That's Entertainment

A few times in the course of these missives, I've mentioned that measures of "economic impact" of various consumer-optional entertainment are basically bogus. Here's a long piece from the NYT on the economics of the US Open tennis program. It does make the case, but only indirectly, that value of such activity matters only if measured spending is from consumers outside of the locale in question. One might be picky and assert that the appropriate venue is the USofA in toto. Why? Because of what we in the econ space call substitution effect. Or, as one skeptic put it (near the bottom of the piece, of course)

Some are skeptical of these kinds of projections. Andrew Zimbalist, a professor emeritus of economics at Smith College and an expert on the economics of sports, has not seen the study. But he cautioned that there are ways to make data fit a narrative.

"It's quite possible that there is some positive impact," he said, adding that money spent by New Yorkers at the tournament is money that most likely would have been spent elsewhere in the city — on Broadway, at a Yankees game, at a restaurant — and now won't be. "In that sense it's a net negative," he said.

A spokescritter for a restaurant org went on to say that benefit outside of the immediate area around the center doesn't amount to much. Duh.

Exactly how much Damn Gimmint Bongo Bucks were used to create the current facility, I haven't found. But it was built, apparently for free, on city land. There is an audit from 2019, which shows that USTA isn't exactly being taken to the cleaners by NYC on an annual basis. The report says the US Open is worth $1,200,000,000 to NYC each year. The City Gummint doesn't get but a few pennies. Sweet heart, I luv you so!

One can site casinos and data centers as boons to the local economy. Which never seem to work out that way; Atlantic City, I'm talking to you. And how many uneducated shitkickers are going to work in those centers in fly-over country? Yeah, right.