Economic impact studies essentially seek to determine what would be missed in terms of non-resident direct expenditures had the team in question vacated the local economy. However, resident income retention is equally important to an economy. Ascertaining the amount of resident income leaked from an economy as a result of their attendance at a game in another city also involves opportunity cost projection. Conclusions Stadium financing is a complex arrangement, often involving private investments, state, county and city taxes, and revenues from ticket sales. In the short run, spending by local sports fans does not represent an increase in spending on leisure activities, but is merely a diversion of leisure dollars from other activities.
People have only so much to spend on entertainment.
Spending at home games comes out of personal income that otherwise would have gone for movie or theater tickets, concerts, museums, or theme parks. However, it is appropriate to include local spending if it would have been made outside the economy had not the sport team been playing. Spent differently, either by public officials on different public services or by private citizens who are not taxed to subsidize sports, these large sums of money may contribute more to an area's growth. There is a hollow sound to critics' claims that another venture would be of greater value than a sport franchise and stadium development deal in an area where urban blight has been allowed to fester for years. Without detailed knowledge of the replacement enterprise or alternative uses of tax dollars, the conclusion regarding lost opportunity costs is invalid.