have hurt the city economy, but on a micro level of the microeconomic level. A select number of
business owners would feel the pain of the Thunder not being in existence. But, the rest of the
study denies my initial claim over the subject matter.
‘"People will find another way to spend their entertainment dollars," says Stephen
Bronars, a senior economist in Washington, D.C., for Welch Consulting, which specializes in
employment practices and business litigation. "Scholars have found that local economies are not
impacted by sports work stoppages," adds Andrew Zimbalist, professor of economics at Smith
College in Northampton, Mass. "People spend money at one entertainment venue or another, so
it's a wash"’ (Maltby & Needleman).
There is more evidence stacked against my favor: "There have...been studies performed
on lockouts and strikes, and when professional sports teams threaten to move from one city to
another, and those economists haven't found any significant economic impacts on cities from
those events," [David Bojanic, the Anheuser-Busch professor of tourism marketing at UTSA]
said. He also noted that "It always goes back to the substitution theory," he said. "The money
people would have paid to buy basketball tickets, or buy a beer at the game or pay for parking,
will still have that money and they will spend it in the city on other things”. Bojanic also
believes that the vast majority of money goes to the team owners and players, not to the
community (Forsyth).
My hypothesis was incorrect because I underestimated basic economic principles and
ideas. The main components I underestimated include the powers of expendable income,
substitutes, and consumer behavior. The effects of an NBA franchise on a city’s economy are
significant on a micro level, but this is not the case for anything beyond that. “True, the standoff
will have minimal effect on the economy overall, according to economists” (Maltby &
Needleman). For any given market, it can be argued that consumers will spend their expendable
income regardless of what it is on. If the NBA season is not around, then fans will find a new
way to transform their earnings into something else. Looking at Oklahoma City and the Thunder
in particular, “Each missed game likely would mean a little bit less tax revenue for Oklahoma
City, said Doug Dowler, the city's associate budget director. But because the city is already
ahead of projected sales tax revenue growth of four percent for this fiscal year, losing Thunder
home games would likely only make a small dent in Oklahoma City's robust numbers. The
largest impact would likely be an increased subsidy for the arena, but by how much is not yet
known, and it would not likely cause many problems within the city's $920 million budget for
fiscal year 2012” (MediaVentures).
And as for the Chesapeake Energy Arena, it would not have just been in existence and
not be put to use. “…it's important to note the arena still can bring in revenue for the city's
economy even without a Thunder season, [Oklahoma City's Executive Manager for Special
Projects Tom] Anderson said. Officials will be able to fill some of the dates that would be left
open with concerts and other events, and the renovations might help the city lure events that
skipped the area in the past” (MediaVentures).
So looking at the city as a whole, “…local officials say a missed season would only be a
bump in the road financially for a city that has plenty of momentum even without the surging
success and popularity of its NBA team…City officials have had preliminary discussions on
what budget maneuvering would be required if the NBA season is canceled but haven't yet
studied it in depth, Dowler said” (MediaVentures). If there are experts that feel Oklahoma City
can remain in financially good health even without the presence of a National Basketball
Association franchise valued currently at $329 million dollars, then my hypothesis is wrong.