I wanted to pass along some additional thoughts that didn’t make my story today about National City’s pro basketball plans.

  • We reported that National City officials are seeking a meeting with former Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo. I put that to David Carter, executive director of the USC Sports Business Institute. Carter said Colangelo would not likely be actively involved in putting a bid together.

“Colangelo’s role, if any, is more ceremonial,” Carter said. “Guys at that level don’t need to be bothered with the early trials and tribulations of a city’s bid. When the deal is far along, a guy like that could help put it over the top.”

  • The businesses located along National City’s waterfront are not anxious to see maritime land used for tourism. Ed Plant, chairman of the San Diego Port Tenants Association, said a basketball arena should be built elsewhere.

“Business is booming on the port,” Plant said. “If they have a (basketball) franchise, they can put that team anywhere. … The working waterfront and industrial area is strong. It’s a $10.6 billion industry. Industrial businesses aren’t glamorous, but they pay well and they’re good jobs.”

  • While researching my piece, I stumbled across an interesting story that ran recently in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The paper traced the failed history of basketball in San Diego, looking for lessons about the possible departure of the Seattle SuperSonics.

The story highlighted an interesting point — professional basketball does not necessarily have a significant economic impact, which is exactly why National City officials are pursuing it.

Reporter Mike Lewis writes:

If the Sonics should go — and privately many people close to the situation expect exactly that — there are a few things the Emerald City should expect: a negligible economic impact; a long, wistful hoops hangover; and no replacement team for a generation at the earliest. …

Economists — at least those not under contract by professional teams — say major league sports teams don’t appear to be the economic engine that team proponents sometimes claim. In fact, some studies suggest they might be more of a drain.

“We looked at nearly every move you could imagine,” said (Gary) Sauer, a national expert on sports economics. “If there were something significant — employment increases, big tax benefits — we’d see it, but we don’t. If there is any benefit, it’s small potatoes.”


Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.