Thestudies are generally mixed. But I do remember, when Nats Park was being run through all possible permutations, there were a handle of private entities (like Deutschebank) that were willing to finance it up front for the future profits.
they make money, but when compared to the tax breaks received, or the government backing of debt issues, the town doesn't necessarily come out on top,
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/april-04-08/a-closer-look-at-stadium-subsidies is actually an interesting read about why stadiums don't generate the economic activity that they are supposed,
First, consumer spending on sports may simply substitute for spending on other types of entertainment—and on other goods and services generally—so there is very little new income or employment generated. Sports fans that attend a game may reduce their visits to the movies or to restaurants to free up finances for game tickets and concessions. Patrons of local restaurants and bars who come to watch the games on television also are likely to cut back on their other entertainment spending.
Second, compared to the alternative goods and services that sports fans may purchase, spending related to stadium attendance has a relatively small multiplier effect. This is because spending at the stadium translates into salaries for wealthy athletes, many of whom live outside the city where they play. High-income individuals generally spend a smaller fraction of their income than low- and middle-income people—and much of the spending professional athletes do occurs in a different community than where they earned it. So the money paid to players does not circulate as widely or abundantly as it would were it paid to people with less wealth and more attachment to the city.
Third, whether the stadium subsidy comes from raising local taxes or from slashing public services—or from both—its effect is to reduce the net spending generated by the stadium project. Plus, imposing new taxes introduces new administrative costs and makes the economy less efficient. Consider the common practice of funding stadium and arena subsidies with new taxes on hotel occupancy and rental cars. One argument for such taxes at the local level is that they are paid by outside visitors, many of whom may be in town to see the sporting events. But the taxes would also be paid by traveling businessmen and conventioneers. When comparing cities to host an upcoming meeting, businesses and professional associations may select between otherwise comparable cities based on which one has the lower hotel and rental car taxes. In other words, the new taxes used to subsidize the stadium construction may ultimately reduce visits to the city by non-sports-related travelers.
The first definitely doesn't apply to a spring training facility during spring training, but it may apply for the rest of the year, the second two still seem pertinent though
another thing to keep in mind is the actually time the facility is used
There are numerous reasons for the muted economic effects. The biggest is that arenas often sit empty for a significant portion of the year. Jobing.com Arena is guaranteed 41 hockey games annually. The other 324 nights, it must find concerts, conventions or other events to fill the schedule, and in Glendale, where the arena competes with facilities in nearby Phoenix, that can be tough to do.
"We've looked at tons of these things, and the one that we found that seemed to make sense is the Staples Center in Los Angeles," Matheson said. "But they use it 250 dates a year. They don't make sense when you're using it 41 times a year and competing with another venue down the street."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-they-might-not-come-the-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/(executive summary- I'm glad I live in NOVA and get to enjoy venues paid for by DC tax payers- thanks guys)
