By Robert Haugh
A report commissioned recently by the 49ers claims that Levi’s Stadium has generated “more than $2 billion” for the local community since it opened in 2014.
Santa Clara News Online covered this story with skepticism since the team paid for it and they don’t have a great reputation for honesty.
And they’ve paid the City’s general fund almost zero dollars from big concerts since 2018.
(Other local publications mostly regurgiated the report and the 49ers’ talking points).
Now, SFGate has some knowledgable economists blasting the report on the record. The news site is not behind a paywall, unlike the SF Chronicle.
Respected economists J.C. Bradbury and Roger Noll have criticized the 49ers’ report, saying that it mischaracterizes the degree of the stadium’s financial impact. And it uses a flawed methodology.
The 49ers paid Daniel Rascher, who runs USF’s sports management program to do the study through his personal company.
Bradbury’s comments were really strong. Here’s what he told Alex Simon of SFGate:
Bradbury said that Rascher’s report defies conventional wisdom about economic measures in its use of attendee surveys.
“If you are a scholarly researcher, then you should be interested in participating in the ongoing research,” Bradbury posted. “If this [report] is right, the academic consensus is decidedly wrong. If Rascher believes this, then he has an obligation to publish through peer review. Show us we’re wrong.”
Bradbury admitted his critique of Rascher and the report may seem harsh, but he believes it is necessary because of the harm that a commissioned, non-peer-reviewed report can cause.
“This is doing real damage, taking advantage of people’s understandable ignorance to trick them into thinking that something they want to believe is true, for a fee,” he wrote. “Someone has to call it out. This isn’t just some professional disagreement.”
Wow.
Also from the SFGate story:
Bradbury’s criticism was echoed by Roger Noll, an economics professor at Stanford, who told Bay Area News Group that the study “does not measure the net benefits to Santa Clara, city or county, from having the stadium.” Noll specifically noted the exclusion of impact analysis on local spectator spending, arguing the premise of the study is “misleading.”
The story gets better:
Rascher declined to comment about his report and the criticism it has received when reached on the phone by SFGATE.
Double wow.
Maybe Dr. Tom Shanks is right about the 49ers totally corrupting Santa Clara.
When Prop J was being envisioned they had a focus group of Santa Clara residents. The focus was not on what did the residents want or what was good for the residents. The entire focus of the focus group was ‘how best to present this to voters to make them think it is a good thing?’
One look at the map with only two small points for ingress and egress and I was opposed. But it didn’t matter if we were opposed or in favor, what mattered is how we would interpret their spin. At the start 40% were opposed to the stadium. At the end 60% were opposed. But they had their shinny Prop J that said we would get rich with no cost or risk to the tax payer. Like many I had several No On J signs stolen and had to mount it on top of my motor-home.
I watched this week’s special council meeting via internet.
Thank you Mayor Lisa and councilmemeber Watanabe for calling out the wolves guarding the henhouse.
That would be The 49er Five, uh….make that Seven.
I am not impressed by the city attorney and city manager, both hand-picked by The Five. Thank goodness for our Mayor who regularly has very pertinent questions, questions which should have obviously asked and answered by the C.A. and C.M. without prompting from our Mayor. They seem ill-prepared and have glossed over huge questions with mumbo jumbo answers of little substance. They both got caught, imo, with their pants down last night, when they gave ambigous answers re MANCO and FIFA.
It is a very, very perilous road our city will go down until they are all replaced. Our fiduciary interests as citizens absolutely come second to special interests, in this case billionaires controlling professional athletes making millions, right here in our Mission City. Wouldn’t it be nice to have more traffic officers citing agregious drivers, rather than put that money in Jed York’s bottom line? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a functioning Santa Clara Swim Center, in the summer, which is on life support?
Aside from elections and/or recalls, we are stuck.
So many special interests, including our own city council, has their foot on the scale of justice. Yes, Becker got indicted for felony perjury, but we know that is the tip of the iceberg for all the rest involved, and in that respect, Becker is taking a very hard fall for the other 49er Five, also taking the fall for 49er executives, as well. I really hope Becker takes a plea deal for a lighter sentence or probation in exchange for giving the truth of the involvement of those much higher on the food chain who threw him under the bus just to save their necks, as well as the other 4.
The effort by the 49ers to subvert/purchase the government of Santa Clara and control the information and misinformation being fed to the public is, I am sure, being closely watched by other similar organizations and billionaires. If the 49ers get away with this then this type of takeover will be replicated.
Walter,
You give the 49ers way too much credit.
Read what has happened to so many of the other NFL Cities. Really shocking.
I truly believe we are not even the worse treated Host City…. That’s how bad this all is.
Not the NBA, MLB, or NHL treat their host Cities like “Entitled Little Kids (Use any Group you want to use here)”. Sadly that is just the SOP (Standard Operating System) for the NFL. It’s almost like a game, who can screw their host City the most!!
The honest chance to work with the 49ers went away just after the third home game.
Al Guido looked at the Youth Soccer Fields and told people that those fields were theirs, no one was even using them. What he didn’t know was the SCYSL (Santa Clara Youth Soccer League) was just trying to help them out. We were trying to be a good neighbor… We really were.
Then the Big Bomb came when they lost in court when they tried to lower their own rent. I mean doesn’t every renter get to lower their own rent?
How does any Pro Team try to lower their own rent? Easy, just put the Fox in charge of the Hen House. By the way just a little tip…. it’s never a good, sound, financial idea to do this.
Just think….we only have 30++ more years of this.
As I have said over and over, please register to vote. Do not believe anything that the 49ers or their media outlets are selling.
Subscribe to the San Francisco Chronicle, sad but our local media has already been bought and sold…. SF can relate to us, sadly their spoiled child came a knocking, and we answered the door.
Lucky us.
Burt Field
Burt,
I dumped the Mercury News and subscribed to the Chronicle a year ago because it was the only news outlet reporting honestly and completely on what the 49ers were doing in Santa Clara. I have only followed what was happening in Santa Clara vis a vis an NFL team, although I have heard horror stories. Maybe you know, have NFL teams actually bought and paid for city councils in other cities like they have in Santa Clara? I mean the corruption here is so obvious and blatant.
Walt
Of course the 49ers bought an Economist.
You can put lipstick on a pig….