The question Chris M just posed is interesting re: playing sports this year-  Is there a tremendous economic impact of pro sports in the US?

No. Beneficiaries are largely wealthy owners/players.

Bob Rauch

VERIFIED

The Economic Impact of Professional Sports Teams on Geographic Areas
By: Ethan Campbell

While I do believe the financial impact reaches far beyond the owners and players (in some cities/communities more so than others) I don’t think it’s as much as professional sports makes it out to be.  There were a few studies done before SD’s former team “bolted”... I couldn’t find it but attached one that basically said the same/similar...

Joe Rigby

Absolutely, Bob, as you noted in the other debate, the economic footprint of professional sports spans many geographical areas and sectors of U.S. society. It's vast. However, with no fans able to attend sporting events to help insert capital into these various associated economic sectors and industries, you have to wonder how much of the sport economy is going to be salvageable and how much risk are they willing to take.

Christopher Moreno

Look how much $$$ has been lost this year by no sports and other things shut down..

Bernard Thompson

Anthony Avila

Definitely the effects are all over the place, the biggest is that it creates quite a few jobs.

Derrick McQuinn

We are here because of sports. It’s the money maker and content forsaker.

Just think of everyone impacted and involved with sporting events.

Jason Finley

Many people are employed because of sports.

MaryBeth Zmuda

It is likely hundreds of billions of dollars, obviously bigger if fans are in the stands. Media benefits big time as do stadiums, hotels, restaurants and transportation companies. Retail booms. Even without fans, sponsors on TV have an opportunity to promote. It's not just about owners/players.

Kenneth B

Sporta bring in much more money than just ticket salea and merchandise. Think the bars around the stadium ans arpund the city? How many of you go to the bar to watch a game? With that said I have the benefit of studying urban economics both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. in the U.S. we are free market, and i studied the same material in south america from a marxist point of view.  The one thing that both could agree on large scale public projects i.e. mass transit and public financed stadiums are money pits. The cost of such projects are rarley recovered, only in extremely dense and populated cities i.e. New York. I was flabergasted to see that both free market and marxiat (communist) economists both came to the same conclusion. 

P.S. 

Free market is best... don't let any one tell you different.

Yesid

This is complex.  San Diego has done just fine without the Chargers and now the Padres not playing.  Discretionary spending gets spent somewhere so it is not necessarily building the economy.  You could argue sports retard the labor market by encouraging millions of young adults to chase a passion that will be financially useless to them through their lives.  I actually believe sports show positive effects to society as a culturally binding agent and should be locally owned like the Packers.

Michael Johnson

Tech Boi

Risk is not just the health of the player, but also the coaches, staffers, umps, or any attendee or service helper. Risk is also the product on TV and how this sells and registers to viewing audiences watching games played with no fans or related energy, imagery, and sound. Risk is also related to revenue and operating costs considerations by playing games with no stadium revenue, only TV/online. Risk is also the long term economic prospects for these leagues if they move forward and the whole thing blows up mid stream.

Good points but players are tested daily before they play.

Understood. There are both naysayers on public investment into pro sports (I am one) and those who believe the numbers are hyped. ( I'm in that camp too). But it's still a big number.