Posted by John Vrooman on Sunday, May 1, 2016 in Major League Baseball.

Interview with Tampa Bay Times.

I am researching a piece on what lessons the Rays could learn from the mistakes made with Marlins Park.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the issues. Some of the problems I’ve heard about are low crowds, poor location and a bad deal for taxpayers.

Anything that you can add on those issues, others, and how the stadium deal is viewed in the wider sports business community?

Here is my version of the comparative ballpark costs and public subsidies.

MLB Ball Parks / PDF

I suggest that you also look at the Braves new ballpark project in Cobb County closer to their relatively affluent fan base. This is similar to the current fan base split between Hillsborough and Pinellas counties in Tampa-St. Pete.

There are four main issues:

Total ballpark cost and finding an equitable public/private funding split

Location, location, location. (wider economic development potential)

Fan base and season-ticket potential

Ownership and relationship of ballpark and team quality

I would compare the projects in Atlanta, Miami and Tampa based on these criteria.

---

Thanks for the info.

The Braves are going gung-ho on surrounding development.

Did the Marlins make a mistake choosing a site that has no immediate room for development?

How has the location affected attendances?

The former Orange Bowl site in Little Havana has zero potential for surrounding spinoffs. The surrounding area is largely residential with no linkages to the economic grid. The parking garage is small and fans end up parking in surrounding residential yards. Logistically It is also a difficult place to reach in metro Miami.

If the ballparks are connected to the economic grid as potential economic development anchors then some modest public subsidy could be justified, but certainly no  more than 15% to 20% of the ballpark cost. (But this may also depend on market size).

The public finance instrument should be derived from incremental gains (TIFs) from the surrounding areas. The Marlins deal with a 75 percent public subsidy is completely upside down in terms of the public/private split.

It is also difficult to justify public subsidies for the new breed of ball parks because they are economically designed to capture most of the economic gains within the venue. This is particularly true of Marlins Park.

Location has adversely affected attendance but it is hard to tell because Marlins ownership has failed to create a quality club to attract long-term stable fan base.

The Braves have solved the logistical problem by relocating the new SunTrust Park toward the relatively more affluent season ticket holder fan base in Cobb County.

The Braves have also solved the economic development anchor issues by investing an additional $500 million in surrounding mixed use development by the parent corporate owner Liberty Media.

Still given the direct and indirect economic development potential available for Liberty Media, the Sun Trust Park cash cow does not come close to justifying a public subsidy in excess of 50 percent from politically conservative Cobb County.