Baseball stadium proponents are arguing a “jock tax” would be free money to pay for a stadium
That’s based on an illusion about where the money to pay baseball players income comes from
The economic evidence is that sports venues just re-allocate money in the local economy
Diverting Oregon income taxes to subsidize stadium construction subsidizes billionaire owners and millionaire players at the cost of other public services.
On May 15, 2025, City Observatory’s Joe Cortright testified to the Oregon Legislature’s House Revenue Committee on SB 110A, a proposal to divert taxes paid by baseball teams to subsidize the construction of a baseball stadium. Proponents of the legislation argue that the tax revenue is “free money” that wouldn’t otherwise come to Oregon without a major league team, and that the future stream of tax payments will support up to $800 million in debt toward stadium construction costs.
Chair Nathanson—for the record—Joe Cortright. I’m an economist with City Observatory. For a dozen years, I worked as the legislature’s professional staff on economic development, so I’ve seen a few economic development proposals in my day, and I have to say that the economics of this proposal are fundamentally flawed. They are based on the illusion that somehow the money that is coming here is not money that would otherwise be in the Oregon economy.
Make no mistake, the money to pay players and people who work from the organization will come largely from Oregonians spending money on tickets or buying goods or services at the stadium, or the people who sell advertising via the baseball game to reach Oregonians. All of the economic evidence–and Professor Boykoff has given you a terrific synopsis of it–shows that all that professional sports do is to reallocate spending in the economy. They do not increase the total amount of spending. Therefore, they do not increase the total amount of tax revenue.
You are laboring under an illusion, under a delusion, if you believe that all of the money that is forwarded to you from ballplayers is somehow new to the Oregon economy. Also, you’re assuming that somehow these ballplayers do not have attorneys, accountants and agents who can figure out ways to manipulate their flow of income so that is not subject to Oregon tax, either by living somewhere else or by–as Shoei Ohtani has done–by taking the majority of his compensation as post-employment income.
The Oregonian published Joe Cortright’s analysis of Oregon’s proposed “jock-tax”last month.
Finally, I would just point out to you that this sets–as number of people have said–an extremely bad precedent. We’ve seen in the last couple of days that the Blazers are now for sale. A new owner for the Blazers is likely to come in and say that unless you give him or her exactly the same deal that you’re giving this baseball team, that they will go somewhere else.
You have a simple choice here. And some people have said that this isn’t a commitment of general funds. It most certainly is. You will be writing checks out of the general fund that would otherwise be available to be spent, and you’ll be using it to subsidize the billionaire owners of professional sports franchises and the millionaire players. We have much more pressing needs in Oregon. You should not be conned by this illusion. Thank you
