The city of Los Angeles has been without an NFL team since 1994 when both the Rams moved to St Louis and the Raiders relocated to Oakland. It has been proposed that a new stadium should be built to help attract teams that to come back to one of the biggest U.S. city’s without an NFL league franchise. In past years L.A. has been one of the largest media market in the country. With L.A. being second to none as the media capital, why not bring “Sports Entertainment” back to the city of angels. Los Angeles did just that when they decided and took a major step toward building a downtown stadium to lure an NFL team back to the nation's second-most populous city, despite questions about how a 72,000-seat venue in the urban core would impact notorious freeway traffic, nearby housing prices and air quality. Last fall the city council unanimously voted for a new stadium to be constructed in the heart of downtown.

The construction of the new stadium comes with its benefits for the debt ridden city. Developers for AEG submitted and won a contract to complete the construction for Farmers Field for 2016. In the past when new stadiums were built much of the renovation and construction were subsidized which in turn leads to a great economic impact. Realistically, employment, visitor spending, public spending and revenue are the benefits that the city wants to bring into play. But one factor that has been overlooked for city great city is that some feel how this new stadium will benefit the community as well. In Hind sight, one city council member has stated, that she hopes that this will give the city back a sense of pride and civic duty in the community. City councilwoman Jan Perry, one of the driving forces behind Friday's vote, called it, "The day we bring football back to L.A.," and "a giant step forward for the city" (Saxon 2012). Farmers Field and the convention center will position downtown L.A. as one of the nation’s premier destinations for sports, entertainment, and conventions after completion.

The cost of building a new sport facility is the first concern that a company as a whole will tend to have. A city poll that was conducted stated that 72% supported the project. Many of the residents were happy to confirm that the project would be funded by private funding and not cost them any money that they were safeguarded with assurance that AEG will be held accountable for any and all costs that overrun with the project.

Fiscal accountability, no cost to tax payers and job creation are viewed as the most important aspects of the project (Citywide Poll)

69%%65%[pic] For those in the community the benefit associated with the construction of a new sports facility that is sure to bring jobs in a primary concern. The project would create between 20,000 and 30,000 temporary and permanent living wage and union jobs (www.davisblueprint.com). The first jobs created would be construction. Then of course everything from hospitality, concessions and tickets to stadium operations and convention center event management positions would need to be filled. (www.farmerfield.com) AEG executives expect 30% of the projects construction workers and 50% of its permanent workers to live within 5 miles of the facility (Zahniser and Linthicum 2012). So, some concessions have been taken into consideration with the creation of jobs. More jobs in the community leads to more revenue for the city.

The most obvious benefit is the revenue that will come from increased tourism in the city. This stadium is expected to be state of the art which allows for money to come from outside the community. “It has been argued that more spending has a “multiplier effect”. In other words, as income within the community increases, there will continue to be more new spending and, as a result, more jobs will be created (Feng and Humphreys, 2008).

Another factor that tends to be overlooked is the location of the new site and the economic impact that it will have on the community. Many believe that affordable housing would and will become obsolete in the surrounding neighborhoods. According to a study performed by Feng and Humphrey’s a new facility constructed in a large city might possibly cause residential property values within one mile of the facility to increase hundreds of millions of dollars.

The economic impact of sports facilities and teams does not rely upon projection. Rather, it compares the local economic performance of areas with and without stadiums, arenas, and teams, controlling for other variables that affect local economic conditions. The activist group, Play Fair at Farmers Field Coalition, has suggested that AEG should pay $60 million toward affordable housing, or $2 million over 30 years to assist the lower income families in the community.

Among cross-section studies, for example, Robert Beade, in 1994, found no significant difference in personal income growth from a study done from 1958 to 1987 between 36 metropolitan areas that hosted a team in one of the four premier professional sports leagues and 12 otherwise comparable areas that did not. Looking at 46 cities from a study during the 1990-1994 periods, Robert Walden found in 1997 that higher high school graduation rates and more spending on police are what encouraged economic growth, while the presence of a major league sports team actually put a drag on the local economy. Becky Dennison, co-director of the Community Action Network, stated that data compiled for city officials clear shows that the project will create a huge need for affordable housing to serve low-wage workers. Location of the facility weighs heavily on the quality of life in the community.

As of March of 2013, construction has come to a standstill. AEG is potentially in transition for transferring ownership. But most are not concerned with that. The biggest question that seems to be on everyone’s is clearly: Who will play in the state of the art facility? And yet there are still some concerns that still need to be addressed. In a city where everyone drives, planners predict many fans will leave their vehicles at home and travel to the stadium by bus or rail. Of the $50 million in concessions that AEG has promised $10.3 million is to go for a new platform at the Metro Blue Line Station. The company has pledged another $35 million to reduce traffic problems. That includes upgrades to traffic signals at 73 intersections and $2.4 million for widening the freeway. More job creation from the reconstruction and improvements in the area for the lower skilled workers and public transportation for those that are not mobile are two of the primary concerns that AEG has again tried to address.

Most economists believe that one shouldn’t put the cart before the horse so to speak. Mike Leeds, a professor from Temple University, states that with the construction of most stadiums, they essentially have zero impact on the city’s finances. Leeds goes on to state that, “Sports franchises are very, very small potatoes,” Leeds said. “The numbers sound big, but a major department store in Los Angeles will generate more jobs revenue and income than an NFL franchise”.

Payoffs from football stadiums are often lackluster because the money the city expects to generate from tourism spending at surrounding hotels, bars, and restaurants is often overhyped. “The impact on L.A. would be even less than elsewhere because the stadium will be right next to a highway. People will drive in, spend money in the stadium, and they will drive out. There will be minimum spillover into the rest of the city,” (Green 2013).

During the past few years even the NFL hasn’t been recession proof. Even though professional athletes continue to earn millions playing in state of the art sport facilities. Obviously these facilities are being built larger and are more visually appealing to the public. And Los Angeles is no exception. Benefits as far as jobs, revenue, and no tax to the public are positive and bring economic growth. The impact of an economic event is the summation of various multipliers. Essentially, it ignites a trigger effect. Direct impact (the first-round effect of visitor spending), Indirect impact (the ripple effect of additional rounds of re-circulating the initial visitors' dollars), and Induced impact, which is further ripple effects caused by employees of impacted business spending some of their salaries and wages in other business in the host community (Howard & Crompton, 1995). Ironically, first and foremost economic growth starts with spending. How much money is spent and how it will affect the masses. So, who will spend?

>Feng, X. and Humphreys, B.R. (2008, August). Assessing the Economic Impact of Sports Facilities on Residential Values: A Spatial Hedonic Approach. North American Association of Sports Economists

>www.farmefield.com; Our Plan and Benefits Sections

>Zahniser, David and Linthincum, Kate. (September 14, 2012).Proposal for downtown L.A. NFL Stadium advances to City Council; LA Times

>Saxon, Mark. (September 28, 2012) L.A. City Council approves plan. www.Espn.go.LosAngeles.com

>Farmers Field. Downtown Los Angeles. www.davidbluebprint.co

>Smith, Dakota. (September 13, 2012). Group Wants AEG to give $60M for affordable housing near proposed downtown NFL Stadium; Daily News-Los Angeles

>Lee, Soonhwan: A Review of Economic Impact Studies on Sporting Events. www.thesportjournal.org

>Green, Miranda. (Jan 15, 2013); L.A. hopes to Ignite Economic Growth by building Tenantless Football Stadium; www.thedailybeast.com

>Siegfried, John and Zimbalist, Andrew; The Economics of Sports Facilities and their Communities; www.uwlax.edu; (Beade, Robert; Stadiums-Professional Sports and Economic Development Assessing the Reality; Heartland Institute; Policy Study; 1994); (Walden, Robert; Don’t Play Ball; Carolina Journal; October/November, p 23; 1997)