(01-24-2018 09:56 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  the money is not lost in a vacuem
contstruction, venders, employee's, student's, taxes, community, tourist, marketing,
the list is proablly endless

Sure, there are economic impacts. Even if you assume that the economic impact benefit is equal to the outlay (which I highly doubt - but I'll let that stand for now) The question is whether the students at these schools should be financing those benefits. Basically, those with the least ability to pay for it are the ones financing it.

For some reason, Temple isn't listed in the study. But the website billypenn claimed in a 2016 article that it had a direct subsidy of 8.1 million plus in 2012 as well as a student fee of 790 per student. That fee covers everything, but assuming that Temple is spending roughly what South Florida does and that half that fee goes to athletics (which would be consistent with their peers), that works out to a student subsidy of 15 million from the students...or a total subsidy of around 23 million, which would be actually low for a public institution in the AAC.

Seems to me, that the beneficiaries of those benefits need to be paying a greater percentage of the cost of it. They need to step up.

And lets get real. How many people actually travelled to Philly to attend a Temple football game last season and got a hotel room? Lets just say 100,000 (I'm not including the band or the football team delegations - they're being subsidized directly and Temple is paying for it on their away games - and I'm being really generous - or assuming that you're hosting Penn State). So lets call it maybe 50,000 hotel room nights per season. So maybe 10 million in spending on a hotel. And another 5 million in local spending. So assuming a margin of 20 percent, and a tax rate of 15 percent, that's around 7,500,000 in real economic impact to Philly's economy. Do you really think that Tulsa or SMU are sending more than 500 fans to the game there? And many of the fans that do go, are probably alumni from a 100 mile radius of the school anyway. Local spending, for it to be really a driver in a local economy, must be incremental. If the people buying a hot dog and a beer at the stadium wouldn't be spending some of that money at a restaurant or some other diversion that day anyway?

Oh and by the way, the problem with including all of the economic pluses from people from outside Philly coming to town to watch Temple football is that you need to subtract some of the net OUTFLOW of money when your Philly based fans take money out of your local economy and spend it elsewhere when they travel to attend an away Temple game. Basically, they're not spending money in Philly when they're in Orlando watching Temple play UCF. Heck, for some schools that travel well but who don't attract a lot of fans...the actual economic impact of inflows from fans coming in less outflows of lower economic activity because locals are going out of town to watch a team play (or are saving to afford to do so) could theoretically be negative. My guess is that Temple's is positive. But not anywhere near what the backers are claiming.

The whole problem with this economic impact number is that its nearly impossible to calculate.