup- Cardinals Charities grants port Cardinals Charities is the are awarded on an annu- sale of Cardinals specialty al basis in response to license plates sold through applications from qualified the Arizona Department non-profit organizations of Transportation (ADOT). whose goals and programs meet the mission Drivers who purchase a Cardinals specialty plate statement. pay $25 per year with $17 going to Cardinals Cardinals Charities also continued its involve- Charities each year. ment with a wide range of organizations focused on In 2018, Cardinals Charities distributed grants women and children’s issues in Arizona. Cardinals to worthy charitable organizations including Boys Charities supported these programs through grants & Girls Clubs across the state, domestic violence awarded to the Sojourner Center, Helping Hands shelters, and various educational programs. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR BENEFICIARIES ■ Organizations must be exempt under 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Service code. ■ At least 75 percent of funding must be spent in Arizona. ■ Grant application will be limited to once each year; however, organizations may reapply each year. Proposals for $5,000 or less are preferred. APPLICATION PROCESS Interested organizations must request an application in writing, either by FAX or mail, on their 501 (c) (3) letterhead. Deadline for submission of application is July 1.
    [Show full text]
  • National Football League
    NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE {Appendix 3, to Sports Facility Reports, Volume 20} Research completed as of August 1st, 2019 Team: Arizona Cardinals Principal Owner: William Bidwell Year Established: 1898 Team Website Twitter: @AZCardinals Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): $.05 (1932) Current Value ($/Mil): $2.15B Percent Change From Last Year: 7% Stadium: State Farm Stadium Date Built: 2006 Facility Cost ($/Mil): $455 Percentage of Stadium Publicly Financed: 76% Facility Financing: The Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority contributed $300.4 million, most of which came from a 1% hotel/motel tax, a 3.25% car rental tax, and a stadium-related sales tax. The Arizona Cardinals contributed $145.4 million. Glendale contributed $9.9 million. The Cardinals purchased the land for the stadium for $18.5 million. Facility Website Twitter: @StateFarmStdm UPADTE: On September 4, 2018, the stadium owners announced that they have entered into a new naming rights deal with State Farm. Last year, it was announced that the naming rights deal would be changing, but the stadium would remain as the University of Phoenix Stadium until a new deal was reached. NAMING RIGHTS: The Cardinals Stadium reached an 18-year naming rights agreement with State Farm Insurance. Due to a confidentiality agreement, team owner Bidwill declined to state to the public the value of the new naming rights deal with State Farm. © Copyright 2019, National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School Page 1 Team: Atlanta Falcons Principal Owner: Arthur Blank Year Established: 1965 Team Website Twitter: @AtlantaFalcons Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): $545 (2002) Current Value ($/Mil): $2.6 B Percent Change From Last Year: 5% Stadium: Mercedes-Benz Stadium Date Built: 2017 Facility Cost ($/Mil): $1.5 B Percentage of Stadium Publicly Financed: 100% Facility Financing: The state legislature authorized a donation of land for the stadium valued at $14 million.
    [Show full text]
  • National Football League
    NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE {Appendix 3, to Sports Facility Reports, Volume 21} Research completed as of August 7th, 2020 Team: Arizona Cardinals Principal Owner: Michael Bidwell Year Established: 1898 Team Website Twitter: @AZCardinals Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): $.05 (1932) Current Value ($/Mil): $2.25 B Percent Change From Last Year: 5% Stadium: State Farm Stadium Date Built: 2006 Facility Cost ($/Mil): $455 Percentage of Stadium Publicly Financed: 76% Facility Financing: The Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority, a public entity, contributed $300.4 million, most of which came from a 1% hotel/motel tax, a 3.25% car rental tax, and a stadium- related sales tax. The Arizona Cardinals contributed $145.4 million. Glendale contributed $9.9 million. The Cardinals purchased the land for the stadium for $18.5 million. Facility Website Twitter: @StateFarmStdm UPADTE: In October 2019, President Michael Bidwell became Chairman after longtime Arizona Cardinals owner William Bidwell passed away at the age of 88. State Farm Stadium is set to host Super Bowl LVII in 2023 and the NCAA men’s basketball Final Four in 2024. NAMING RIGHTS: In 2018, the Cardinals Stadium reached an 18-year naming rights agreement with State Farm Insurance. Due to a confidentiality agreement, team owner Bidwill declined to state to the public the value of the new naming rights deal with State Farm. Sports Business Daily reported that the University of Phoenix was paying between $8-$9 million a year for the previous naming rights deal before State Farm Insurance obtained
    [Show full text]
  • Naming Rights and Sponsorship Practice
    Naming Rights and Sponsorship Practice Bryan Cave is a leader in naming rights and sponsorship transactions, representing both sports and entertainment properties and corporate sponsors. Naming Rights With naming rights representations with an aggregate value in excess of $1.6 billion and significant experience on both the sports and entertainment property and the sponsor side, we are among the most active law firms in the world in naming rights transactions. We have been at the table for a number of the largest naming rights deals in history, including one of the largest known naming rights deal on each side of Atlantic in the $400 million naming rights agreement for Citi Field in New York and the 15 year agreement to rename the London Millennium Dome to The O2, as well as the naming rights deal for the Dolby Theatre, home of the Academy Awards, and the Johnson Controls Hall of Fame Village. Representative naming rights engagements we have handled include the following: Ameriquest Field Bank of America Stadium Citi Field Coors Field (Texas Rangers) (Carolina Panthers) (New York Mets) (Colorado Rockies) Dolby Theatre Edward Jones Dome The Home Depot Center Honda Center (Home of the Academy Awards) (St. Louis Rams) (Los Angeles Galaxy) (Anaheim Ducks) The O2 Oracle Arena Pepsi Center Progressive Field (London) (Golden State Warriors) (Colorado Avalanche and Denver Nuggets) (Cleveland Indians) Qwest Field Scottrade Center Sprint Center STAPLES Center (Seattle Seahawks) (St. Louis Blues) (Kansas City) (LA Lakers, Clippers, Kings, Sparks & Avengers) Atlanta Boulder Charlotte Chicago Colorado Springs Dallas Denver Frankfurt Hamburg Hong Kong Irvine Jefferson City Kansas City London Los Angeles Miami New York Overland Park Paris bryancave.com | A Global Law Firm Phoenix San Francisco Shanghai Southern Illinois St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara
    College of the Holy Cross CrossWorks Economics Department Working Papers Economics Department 8-1-2017 Hidden Subsidies and the Public Ownership of Sports Facilities: The aC se of Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara Robert Baumann College of the Holy Cross, [email protected] Victor Matheson College of the Holy Cross, [email protected] Debra O'Connor College of the Holy Cross, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://crossworks.holycross.edu/econ_working_papers Part of the Industrial Organization Commons, Public Administration Commons, Public Economics Commons, Sports Studies Commons, and the Taxation Commons Recommended Citation Baumann, Robert; Matheson, Victor; and O'Connor, Debra, "Hidden Subsidies and the Public Ownership of Sports Facilities: The Case of Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara" (2017). Economics Department Working Papers. Paper 186. https://crossworks.holycross.edu/econ_working_papers/186 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics Department at CrossWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Department Working Papers by an authorized administrator of CrossWorks. Hidden Subsidies and the Public Ownership of Sports Facilities: The Case of Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara By Robert Baumann, Victor Matheson, and Debra O’Connor August 2017 COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS FACULTY RESEARCH SERIES, PAPER NO. 17-05* Department of Economics College of the Holy Cross Box 45A Worcester, Massachusetts 01610 (508) 793-3362 (phone) (508) 793-3708 (fax) http://academics.holycross.edu/economics-accounting *All papers in the Holy Cross Working Paper Series should be considered draft versions subject to future revision.
    [Show full text]
  • The Odd Couple: Stadium Naming Rights Mitigating the Public-Private Stadium Finance Debate, 4 FIU L
    FIU Law Review Volume 4 Number 2 Article 9 Spring 2009 The Odd Couple: Stadium Naming Rights Mitigating the Public- Private Stadium Finance Debate Christopher B. Carbot Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview Part of the Other Law Commons Online ISSN: 2643-7759 Recommended Citation Christopher B. Carbot, The Odd Couple: Stadium Naming Rights Mitigating the Public-Private Stadium Finance Debate, 4 FIU L. Rev. 515 (2009). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.4.2.9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Odd Couple: Stadium Naming Rights Mitigating the Public-Private Stadium Finance Debate Christopher B. Carbot1 I. INTRODUCTION They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you look around, you'll say. It's only $20 per person. They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the base- lines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their he- roes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped them- selves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces.
    [Show full text]
  • Milwaukee Brewers Stadium Costs
    JANICE MUELLER STATE AUDITOR 22 E. MIFFLIN ST., STE. 500 MADISON, WISCONSIN 53703 (608) 266-2818 FAX (608) 267-0410 [email protected] To all readers: The agency response to our review of Milwaukee Brewers Stadium costs misrepresents the Legislative Audit Bureau, mischaracterizes the content of the report, and makes allegations about the report’s accuracy and objectivity that cannot be substantiated. As with all of our reports, the information we have included here has been subject to a rigorous documentation process, and the working papers prepared in support of our findings are open for public inspection. I regret that an unfounded attack on our report and our professionalism has occurred. However, the Legislative Audit Bureau remains committed to our mission of ensuring that financial transactions and management decisions involving public funds are made effectively, efficiently, and in compliance with state law and that public agencies carry out their public missions. We look forward to continuing to provide objective, unbiased, nonpartisan, and accurate information to the public and the Legislature in the future. Sincerely, Janice Mueller State Auditor JM/ss Audit Bureau Response to the Chairperson of the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District A REVIEW Milwaukee Brewers Stadium Costs Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District 02-8 May 2002 2001-2002 Joint Legislative Audit Committee Members Senate Members: Assembly Members: Gary R. George, Co-chairperson Joseph K. Leibham, Co-chairperson Judith Robson Samantha Starzyk Brian Burke John Gard Joanne Huelsman David Cullen Mary Lazich Barbara Gronemus ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ LEGISLATIVE AUDIT BUREAU The Bureau is a nonpartisan legislative service agency responsible for conducting financial and program evaluation audits of state agencies.
    [Show full text]