Spurs could use relocation fears to their advantage in arena vote
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios
Super fan "Spurs Jesus" recently asked Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones the question increasingly hanging over San Antonio: What if the Spurs move to Austin if they don't get a new downtown arena?
Why it matters: Major league sports teams often use the threat of relocation — real or perceived — to pressure local governments and voters to put public tax dollars toward new arenas and stadiums. Economists say the public pays and owners profit.
What they're saying: Spurs Sports & Entertainment declined to answer questions from Axios about whether team ownership is discussing a move to Austin, or if the team would commit to remaining in San Antonio should a public funding vote fail.
- "For over 50 years, our commitment to San Antonio has never wavered, and we believe voters will recognize this opportunity to move our city forward together," spokesperson Liberty Swift tells Axios in an emailed statement.
State of play: City officials have said the Spurs don't intend to stay at the Frost Bank Center after the team's lease is up in 2032. Fans have long feared Austin's larger corporate base could lure the team away, especially as the Spurs have worked to build a larger presence in Austin in recent years.
- City manager Erik Walsh told Jones in a July email that delays in negotiations risk team ownership "initiating other long term plans," the Express-News reported.
Yes, but: Austin isn't a realistic option for the Spurs, J.C. Bradbury, an economics professor at Kennesaw State University who has studied the impact of sports facilities, tells Axios. He calls relocation talk a "trick" to justify taxpayer funding, and says Austin doesn't have an ongoing arena plan to draw the team in.
- "There are very few other markets that would be viable NBA markets that do not already have teams," he says.
Zoom in: Decades of economic research has shown little, if any, benefit to public financing for arenas and stadiums.
- Economists have found that new sports facilities generally don't generate new revenue. People simply spend their money in the new sports district, instead of restaurants or concerts in other areas.
- "It's mostly a reshuffling of existing local revenue," Bradbury says.
Meanwhile, team owners benefit from what Bradbury calls "the novelty effect," which includes increased ticket sales for five to 10 years as consumers are more interested when there's a new arena.
Zoom out: Still, teams across the U.S. leverage nostalgia, civic pride and economic promises to secure taxpayer-funded facilities.
- Owners of Minneapolis' NBA and WNBA teams have said they're open to building outside of downtown, so Minneapolis could be faced with a competing offer from a suburb.
Reality check: Some teams do leave. Seattle lost its NBA team to Oklahoma City in 2008, and St. Louis lost its NFL team to Los Angeles in 2016.
- Voters in Kansas City, Missouri, last year rejected a measure to help publicly fund NFL stadium renovations. Its team is now negotiating for a stadium elsewhere.
What's next: Bexar County voters will decide on Nov. 4 whether the county should increase its venue tax to help pay for a new arena. If it fails, the Spurs are back to the drawing board.