When the Buffalo Bills secured their new stadium deal in 2023, it marked a significant milestone in public financing controversies. The $1.54 billion project includes $850 million in taxpayer funds, making it one of the most heavily subsidized stadiums in American history. The rationale? Advocates claim that the stadium will boost the local economy, create jobs, and attract tourism. But is that enough to justify the steep price tag?
Publicly financed stadiums have long sparked debate. Proponents argue that investing in professional sports facilities leads to a net gain for local economies, citing benefits like increased spending, infrastructure improvements, and civic pride. Buffalo officials have promised 10,000 new construction jobs and projected economic impact figures. Yet, the city is also assuming the risk that comes with this massive investment, betting that the long-term gains will offset the substantial upfront costs.
Critics, however, are skeptical, pointing to decades of research that tells a different story. Studies by economists such as Andrew Zimbalist and Brad Humphreys reveal that stadiums typically fail to deliver the promised economic benefits. Instead of sparking revitalization, the projects often divert funds from essential public services, leaving cities with little more than empty promises and massive debt.
One major issue is the “substitution effect.” People who spend money at games often forgo other local entertainment, meaning the net economic impact is limited. Furthermore, stadium jobs are usually temporary and low-wage, doing little to stimulate long-term economic growth. Even local businesses sometimes struggle to see a significant uptick in revenue, as fans are more likely to spend money inside the stadium than in surrounding neighborhoods.
Yet, the allure of a new stadium persists. Political leaders and team owners emphasize intangible benefits, such as putting Buffalo on the national map and fostering community spirit. It’s a gamble the city has taken, despite mounting evidence that these investments rarely pay off.
In the second part of this series, we’ll examine five recent cases where public money fueled similar projects, assessing whether the promised economic windfalls ever materialized—or if the gamble turned into a losing game for taxpayers.