“Hosting an NFL franchise represents a once-in-a-generation place-making opportunity,” the report states.
But some economists and at least one elected official who reviewed the report were skeptical of some of its findings.
The move comes as the administration of Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (Democrat) continues to try to lure the Washington Commanders from their home base in Landover, Maryland.
The $394,000 “sports study” was announced by Mayor Bowser a year after city council members debated the merits of an NFL stadium and received requests for arena upgrades and improvements from the city’s sports franchises, including the Washington Nationals and the Wizards and Capitals, both owned by Monumental Sports & Entertainment. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas Inc. (JLL) and Robert Bobb Group were commissioned to prepare two reports, including an economic impact study released Thursday.
But a second report, which looked at how to finance a new stadium or renovate the current one, was not released on Thursday. A spokesman for the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, which oversaw the study, said in a statement that there are no plans to release the results of the analysis.
As D.C. competes with Maryland and Virginia for the Commander’s seat, Bowser has made it clear that her ideal vision for a federally managed redevelopment of RFK includes mixed-use residential, retail and sports-recreation development. Thursday’s report looked at commercial real estate development and the economic impacts from facilities like Nationals Park, and generally concluded that sports teams and their facilities have a net positive impact on surrounding areas as measured by job creation, hotel performance and consumer spending.
The report also noted that 88 percent of visitors to the city’s major arenas and sports venues come from outside the district, suggesting that sports could be a major attraction for tourism and “provide significant economic benefits to district residents.” The report concluded that facilities across the country that are integrated into their surrounding environments generate more economic activity than stand-alone “island” stadiums, which may prioritize parking over economic development.
“If a sports venue is surrounded by other development that attracts people, office workers and restaurant patrons, that’s a successful development,” Bowser told radio show “Sports Junkies” Thursday morning, citing the development of the Capital Riverfront and downtown as examples. “That’s the only way an NFL franchise can even be successful in D.C. That’s why we’ve spent a lot of time talking about revitalizing RFK, not just for football, but using the remaining 170 acres to create housing, park space and other destinations that will draw people to the new sports and entertainment district.”
But extensive research has found that new sports venues generally don’t equate to economic growth: A 42-year analysis of professional sports teams and venues found that major sports franchises have “no significant effect” on wages, and other studies have found similar results with employment and sales data. Findings remain consistent even as the U.S. nears another sports stadium boom.
For years, local governments, sports team owners and other stakeholders have tried to convince the public that stadiums are a good investment, citing studies promising big economic benefits, Michael Rees, an economics professor at Temple University, said in an interview last year.
Nathan Jensen, a sports grants expert at the University of Texas at Austin, said the report may have overestimated the economic impact of D.C.’s sports venues. While the report said visitors to D.C.’s sports venues come from outside the city, they mostly live in the area and may have other reasons for visiting D.C. besides sports, Jensen said.
“Given that people have budget constraints; [it’s] “In all likelihood, this expenditure will replace other expenditures that would have been made within the district,” he said.
J.C. Bradberry, an economics professor at Kennesaw State University, declined to discuss the specifics of the D.C. study because “I’m afraid that going into the details would give some legitimacy to the idea that there’s a debate about the economic impact of the stadium.”
“If the consultants feel that decades of economic research on this issue is wrong, they are free to challenge it and submit it to peer review,” he said.
City Councilman Charles Allen (D-6th District), a long-time opponent of an NFL stadium, said in an interview that he still had questions about an NFL stadium that “would be dark 90 percent of the time” and also questioned the economic benefits a new stadium would bring.
“We closed the stadium deal on time for Capital One Arena. The stadium generates activity almost 365 days a year. NFL stadiums do not generate economic activity. That goes without saying,” he said. “And the economic activity the NFL is trying to cite appears to come from the homes and businesses surrounding the stadium, not the stadium itself.”
D.C. still faces several hurdles in Congress to gain control of the site: A bill that would give the District the power to develop the land, potentially building a new stadium, passed the House in February but still must go through the Senate, where some lawmakers have threatened to hold up the measure.
“What’s unfortunate is that we now have a crumbling stadium surrounded by asphalt in a city that really needs housing and economic development, so we’re going to work with our federal partners to get control of this stadium,” Mayor Bowser said on her radio show Thursday.
Asked whether the campus was indeed suitable for a stadium, Bowser said the plan was to “provide a truly iconic experience.”
“This is the type of development we want to support in this neighborhood — something that offers world-class sports,” she said. “We’re not just talking about a potential Super Bowl. We couldn’t bring the World Cup to this area because we don’t have enough stadiums. We couldn’t bring Taylor Swift to this area.”
